Tag Archive: Marriage


A very rich man

Photo of elderly man eating lunch with picture of deceased wife goes viral

man_eating.jpg

This man never dines without a picture of his sweetheart. (Madina Bashizaduah)

Every picture tells a story.

But a photo making the Internet rounds of a man eating at a California In-N-Out Burger alongside a picture of his deceased wife has uncovered a story of true love that will make you squeeze your honey extra hard tonight.

Two weeks ago, imgur user soulrose posted a picture of a man perched in a red and white booth gazing longingly at a photo, with his walker nearby.

“I saw this elderly gentleman dining by himself, with an old picture of a lady in front of him. I though [sic] maybe I could brighten his day by talking to him,” soulrose writes.

After talking to the man, the user found out it was indeed his wife, and proceeded to be blown away by the story of how they met and their enduring love.

“They met when they were both 17. They dated briefly, then lost contact when he went to war and her family moved. But he said he thought about her the entire war. After his return, he decided to look for her. He searched for her for 10 years and never dated anyone,” soulrose wrote.

“People told him he was crazy, to which he replied ‘I am. Crazy in love.’ On a trip to California, he went to a barber shop. He told the barber how he had been searching for a girl for ten years. The barber went to his phone and called his daughter in. It was her! She had also been searching for him and never dated either.”

According to the story, the unnamed man proposed right then and there was married to his wife for 55 years before she died 2009.

Madina Bashizaduah from San Francisco posted a similar image on Twitter on Oct. 22 of the same man—just with a different shirt and new picture. She said he always leaves home with a picture of his sweetheart and recounted the same story of a fateful love for the ages.

Soulrose said the man had a few nuggets of wisdom, saying:  “I was a very rich man. Not with money, but with love” and “Tell your wife that you love her everyday. And be sure to ask her, have I told you that I love you lately?”

Desert Eagle Technologies | Desert Eagle Tactical | E=MC2 Tactical

 

Advertisements

Published December 07, 2013

A Georgia appeals court has upheld an earlier ruling ordering a state resident to pay $50,000 to his one-time fiancé for breaking his promise to marry her.

Courthouse News Service (CNS) reports Melissa Cooper sued Christopher Ned Kelley for fraud and breach of promise after their rocky, 10-year relationship ended in 2011.

The couple reportedly had lived together since 2000 and had a child. In 2004, Kelley reportedly gave Cooper a ring, although he later contended during legal proceedings he never conjoined the gesture with the phrase, “Will you marry me?”

“I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring,” Kelley reportedly said during the protracted legal wrangling. “I never said the words ‘will you marry me’ to her.”

Their relationship ended after Cooper discovered that Kelley had twice cheated on her with another woman, according to CNS.

“I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring.” – Christopher Ned Kelley

A trial court reportedly awarded Cooper damages and attorneys’ fees worth $50,000, and now the Georgia Court of Appeals is affirming that order by ruling, “Cooper testified that she was devastated by Kelley’s fraud and breach of promise to marry and that she quit her job to raise the couple’s children in reliance on the promise.”

Part of Kelley’s trouble, according to CNS, may have been the somewhat awkward legal tact he took to defend himself against the suit.

He reportedly argued his relationship with Cooper was “meretricious” in nature and thus unenforceable by law, per an earlier precedent set by the Georgia Supreme Court regarding meretricious relationships. The word, “meretricious,” is a loaded one in legal circles, and usually refers to any contract or promise, verbal or otherwise, between a prostitute and a john.

But, as the appeals court reportedly pointed out, the meretricious defense doesn’t hold water when, “the object of the contract is not illegal or against public policy.” In this case, the object of the contract was obviously marriage.

“The object of such a promise is not illegal or against public policy,” Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote for the majority in the appeals court’s decision, according to CNS. “In Georgia, the legislature has specifically announced that ‘marriage is encouraged by the law.'”

As for Cooper, her attorney told ABCNews.com she plans to use the money, or at least part of it, to buy a home for herself and her two children – the child she had with Kelley along one additional child from a prior relationship.

Desert Eagele Technologies  |  Desert Eagle Tactical  |  #deserteagletech

Published November 21, 2013 

Couples enrolling in ObamaCare now face a de facto marriage penalty, with the law making it much harder for those who are married to qualify for subsidies.

According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, married couples could pay as much as $10,000 more per year than their unmarried counterparts, due to the way subsidies are calculated.

The subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are based on income. The less you make, the more money you can get from the government to help pay for insurance.

An individual making above $45,960 would not qualify. For a married couple, the income cut-off is $62,040.

These rules, then, create a disconnect in how non-married and married couples are treated.

Two people living together — but not married — could both qualify for thousands of dollars in subsidies, provided each of their incomes is below $45,960. If they each make $40,000, no problem.

But if they’re married, their combined salary would put them above the cap, and they would not qualify for any government help.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, describes this as a built-in bias.

“It’s a system that preferentially rewards the exact same people for not being married. … It’s as if they took the income tax code and took away all the tables that relate to married couples,” he told the Deseret News.

Rector sees an ideological bent in the law, because married couples often lean Republican while those who are unmarried often lean Democrat.

However, the treatment is not all that unusual for a federal program. This often happens when the government ties any kind of subsidies or benefits, such as food stamps or housing assistance, to federal poverty levels.

Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, said he doesn’t think anyone was trying to “discourage marriage” with this particular provision of ObamaCare.

“It just comes from the commonsense axiom that two people married can live together more cheaply than two people living separately,” he said.

Desert Eagle Technologies   |   #deserteagletech

%d bloggers like this: