Discussion:Doma

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Doma


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Doma

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I just wanted to offer a big congratulations to our gay and lesbian friends on this board. I'm not sure who all of you are specifically, but your contributions to this Board are respected and always have been. And now, your rights as human beings will be respected as well. The Supreme Court's decision might just be the first step, but it is a big one.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I join our esteemed contributor, Ck.....'bout time......now to get the 38 other states to join the band!!!

this article gives some idea of where we are now:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19100907-gay-couples-stand-to-receive-thousands-of-benefits-in-wake-of-doma-decision?lite

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
On behalf of all of the gay and lesbian tax professionals and all of our (and all of your) gay and lesbian clients, thank you for your congratulations.

As I mentioned in my discussion on the same topic a few minutes earlier, now we have ALL got to figure out how to help our clients who need (and rightfully deserve) help in dealing with the government. That is our job, and it is an important one.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
This decision has made tax professionals' lives easier. So far, I have not done a return for a same sex married couple (I'm in IL where it's legal). I had always been afraid because of the darn complexity of handling these returns.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
This is one huge step forward for mankind, and one huge step backward for great art. You can't have great art without repression, your every day variety of sublimation can produce good art, but not great art.

It won't be long before the the gays are sloppy dressers and forget how to decorate and cut hair. Before you know it, their outstanding achievement in the arts will begin to fail. It's a terrible thing in some ways to be condemned to normalcy. (I am speaking now as board philosopher and not board chaplain.)

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Gazoo, I think you being insane helps you to understand the critical role of the outsider to human culture.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Not every gay person will choose to marry, just as not all heterosexual people choose to marry (or certainly to stay married). Is anyone reading this currently single (by the tax definition)?

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Amazing that such a socially significant case arose from a tax refund claim.

The opinion itself is worth reading as are C.J. Roberts' and J. Scalia's dissents. The opinion stands for the proposition that States define marriage and that the federal government has no right under the Fifth Amendment as read in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment (!), to discriminate between classes of married couples that are treated the same by State government. It reads backwards from the usual equal protection analysis. Not a model of legal clarity; I suspect that if it were perfectly clear, J. Kennedy wouldn't have signed off on it because the consequences would be too explicit.

What the opinion does NOT do is require all States to license and solemnize same-sex marriages. However, what is unsaid but may well be true is that every State will be required to give full faith and credit to the same-sex marriages recognized by any other State.

Scalia's pen is, as usual, dipped in acid.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
One other thing...it will make preparing income taxes for married same-sex couples much easier. Won't it?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
What the opinion does NOT do is require all States to license and solemnize same-sex marriages.

But that might be the next battle.

One other thing...it will make preparing income taxes for married same-sex couples much easier. Won't it?

Well, at the federal level, I think so. And state returns in those states where a married gay couple resides. But what if they live in a state where the marriage isn't recognized - what about the filing status of their state returns? (And what if a particular state already has a law on its books stating your federal filing status has to be used for state purposes?)

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Chris, I imagine it will be the reverse of what we do now for those who reside in a state that recognizes it. We did a dummy federal return and then split the states. In a case where they move to a state that doesn't recognize, we will file the joint federal and separate for states.

I would also like to offer a hearty high five to those of you this affects.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I'm still oppressed down here in Georgia. Can someone show me some land in Vermont that's not in a flood plain? I don't know how I'll ever get used to the Vermont accent, but I would like to grow a Vermont cow and make cheese.

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
PollyAdler - get a plane ticket. I'll pick you up at the airport. The nearest one is in Hartford, Connecticut, but Boston works, too.

There is land for sale here and I have clients who are real estate brokers. There is also lots of work here for accountants. Plenty of room for some new practitioners.

I don't have any cows to offer you, but I have a client who has some.

For once I feel that this will ease my workload. Because of my location I have always seen a lot of same-sex couples, even before there were any civil union or marriage laws for their benefit.

Deadsea11 (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
It begs the next question how many G-20 nations have made same sex union legal, if not why not?

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
"There is also lots of work here for accountants"

How is the escort work? That's where most of my revenue comes from. I imagine it's pretty slow in the country. The idea of working a country road and getting stranded in Yankee territory in the middle of the night is still intimidating to me. I'll probably have to open a candy shop or something in town as a front for my operations.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I have 5 or 6 married same sex couples, and in every case this decision is more important at death rather than in life....as was the Windsor case. Becky and Carol will have total income in excess of 600K, and it is nearly equal in division and thus perhaps their tax could be more as Becky will not 'reap' the benefit of the graduated rates but find her income atop Carol's at 35-39%. Of course, both are hit now by AMT so maybe tax won't change much.....

but they live in a state with a transfer inheritance tax where to inherit Becky's assets would cost Carol 15% at death. Will this state honor their marriage which took place in Massachusetts?

And not to be a spoilsport, but has anyone been reading of state efforts at nullification of Federal laws......while mostly concerning guns, could it happen in this area?

http://www.nullifynow.com/

http://www.fdlreporter.com/viewart/20130626/FON06/306260122/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Federal-nullification-efforts-mounting-some-states

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Don't know much about the escort services around here, but there are plenty of shops that appear to be a front for other activities, mostly drug dealers. You might find more escort work up in Burlington. It is still Vermont, but it is a whole lot different than it is down here in the banana belt.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I am unmarried ["currently single (by the tax definition)"] and I want to know why married people get benefits, at my expense.

Did they lobby the government for these benefits? Is there a prejudice against unmarried people? Am I a second-class citizen?

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
DOMA has several sections. The Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 which required federal agencies to not recognize same sex marriages. This affects tax, of course, but it also affects Social Security, federal retirement, immigration...the list goes on and on.

No one asked the Court to examine another Section that allegedly frees the States of their constitutional duty to give full faith and credit to the same-sex marriages contracted under other States' laws.. So it may depend on how the Court interprets the full faith and credit clause. Congress has the power to prescribe how a party proves up a foreign State's act and the power to prescribe the effect thereof. Does that power extend to being able to excuse a State of its obligation altogether? I think the answer has to be "No" but I'm so often wrong that I wouldn't put a bet on it.

The other thing this new opinion didn't do is define homosexuals as a protected class for equal protection purposes. Had the Court gone that far, all State prohibitions against same-sex marriage would evaporate at once.

It will be interesting to watch the law develop.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Oh, and Polly? Forget Vermont. A southern girl like you couldn't take the winters. Besides, you'd end up parading your considerable charms in a parka. Doesn't work so well, I'm afraid.

Even if you DID borrow Crow's you-know-what.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I was thinking about Taos too, NMex, but the property crimes look excessive up there. Besides, I don't want the expense of keeping oxygen around for my older customers. Oops. I should mention that I'm writing this for Polly. She's having her lips plumped (silicon) by a shady doctor right now, and I've taken over her handheld device.

Thanks for the tip on Burlington, Crow. If you notice a new candy shop popping up in Burlington next year, stop in for some free candy. (Appreciate the legal commentary NMex).

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
The other thing this new opinion didn't do is define homosexuals as a protected class for equal protection purposes. Had the Court gone that far, all State prohibitions against same-sex marriage would evaporate at once.

Right. The opinion was narrow, focused only on the issue before the court. It was a logical first step for the gay and lesbian community.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
CrowCPA, I like how you distance yourself from the other Crow on this page. What part of Vermont are you in? I will be heading to Vermont this weekend.

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I'm in the south, not too far from Massachusetts. I'll try to have good weather for you.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I'm just speaking for myself now, but Bernie Sanders is one of my heroes. I just wish he was younger. It will be hard to find someone of the younger generation to replace him when he's gone. All I know is what I see on TV, but I like him.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
and I've taken over her handheld device. Say what…?

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Hmm. Here's a thought...suppose a same-sex couple marries in Massachusetts then move to Texas. As far as the feds are concerned, the couple is married, right? But Texas, being the more conservative State, doesn't permit same-sex marriage but won't interfere in the couple's living arrangements. (This isn't South Carolina we're talking about here). Okay, so the couple has a falling out after ten years in Amarillo or Midland or Big Spring or Del Rio or wherever and decide to get divorced.

They can't file in MA because they aren't resident there anymore. The Massachusetts courts don't have jurisdiction. So do they file in Texas for a divorce from a marriage Texas doesn't recognize? If Texas were to grant the divorce with an alimony award, hasn't Texas just recognized the validity of the marriage? I don't think Texas can just refuse to hear the matter; access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right. And I don't think Texas can refuse to award alimony if it were awardable upon the divorce of a similarly situated heterosexual couple because that would be a denial of equal protection.

Just thinking out loud, here...

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
NMex....same issue(s) Kevin raised on the other thread.

Oncall tried to file a return today that was rejected, for the Washington couple who moved to FL, not part of the Gang of 15

MassTaxPro (talk|edits) said:

June 26, 2013
re: divorce

I don't recall the specific cases, but I'm reasonably certain that various state courts have decided the issue in both ways, with some states holding that their court does have jurisdiction to hear the divorce case and other states deciding that since the marriage doesn't exist in the state, there is no standing for a divorce case.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Thinking out loud is good. I will submit that one thing I love about Supreme Court rulings is that there is nearly always a ton of fallout. The ramifications of their decisions are very rarely cut and dried.

Take your situation. Seems to me, that even if a particular state asserts "state's rights" and says, "We prohibit gay marriage in our state. We can do what we want," then that same state *might* have to later deal with the situation you describe. If you are right, and if Texas is required, as a matter of law, to hear a divorce case concering two Texas gay residents that were married in MA, then the argument could very well be put forth that this is an implicit recognition of the validity of the marriage. Hmmm...seems TX has a pretty big problem here, as you note. Seems to be a drawback of asserting state's rights...

Pretty much in life, where there's a benefit, there's a burden. The only thing I can say, thinking out loud with you, is that just maybe TX could assert "lack of jurisdiction" for that divorce case.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
...what MassTaxPro just said makes sense.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Chris, could the Texas court just say "we do not recognize same sex marriages so therefore you may not file for divorce in our state"

MassTaxPro (talk|edits) said:

June 26, 2013
Apparently, the 5th Texas Court of Appeals has already said no, but the Texas Supreme Court has yet to rule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/texas-gay-divorce-denied-appeals-court_n_701393.html

http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2012/12/lawyer-in-two-same-sex-divorce-cases-awaits-texas-supreme-court-decision-on-petitions-for-review.html

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
I think they probably could, as MassTaxPro points out.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Fifty states to marry in. Fifty states to live in. Fifty states to divorce in. Several different versions of state level tax rules. Different filing statuses. The combinations and permutations are virtually limitless.

Plus DC, just for good measure.

Why bother to learn *any* of this? Leave it to someone else.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
But from time to time I've been that somebody else!

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2013
Speaking of fifteen states......does this require us to notify couples of the legal requirement to amend, whether it be beneficial or detrimental?

MassTaxPro (talk|edits) said:

June 27, 2013
Is there any legal requirement to amend? If someone previously filed a federal return as Single because that was the law at the time, then such a return was honest and correct in that regard at the time of filing, both as to the facts and the legal interpretation of the facts.

This is different from an annulment, which is a judicial determination that a marriage did not exist, even though a party may have in good faith believed it to exist at that time. An annulment requires an amendment because the facts of the original return were wrong, even though they were honestly believed to be correct. But for the DOMA situation, the court hasn't drawn a conclusion of fact, they've changed the legal interpretation.

(As an EA, I stand by the amendment requirement for annulments, but since IANAL, the underlying rationale is just my lay opinion. I don't know whether there's any precedent where a court overturns an IRS interpretation of law in a way that would work to the benefit of some taxpayers and detriment of others.)

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I do not see a legal requirement to amend. I hope there is none. If there is, I have lots more to do this summer.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Maybe we should call this an annulment of a non-marriage.

Doug's point is taken. All this DOMA stuff has all of our heads' swirling and thinking out loud, which is a good thing.

I tend to agree with MassTaxPro. Nothing was done wrong at the time of filing. There's no requirement to amend anyway.

I tend to think the IRS, as beaten up as it has been, will hopefully take this opportunity to welcome amended returns wherein a gay couple might be able to amend and get some money back. It would also be a good opportunity for the IRS to come out and say, "Do not amend anything if you'll owe more tax."

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
And it is a good opportunity for us to call appropriate clients and say, "shall we go ahead and amend these returns?"

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I won't charge too much for these returns since most of the work was already done and billed for when I did the state returns. It will build goodwill, not that I need any more of that at my age.

Joanmcq (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I am single, and like being single. But my practice is about 70% same sex couples, many of whom were either married here in CA in 2008, or have gone to NY or MA to get married since then. I've been going nuts getting any done that benefit from filing single under community property law (the last one saved $13,000 as opposed to MFJ) and holding off on those that don't. My protective claims are ready to go, and I have another two or three years to amend for some of these couples. The last one will pay more due to AMT filing joint, but they are deliriously happy that their marriage is not a 'skim milk marriage' any more.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Just called a client about amending. He said, "For what?" I said, "For DOMA." He said, "I'm not gay." I said, "Well who's that guy I always see you around town with." He said, "That's my *new* accountant." You can't win 'em all.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
That's how Hoover got "tarnished" Having lunch and going on vacation (govt. limo shipped by train) with his second in command, Clyde Tolson. Only in America could you pull this off. "They're just good friends." As my grandmother used to tell me, Liberace is just a bit flamboyant is all. That's how entertainers are. Again, only in America. :) It's good people can tell the truth now, but the country just won't have the same flare for self-deception it used to have.

Chapter 2. The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald.

“Come to lunch some day,” he suggested, as we groaned down in the elevator.

“Where?”

“Anywhere.”

“Keep your hands off the lever,” snapped the elevator boy.

“I beg your pardon,” said Mr. McKee with dignity, “I didn’t know I was touching it.”

Snowbird (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Since the discussion has wandered off topic, I was wondering if this meant that Crow, Polly, Gazoo and Father Mac can now marry so they no longer have to shack-up together at the institution?

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
No. One attachment is enough for me. My fatal attraction led to a life of misery.

I follow the the advice of the Buddha today: avoid all attachments. The watch in the jewelry store will end up forgotten in a dusty drawer one day. It's the exact same watch one desired so ardently years before, the thing itself is the same, but the mind is compelled to travel onward and forward to further and endless attachments, unless trained to control itself. Control and meditation is the key or else we will deceive ourselves in our striving and getting and forgetting and striving again until it's lights out.

The misery of my marriage has taught me to be careful what you wish for in life. Now I have put my mind on a leash, though I have been known to dally with the deli ladies at my grocery store.

This is song is Hindu and not Buddhist, but it will do to honor our new & fully be-Righted citizens, and calm the afflicted into the night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoyENu61Fss/

(I also want to take the time tonight to thank our friends on the right, who nominated the person of Abraham Lincoln for president so long ago. Not only did he (truly) embody the gay spirit, but he stood up for the civil rights of the oppressed and gave his life for the cause. He also had a humdinger of a wife and I can relate, the man must have suffered terribly in his love for this good woman. As his biographer Sandburg said, Lincoln had a lavendar streak, and I'm sure his ray of purple light is shining proudly from his grave today. When I shave tommorrow I will make a point to put on Lilac Vegetol aftershave (which smells terrible by the way), and to enjoy the light purple hue of the lilac bush, and to read some Whitman in honor of our fallen president. "When lilacs...)

Davishoff (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
So married same sex couples can now file Jointly on their Federal tax return if they choose, so they must file MFS if they do not?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Right.

Davishoff (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
So I guess it isn't such a good thing for some. I have a married same sex couple with a child and they live apart. On the federal return the custodial parent files as HH and the other files S. and on their CT return they file jointly. Now going forward on the federal one may qualify to go HH and the other Must file MFS. Not sure yet how CT will handle it but instead of going jointly on the CT they may now have to go HH and MFS. Separated same sex couples are not going to be very happy at tax time. The divorce lawyers are very happy though.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Here is another good article discussing the uncertainties:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/tax-prof-blog-doma-op-ed.pdf

Trying to find a 'one size fits all' is made difficult because as the commentator notes, the Supremes did not rule Section 2 of DOMA unconstitutional:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory or possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Good article. This thing is massive.

Good point in the article about getting back payroll taxes paid on (previously) taxed "spousal" health insurance benefits.

Also, RIA had a blurb this morning about the civil union issue. It made the point that perhaps protective claims should be filed until this issue gets sorted out. RIA thought the language in the ruling - "lawful marriage" - might preclude a civil union from rising to the level of "marriage."

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Davis, it looks like same sex couples have to accept the good with the bad just like we opposite sex couples.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
In taxes, in marriage, and in life overall. But at least now, their government is no longer trying to hurt them for being different.

Unless they live in Texas, that is. (Or a Texas-equivalent State).

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
The professor in David's article said a simple regulation is needed to declare whether one looks to the laws of the state of celebration or the state of residence to determine if a valid marriage exists for federal purposes.

I think if they installed a simple reg. saying that you should look to the state of residence, it could actually violate the decision that the court handed down yesterday. If the state that married them says they are married, then that's the status no matter where they move it seems to me.

Not that long ago, GA set the legal age of marriage at 14. If two fourteen year olds at the time got married in GA and moved to a state that made the minimum age to marry 17, would it have ever occured to the federal government to bring this issue up before it granted a federal benefit? When Ga was 14, Texas allowed marriage at age 10 (the age a man was expected to be in the saddle and the woman in the wagon behind). The idea being that if you could ride and steer a horse, you were entitled to marry. The bureaucrats in Washington accepted that the 10 year olds were married no matter where they moved in the country; even though some of the elite in the establishment thought the law a bit odd (at the time, the federal government allowed a credit for oats and sugar cubes for annual incomes under one hundred dollars).

DaveinTexas (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I will be the first to say this, because it is literally eating at me. I may be scoffed at because I have old fashioned ideas but at this point in my life (34 years old) I don't care. It is time for the very small percentage of this country to cease out shouting the majority.

This ruling, in my opinion, is the beginning (maybe the middle) of the end of this great country; we might as well consider joining the EU at this point. Do I believe that all should have equal rights? Absolutely, no one should be treated as a second class citizen. But, what happened to a modicum of a moral code in this (what once was) great country? Does morality mean nothing any longer?

I know this conversation has nothing to do with taxes but I just had to voice my opinion, as others have voiced theirs in support of this ruling. As a Christian family man (married to a woman) with children, it truly is a sad day for America. I am not looking for a fight, just maybe I am speaking for a few on this board that feel the same way but are in fear of criticism.

Back to taxes, this decision to me muddies the waters and will be, in my opinion, a disaster for the IRS to facilitate correctly. What does this mean for States that do not follow this new Federal set of laws? I live in Texas and Texas states they do not support this ruling, do I need to inform my same sex couples they have a right to amend to file jointly or should I wait for Texas to act? What does this mean if one member of the same sex couple didn't intend to be married but live in a community property, get sideways with one another, and one of the spouses claims they were really married all along (Common Law Marriage)? Will a spouse try to sue the Estate of their former same sex partner because they claim they had a Common Law Marriage and they are due a percentage of the inheritance?

Signing off now.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
You have a right to your opinion and you certainly don't have to sign off.

If 70% of the young people are for this now, it's difficult to claim its a very small percentage. These young people are the new majority. Take a look at a man like Falwell. Why was he so overweight? I've observed the Southern Baptists for years take a 3rd or even a 4th helping at the Sunday dinner. Why this urge to overeat? The young have decided that for whatever reason, a good figure is important, and I think they have determined that it's a repression of sexual energy that might cause this overeating. I don't see how you could fight a trend like this one.

Some inventive person on the right will soon find another whipping boy for them to russle up votes on the back of. They'll connect it to the Bible somehow. They thought they had a long term vote getter in the gay whipping boy and it has turned out not to be so. They're hopes were dashed (and this after they had lost the woman and the black to whip up on, which also got a nod from the New Testament). They are going through withdrawal smyptoms at the moment until a new group can be found for them to be "better" than. I.e. a new "other", bete noire etc.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I just love a great debate!

Let me ask a question: For all of you heterosexuals out there - please tell me - On what specific date did you make the *affirmative* choice or decision to be heterosexual?

If you can't recall, then maybe consider that a gay person never made any *affirmative* choice or decision to be gay. It may have just happened...

This ruling, in my opinion, is the beginning (maybe the middle) of the end of this great country;

How can that be, Dave? If, as you state, this is just a tiny minority of our population, how could it be the end of a country that houses 300 million people?

Do I believe that all should have equal rights? Absolutely,

It's hard for us to believe you, Dave.

But, what happened to a modicum of a moral code in this (what once was) great country? Does morality mean nothing any longer?

See my question above, about affirmative choices. And, where's the morality in heterosexual couples getting divorces??

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
By the way, I also find it interesting how people say America is the best country in the world...and fail to recognize the reason why it is so great - because of its diversity.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I don't think there is a moment of decision or an hour of power on this matter. The disposition itself is not conscious. People are what they are. As the Buddah would say, it is a question not tending to edification.

Would young people put themselves through this if there was a way to decide the other way? There are hundreds and probably thousands of these videos on youtube. Such stories and experiences existed before there ever was a youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfGu8upB4A I would characterize that as dependable testimony.

Markb29 (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Well said Dave.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I love arguments! You know, poking holes in inconsistencies...etc. I could summarize Dave's argument like this:

"Absolutely, same sex couples should have equal rights," but then it's a "sad day in America" when these rights are actually granted (or should I say, a small fraction of these rights are granted).

I really don't see how there is any compability amongst these two ideas.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Getting off subject now...

By the way, I also find it interesting how people say America is the best country in the world...and fail to recognize the reason why it is so great - because of its diversity.

I always thought it was due to the fact that the foundation of our society and government was based on Judeo-Christian principles. Our Founders interwove these principles into our Declaration of Independence & the Constitution. I'm sure this probably sounds foreign to anybody that has gone through our school system in the last 30 years. For the last 20 years, we have been told it is because of diversity.

Take for example the American trait of generosity. We are generous as a people and also generous as a nation. I am going to argue that a primary reason that we are great is because we receive the blessing that comes with being generous. And I will continue my argument, that this American trait of generosity is directly tied to our Judeo-Christian foundation.

Terry Oraha (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Does morality mean nothing any longer?

There is no way morality will ever not matter. It just may not be your ideas about morality that matter. As for claims the country is going to hell, well that claim is being made daily, and has been for decades perhaps constantly throughout recorded history. The claimants are usually just people struggling with the fact that their way is not "the way".

DaveinTexas (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
And thus the reason for not arguing the point any further Chris. Because if I were to say my moral compass is not aligned with a same sex proponent, that person will argue that their moral standards and mine are not equal. And, if I argue that my religious beliefs dictate my disagreement with same sex marriages, then the other person will argue that they do not hold the same beliefs (athiest/agnostic). If I then argue the fact that it is un-natural for two of the same sex to marry because procreation is not possible and it is more natural for opposite sex couples to marry, then the other person will mention homosexuality is evident among some animal species.

So I will continue to lead with the soft argument that while I do not agree with the lifestyle, I will love them as a fellow flawed human (we are all flawed) and continue to try to be a noticeable light. It isn't inconsistent to say you can love someone and not agree with their choices; this is difficult but not impossible to do.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Dave, our great country has separation of church and state for a reason. I'm Roman Catholic, but I believe that single, consenting, adults, have a right to choose the person they wish to spend their life with.

At one time, good Christians owned people, aka slaves.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
We don't have a state religion in America. We are free to have no religion at all if we desire.

The minute a majority can impose a state religion, then any majority can impose any state relgion, now or in the future. It is unconstitutional to establish a state religion in America, and for good reason.

I was looking for another video on youtube of a young man giving his testimony. His mother had beaten him, and I got the strong feeling that the mother had read one of the Minister Rekker books on being gay. Rekker claimed to have done social scientific research into the matter. I can't prove the mother had read one of his books. I'd like to track down that mother and tell her that Minister Rekker was shown to be a complete fraud and hypocrite just in case she had been tainted by him. His bogus "research" is still being cited in some conservative churches. Of course.


I'll post the video when I find it unless it has been removed.

Markb29 (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
true, and nothing stops them. However, there is no compelling state reason to encourage their cohabitation. The nuclear family is encouraged by law because it benefits society as a whole ( see the detrimental effects of its deterioration after the creation of the welfare state for evidence of the opposite effect)and, yes, I do realize there are many childless traditional couples.....

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
According to the research of the Russell Sage foundation, women of means had always found a way to get out of a bad marriage.

In the '60s, as more women entered the work force and with the passge of the Equal Pay Act, many more women were able to escape abusive marriages, so the illusion of "all is well" on the American homefront began to unravel.

These good Christian men were preaching a different game at home it seems, and when a lot of these women got the chance, they were gone.

Now, because of "improvements" brought about to our economy since Ronald Reagan, everyone in the family has to work to make it, including the family dog. It makes it hard to sit around the dinner table at night what with all the work going on to surive.

It didn't have anything to do with the Bible, or not the Bible, or the traditional family. Reagan always put in his script some stuff about the traditional family, and people were fool enough to believe him. His kids said they hardly knew him.

I'm still trying to find the testimony of this gay young man who had been beaten by his mother for being gay. If it's on there, I'll find it.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I always thought it was due to the fact that the foundation of our society and government was based on Judeo-Christian principles.

Our government is based on freedom, not on any particular religion or classification thereof. And, if you want to know the truth about why people came here, I'll tell you - to make money.

It isn't inconsistent to say you can love someone and not agree with their choices; this is difficult but not impossible to do.

That I agree with. But it's not what you said initially. You said it was a "sad day for America," basically expanding your personal view to the entire country. Moreover, the direct flaw in your comment above is that you presume that a gay person has made a choice to be gay. Again, did you make a choice to be heterosexual? Doubtful. And if you didn't, it must that you were born that way...or that your heterosexuality simply developed that way, automatically. Therefore, your postulate is that all people were born heterosexual, or developed that way, and some of those people later chose to be gay. But at the same time, I'm sure you'd recognize that some people are born with brown eyes, some with blue. Some with no hair, some with red hair. Some weighing 6 pounds, some weighing 8 pounds. I also think you'd agree that humans develop differently over time, based on their biologial makeup and/or their environment. So, to assert sexuality as a biological constant, while denying, as a constant, other biological traits is not, well, all that consistent.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Our government is based on freedom, not on any particular religion or classification thereof.

Yes, freedom (or free-will)...another Judeo-Christian principle from our Founders. We can add also add that one to the reasons America is great.

And, if you want to know the truth about why people came here...

Off point. Nobody asked that.

DaveinTexas (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
The argument that someone was born gay is so flawed (my opinion). If you believe in human nature (leave religion, God, the Bible out of it), then you believe that humans have a natural instinct to hunt, gather and procreate. If humans did not procreate, the species does not continue.

How does a same sex couple procreate? If they make a choice to be gay, that is their choice, they are certaintly not born with an instinct to be gay. This is taught by others, observed by society, seen in a movie, etc.

Did I make a choice to be heterosexual, no, it was just natural instinct and I went with it. Also, my parents influenced me much (good hard working regular folks). Did I have gay friends, yes, and their response to why they "chose" to be gay was 100 different reasons. People make choices, gay people choose to be gay. Pretty simple. Again, I don't agree with their "choice" but am I any better than they, no, because I sin daily. I am gracious enough to believe in a being that "chooses" to forgive me; not for who I am or what I have done, but because of who He is.

Sorry if I offend but if I didn't stand for what I believe and if I am ashamed then He will be ashamed of me.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Here is this young fellow and his testimony. I had forgotten he was from Texas.

I'm glad to see he's doing better now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXkr5Ls3ArA&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TLLdUkUkdBOJI

Again, from my experience, this sounds like dependable testimony.

We should all remember that the Bible has been used to keep women and blacks in their place too.

I don't think this genie is going back in the bottle, as they say. The cow is well out of the barn. We are moving forward to a more civil society and I am glad we are.

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I really enjoy the debate part of this great site we call TA. Speaking of debate, where is Bracket Creep?

To steer this back on topic. Is the filing a return with the wrong filing status not a valid return?

Frankly (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
"I am unmarried ["currently single (by the tax definition)"] and I want to know why married people get benefits, at my expense."

We could have avoided a lot of angst by simply doing away with special tax benefits for married folks. Do such benefits really have any societal benefits? Do two people ever decide to get married due to a a tax benefit? If not, why have tax breaks?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
gay people choose to be gay. Pretty simple.

I tend to think it's not so simple. If it was, we wouldn't spend any resources researching the matter. The notion that one's sexuality, one way or the other, might be innate (chemically driven)...and/or might be influenced by environment...really isn't a preposterous notion, at least to me. Whoa to all those people who decide to be mentally ill at age 5...or decide to be a genius at age 6!

Off point. Nobody asked that.

...didn't say anybody asked. Just thought some folks would like to know, since some people are confused on the matter, including yourself. Just thought I'd set the record straight, the incorrect record put forth by you, thereby making it "on point."

David1980 (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
We could have avoided a lot of angst by simply doing away with special tax benefits for married folks. Do such benefits really have any societal benefits? Do two people ever decide to get married due to a a tax benefit? If not, why have tax breaks?

I know people who have chosen not to get married to keep EIC.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I will take the liberty to go back and present this question again too regarding something David's professor said:

The professor in David's article said a simple regulation is needed to declare whether one looks to the laws of the state of celebration or the state of residence to determine if a valid marriage exists for federal purposes.

I think if they installed a simple reg. saying that you should look to the state of residence, it could actually violate the decision that the court handed down yesterday. If the state that married them says they are married, then that's the status no matter where they move it seems to me.

Is everyone just going to wait around for this "simple regulation"? What happens in the meantime?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
If the state that married them says they are married, then that's the status no matter where they move it seems to me.

Me too. It also seems that the existing RR, that deals with common law marriages, would agree too.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
...some people are confused on the matter, including yourself. Just thought I'd set the record straight, the incorrect record put forth by you.

Chris, what was I wrong about again? I thought we were debating the reason why America is great. You replied, "people come here to make money". Next, are you going to say that it is better to walk to school than to carry your lunch?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
it is better to walk to school than to carry your lunch

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I don't think we can look to the state of residence to determine whether a marriage is valid to the federal government. Doing so would create a weird situation where one could undergo a "divorce" merely by moving. Indeed, one could force a divorce without legal process on one's spouse merely by moving to another state. And then remarry? Sure. You'd be a bigamist in Massachusetts but a married man in Texas!

Miscegeny laws used to work that way, I guess, but those laws were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 so the issue never really developed the way this one will.

As far as "the beginning of the end", the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated anti-sodomy laws nationwide in 2003. Homosexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally protected. The core objection to same-sex marriage, meaning the very clear biblical injunctions against homosexual conduct, was disposed of ten years ago.

DaveinTexas (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I adhere to the mantra that liberalism is a mental disorder. No offense to the liberals on this board. I will also remember that someone doesn't choose to be liberal or to have a mental disorder....they just may be born that way.

Surely I jest, I didn't meant to anger anyone but just wanted to let others know that there was a different side to the argument. And by the way I don't consider myself a Republican/Right Wing Conservative, I don't play golf and I don't trust anyone in this corrupt Government (elected officials). Civil Wars were wrought for less that what is being perpetrated on us today and all we have to talk about is Gay Marriage. Boy, do they have us snowed!!

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Oh, here's another thought about the "state of residence vs. state of solemnization" question. Just because you are present in a state does not make you a citizen of that state. Anyone who has ever paid out-of-state tuition knows all about this. So, under the state of residence theory if a same-sex couple marries in Massachusetts and their marriage is valid in that state then takes work in Texas, their marital status will depend on whether they acquire Texas citizenship and thereby lose their Massachusetts citizenship. If they do, then return to Massachusetts for a visit, they won't be married anymore!

No, one's marital status can't vary from state to state. At this point, I'm thinking about the privileges and immunities clause. Shifting one's status this way would impose an impossible burden on the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to travel to and settle in any state.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
But the outcome is inevitable, too. In time, all states will be forced to offer and recognize same-sex marriage on the same footing as opposite-sex marriage.

Terry Oraha (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Nmex, not just gays benefited from the 2003 decision. All people engaging in sodomy did. It may have been a little more difficult to enforce against the hetero's but it was out there, happening, at times even among the lawfully wedded!

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Surely I jest, I didn't meant to anger anyone but just wanted to let others know that there was a different side to the argument. And by the way I don't consider myself a Republican/Right Wing Conservative, I don't play golf and I don't trust anyone in this corrupt Government (elected officials). Civil Wars were wrought for less that what is being perpetrated on us today and all we have to talk about is Gay Marriage. Boy, do they have us snowed!!

It's a good debate. It really comes down to one's position on how we get to be who we are, in terms of our traits and characteristics - innate, environment, purely self-decided, a combination of one or more of these things...

Shifting one's status this way would impose an impossible burden on the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to travel to and settle in any state.

...or in a foreign country. What if 2 U.S. citizens were married in the U.S. 40-years ago, but decide to leave the country (for good) and live outside the country in retirement. No U.S. residency whatsoever, but still an obligation to file a U.S. tax return. Methinks they can still file a joint return.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
Boy, do they have us snowed!!

Hear! Hear! It's amazing the stuff the electorate fights each other over while the elected slowly hand our property and rights over to the few that desire to own & control everything.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. ~ Janis Joplin

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
"I adhere to the mantra that liberalism is a mental disorder."

As I said above, the right wing ding-a-lings are showing signs of heroin withdrawal since they thought they'd have the gays to whip up on just like they controlled the women and the blacks, and the Bible was used as excuse each and every time.

We are not going to have a Christian "Sharia" court in America or Christian "Sharia" law in America. And are are not going back to the days of the Salem witch trials.

Going forward, the so-called conservative Christian approach on the gays will become more and more of a vote loser than a vote getter. Even Bob Dole knows this and he's begging the conservatives to come to their senses. Turn back from the abyss, Dole says.

Here is the young man again who is busy writing a letter to his mother. I am playing it again. This is just as important as Luther's 95 complaints he tacked to the door of the chuch in Wurttemberg. It's entitled: The Letter to Mom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfGu8upB4A

This young man says he's tired of living a lie. Can you believe that until recently the Boy Scouts didn't want this kid?

I got a dishonorable discharge from the Weeblos and my stripe was ripped off for smoking a cigarette with the "pack leaders" son. I was accused of corrupting him, even though he gave me the cigarette! I took my lumps and left the wolf pack in disgrace. I had a dishonorable discharge on my record before I was 12. I deserved what I got, but these kids (and adults) don't deserve maltreatment for being who they are.

(I am glad we are having this discussion, but we should probably handle DOMA tax issues on an ad hoc bais in the future.)

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
We are not going to have a Christian "Sharia" court in America or Christian "Sharia" law in America. And are are not going back to the days of the Salem witch trials.

And we are definitely not going back to the days before the Edict of Milan...but I (& Gazoo) digress.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
I don't think the protestant ministers are any better than the Catholic ministers, but I liked the idea of nailing the complaints to the church door. Someone needs to tap these so-called conservative Christians on the shoulder and whisper in their ear that they've lost this one. The gay issue is o-v-e-r.

They remind me of the old crackers in the South who said repeatedly the South would never change. They preached out of the Bible too: the slave should obey his master. The woman should submit to the man. What was so strange was that by 1972, every one of these crackers claimed thay had always supported black civil rights (with the exception of a few cranks). It was just amazing. They had always been liberals and they finally admitted it.

After they lost the woman issue, and the black issue, they still had the gays to lord it over. These weak personalities still had their "other" to be better than.

The issue here has always been one of control, and the anger comes from a perceived loss of a advantage. The Bible and all that crap is just window dressing for a desire to control, and we should not let them play the Bible game.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2013
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.." - Kris Kristofferson, and sung by Janis Joplin and others.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Gay people do not choose to be gay. They are born with it. With the way many of them are treated, who in their right mind would 'choose' a lifestyle where being mistreated is the norm.

Dhtax (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Back to the 'move to another state' issue: The NY Times and other sources keep saying that the IRS (and SSA) look to state law to determine if someone is married. I haven't gone back to look at the code, but I don't think that's right. I think that if someone is legally married (in any state--or country, for that matter, including "common law" marriage) the IRS considers them married unless a state court issued a final divorce decree. In other words, the IRS may look to state law to see if they are married, but once someone is married, the IRS only follows state law about the divorce. The instructions to 1040 say you can file as single only if you were never married, if you were widowed and did not remarry, if you are "legally separated according to your state law under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance" . . . and the divorce has to be final.

As to SSA: I can't believe they could get away with cutting off spousal benefits -- eg survivors benefits -- to someone who moves to a state where the marriage was not recognized. If so, couple marries in MA, one dies, other moves to FL, loses benefits? I don't think so.

Snowbird (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Been off-line doing important things such as building a bed for GK, fishing, etc ... but have been skimming the posts for tax opinions on DOMA and enjoying Crow's ( Polly, etc) rants on conservatives and Christians in general ... diddly on the liberal life style. BTW Polly, how is that new drug for antibiotic resistant STD working out ... I hope the outcome is well since the resistant STD is running wild among heterosexuals in the local high school. I would hate to see these kids scared for life or worse because of liberal doctrine of don't deny your sexual urges.

I have been thinking about how DOMA decision could benefit senior citizens that are single but live together to share expenses and really for companionship. Often one has much more income than the other and pays the majority of expenses; the other has no tax liability but has enough income as to not qualify as a dependent. I am laughing ... think I will bring it up just to see their reaction :)

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
"I have been thinking about how DOMA decision could benefit senior citizens that are single but live together to share expenses and really for companionship." Great thinking.

More food for thought: Hetero couple Jim and Bob, both in their mid-seventies, are in such situation where Jim has considerable income but Bob pays his fair share out of his Social Security and modest pension. They live in a state where same sex marriage is not an option. Is the cost of tax advice and then traveling to Massachusetts to marry a tax deductible expense.....certainly their decision is strictly tax motivated? (I am not going to ask if the marriage must be consummated to be legal, but do remember the Pope permitted Henry VIII to marry his deceased brother's widow because their union was not fulfilled).

Were Jim and Bob Pennsylvania residents, such marriage could save Bob 15% inheritance tax on his share of their jointly owned condominium upon Jim's demise.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
CathysTaxes: "Gay people do not choose to be gay."

This is the nub of the whole constitutional law question. If the Supreme Court declared this statement to be true as a matter of law, then sexual orientation would be an immutable characteristic of a class of U.S. citizens and virtually any discrimination against them on that basis would be illegal. If, on the other hand, the Court declared this statement not to be true as a matter of law (a different thing from saying it's false) then states could discriminate against homosexuals as a class for any rational reason.

The Court did neither but punted the matter back to the states on a weird combination of States' Rights and Equal Protection.

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
D&T - In the case of Jim and Bob it would appear that as a single person with only Social Security and a modest pension, Bob is allowed to exclude all or most of his Social Security benefits from his taxable income. If he a Bob get married, 85% of that Social Security benefit becomes taxable income becuase of Jim's higher income. They should consider this before jumping into marriage.

If they live in Pennsylvania they do have the problem you describe with inheritance tax and would have to take that into consideration. If one of them has cancer the inheritance tax is a bigger concern. If they are both in good health, the income tax concern wins.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Are you guys serious? Same-sex marriage of Jim and Bob, both heterosexual? Would need to be a VERY big saving. And, if they do not "consummate", what will the neighbors think? Around here, neighbors know everything. And don't even ask me what "consummate" means (in context).

Snowbird (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
D&T and CrowCPA ... I was just doing a back of envelope on where one has gross income of about 120K and the other of $27K where $22K is SS. I did not do a SS worksheet so this may be off ... but I only get a married tax savings of about $2,300. Not enough to convince these old church going gals to get married :)

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
The Court did neither but punted the matter back to the states on a weird combination of States' Rights and Equal Protection

Yes, one of those "fallout issues" I was talking about. With respect to employment, no employer can discriminate based on race, religion, color, sex (male or female), national origin (maybe there's a few more). Noticeably absent is sexual orientation.

There are still many battles to be had by the gay and lesbian (and transgender) community.

Whether you like it or not, you're in the middle of a pretty big civil rights movement that has been gaining steam for a number of years, not just nationally, but internationally.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
On a serious note, as to D&T's post, I learned a long time ago that taxes are almost never the correct driving force to a business or other important decision (read "marriage"). I am no lawyer, but if Jim has a large estate and Bob does not, what good are the estate tax savings if Bob is not who Jim wants to have the $?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
A marriage would not adversely affect that situation. Jim can simply leave everything to everyone but Bob.

But what if Jim has a high net worth and does want to provide for Bob? Then the marital deduction might come in handy.

I think the key here is to wrap your mind around the idea that Jim and Bob now have the same rights as heterosexual couples, as they should. It is up to them to assert those rights or not.

Call me crazy, but I suspect there will be numerous marriages here in the next few days.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Chris, isn't gender on that list also. I know gender doesn't truly encompass sexual orientation, but it gives the plaintiff enough to hang their hat on.

Edit: Never mind. Gender is not on the Federal list (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Tkelly911 (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
I recommend those of you interested in the confusion that will result from the DOMA fallout watch the same sex tax blog written by Professor Patricia Cain of the Santa Clara University Law School. Professor Cain is one of the nation's leading experts and scholars in this area. In her latest post discussing the Windsor decision she makes a very interesting observation that perhaps it is time to re-think the policy of linking marital status to taxation in the first place, and also acknowledges the uncertainty of just who will be considered married and who will not be considered married for federal tax purposes.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Oh and we haven't dwelled on the issue of who is eligible to marry, especially in states with a transfer inheritance tax like PA and NJ, where the rate is set by the beneficiary place in the food chain.

New Jersey resident Auntie Mame lives with niece (daughter of her late husband's sister) Glenda. Glenda is Mame's caretaker, chief cook and bottle washer. Auntie writes her will leaving her house, valued at $600,000, and $300,000 in cash to Glenda. The rest of her estate will be left to an Animal Shelter. Wouldn't be great estate tax planning to hitch these two up and save $99,000 at Mame's death (assuming New Jersey broadens its Civil Union categorization of same sex marriages.

Note here that were Glenda Glen, her nephew, no one would care if they married.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
But what if Jim has a high net worth and does want to provide for Bob? Then the marital deduction might come in handy. True, same as if John and Sally, who live together as two singles, might want to marry to use that deduction. In fact, if taxes are the driving force, let's change that deduction from a deferral to a permanent saving by having every surviving spouse remarry just for the benefit of using the marital deduction. It gets silly.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
, same as if John and Sally, who live together as two singles, might want to marry to use that deduction.

So, I guess another fallout of DOMA is that, those tax shenanigans that were previously relegated to two heterosexuals (i.e. Bob marries Cindy as a tax motivated transaction), can now be perpetrated by non-heterosexuals. But do note, prior to the fall of DOMA, even if Bob was gay, he could have married Cindy lawfully and perpetrated those same shenanigans back then anyway. It's that Bob could not have perpetrated those shenanigans, pre-DOMA, with Jim.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Too many 4- to 7-syllable words for me to follow.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Funny how the arguments against gay marriage always hinge on some type of biblical morality. I would like to give my honest opinion, but unfortunately, I cannot.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be silent. Timothy 2:12

All the women on this board should just shut up. Be silent, wenches.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
Call me crazy, but I suspect there will be numerous marriages here in the next few days. Wedding Crashers II?

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
That is a shrewd observation, TW, and it matters because of the legal concept of "standing". If my State decided to permit same-sex marriages, I, as a heterosexual married person, don't have standing to sue to block that legislation. It doesn't affect me personally, you see. But if my State forbids same-sex marriages, I, as a homosexual potential marriage partner, DO have standing to sue because that prohibition affects me personally.

The Bible does not confer standing. The U.S. is a secular society whose very constitution refers to itself as being the supreme law of the land. U.S. Constitution, Art. VI clause 2.

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
I like that argument, NewMex. As a non-christian, it disgusts me when people cite the bible as their source in an argument. I shall review that section of the constitution and be prepared to recite it at the next opportunity.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

28 June 2013
All the women on this board should just shut up. Be silent, wenches.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If women are so lowly, shouldn't a man be encouraged to covet his neighbor's wife?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

29 June 2013
Gazoo:

"The issue here has always been one of control, and the anger comes from a perceived loss of an advantage. The Bible and all that crap is just window dressing for a desire to control, and we should not let them play the Bible game."
______________________

Let them come out from hiding behind the Bible, and we will have the beginnings of a real conversation.

Other comments moved to chat since there was some tax talk going on.)

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

29 June 2013
The issue here has always been one of control, and the anger comes from a perceived loss of an advantage.

That's really what it boils down to. Any right conferred on someone else makes the person who already holds that right feel less powerful. It is pretty well settled, I think, that the "pie" can enlarge and each existing person's slice of the pie isn't necessarily diminished when more people are provided access to the pie. Some folks, however, believe that the pie is one size and always will be, meaning that existing slice holders feel that newcomers are taking something away from them.

Take Russia, for example. The country could care less if you drop out of high school. Why is that? Maybe because those folks will never be in a position to challenge the ones in control, the educated.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

29 June 2013
That is precisely the reason why you can't argue with a liberal, and why liberalism is a mental disorder. Not to say that they are mentally or socially retarded but most liberals have a twisted logic formed by some repressed memory, terrible event in the past, etc. (fill in an anecdote) Research suggests that it may be caused by the same root cause of most diseases (besides poor eating habits and the fact that all foods are poisoned by design these days), the failure to forgive someone who has wronged them in the past. Please apply some real thought to what I am saying. Or not and continue to be miserable. Hope deferred makes the heart sick.

So if one cannot argue that it is wrong to kill babies in any trimester and that gay marriage is morally wrong, that is if the proponent can't be convinced that these are deeply immoral issues, then any argument forged against these issues will fail every time. The proponent will fight hard against all opposition because this is the mantra of the socially liberal, that no one is right but them and morality is twisted to fit their ideals.

And if you really think that every thought and argument you taught is an original one, then you need to wake up. You are just regurgitating everything you hear on NPR, Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio, etc. The system is set up for us all to oppose one another so that we are kept busy with our socially important issues, our football games, our Judge TV and talk shows. Meanwhile this great country continues to slide into oblivion. But I forget that nobody cares about that because all they care about is getting one step closer to Sodom and Gomorrah (sorry about the Biblical reference, I couldn't resist), or their paradise on Earth.

Form a line here and sign up for your Soylent Green, it tastes a bit like chicken.

Fr. Mackelhenry (talk|edits) said:

29 June 2013
PROMETHEUS: Yes, I stopped mortals from foreseeing doom.

CHORUS: What cure did you discover for that sickness?

PROMETHEUS: I sowed in them blind hopes. (ll. 249-51)


Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound

(I wouldn't destroy a child's Christmas by exposing Santa Claus, but this is a board for adults in the year 2013.)

I am confident that the extreme people on the right will get over their heroin withdrawal symptoms from being unable to bash minorities in polite company. I mean, why should the blacks the women and the gays and the jews suffer just so some grown man can nurture his egotistic hopes?

The danger now is that as these men begin to feel the loss of their perceived power, they will turn back to women and to the jew to wreak their impotent vengence upon their old victims. The Bible will be used again as justification, of course. I mean in Hungary now the Neanderthals have returned. I don't think they ever left America, it's just that the country is a mighty big place and we can spread our Neanderthals out a little bit.

I mentioned the Christian Domestic Discipline movement last week. Is it an accident that it shows up in America right now? Yes it's a fringe group, but that's how all things start. I would say to the Jew and to the "little" woman: BOLO.

(Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary is the name of the Hungarian Group. The party describes itself as "a principled, conservative and radically patriotic Christian party" These men get together and nurse their pathetic and outdated hopes. It would not surprise me if a group like this popped up in America. The EO department over at the IRS needs to put this group on their list.)

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

30 June 2013
That is precisely the reason why you can't argue with a liberal,

Maybe you ought to pull the recent People magazine and read the story about the little boy name Niko. Or should I say little girl Nikki. I'm sure you would tell us that this child, all on his own, and at such a young age, just decided to be immoral by not agreeing with the gender that was assigned to him upon birth. Your argument is silly. To argue that we are all heteros and some of us simply decide to be gay, all on their own, with no prodding from the chemicals in their body or the external environment, is laughable. And, quite frankly, as someone pointed out above - How does this civil rights movement affect you anyway? It doesn't. So, you must have some deep-seated perceived reason for being so upset...the perceived disadvantage someone noted above.

Also, I really don't see this as a liberal or conservative argument. You see it that way because you got it all wrong. I myself like, and dislike, conservatives and liberals all the same.

You are just regurgitating everything you hear on NPR, Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio, etc.

I really don't know who you're talking about here, but surely, it can't be me. I don't watch, or listen to, any of that crap (other than NPR, which isn't crap, for the most part).

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

30 June 2013
That is precisely the reason why you can't argue with a liberal, and why liberalism is a mental disorder. Not to say that they are mentally or socially retarded but most liberals have a twisted logic formed by some repressed memory, terrible event in the past, etc. (fill in an anecdote).

I'm not a liberal, but I find this entire statement to be insulting, especially your use of the word 'retarded'.

We don't have the right to tell consenting, single, adults, that they can't get married, especially if the reasoning is Bible or religion based. In the U.S., we have separation of Church and State. Church can refuse to marry same sex couples, but they can't force that upon the State and the State cannot force the Church to marry same sex couples. Nor can a couple sue a Church for refusing to marry them.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
My apologies for the use of the word retarded, a more appropriate synonym should have been used. Maybe Spell Czech has a better synonym; inept? Anyway, yes, you are right that this issue eats at me and I have no legal argument; it is very personal. My 5-year-old, who thinks Daddy is "so not fashion" knows that there is something inherently wrong with a boy and a boy marrying, kissing, etc. Why does it bother me so? It just does. The same way it bothers a NY Senator why Americans (those who don't live in NY) are able to purchase a 30-round magazine black rifle for hunting.

I know separation of Church and State exists, my point was less legal than it is moral. I truly don't believe anyone is born gay, that behavior is learned (prodding from external environment) or set off by a very tragic shock to the psyche (chemicals in their body). Ephesians 5:31: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This Bible may seem like a silly book written by men designed to control feeble-minded men but I happen to think it is God's breathed word, if I didn't then I wouldn't have much of a purpose in this life. I truly have sympathy for those that choose this route and I really don't mean that in an offensive manner. I see it no different than one who is seeking love in the "wrong places" or a Christian who is struggling from sin. My point was the Courts do these people no favors by supporting their lifestyles (which I see as destructive) but the courts also allow other destructive behaviors (like allowing people to become CPAs); that part was a joke. :) I think many people treat the Bible as a harsh diet, too difficult to stay on that path so it is easy to abandon.

No hard feelings to any on this board, I truly learn much from what is shared here and I didn't mean to speak harshly. My apologies for the curt speech and for getting this topic....way off topic. Peace to all. And Chris, dump NPR...you are way too smart to listen to that stuff.

Fr. Mackelhenry (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I was looking at the pictures of the Pride parade down in Mexico city yesterday. The Lord had blessed them with what looked to me like the biggest celebration in the world. I don't see how the dark side is going to put the cap back on this bottle of pop.

Even the Catholic Church has a plan B for the 37 remaining states. Plan B will feature a push for civil unions instead of marriage. I think they will find that they've waited too long to push their plan B.

Of course, the elite of the magisterium could give a d*mn about gays anyway. A lot of them are gay. The only thing the church was ever worried about was a supply of new babies for the baptismal font. Now that gays are adopting babies (and there is an endless supply of them from the 3rd world) the Church is beginning to relax. There is now a huge importation of babies into the western countries that should keep the doors to the church open for years to come. The Catholic church can slow down its building program in the poor countries.

"I am confident that the extreme people on the right will get over their heroin withdrawal symptoms from being unable to bash minorities in polite company. I mean, why should the blacks the women and the gays and the jews suffer just so some grown man can nurture his egotistic hopes? "

On every one of these issues the Bible was pulled out to justify a boot to the neck of the minority.

The ugly history of the conservative church has finally caught up with it. I mean really, look at those pictures from Mexico City if you can find them. I don't see this kind of excitement being generated for a parade of conservative Christians. Besides, what's being played out here has never been about religion, it's always been about control.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
EADave, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that gay people are sinners (aren't we all?). But please show me another group of sinners who is prevented from being married. Even prisoners can get married and enjoy the 1,100-some benefits our Federal government confers on them.

If sinners shouldn't be allowed to get married, there would be no marriages at all. Even yours.

So your argument is absolutely without merit, and more particularly, shows your prejudice.

Fr. Mackelhenry (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
It wouldn't surprise me if James Dobson and his former partner, Minister Rekkers, didn't tiptoe through the tulips together in the old days. Some of us here may recall the double life of Minister Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. The claim of this type has always been that the devil made them do it; more of the same high drama (and comedy).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I'm also pretty sure that 'traditional Biblical marriage' was all about plural marriage. I Kings 11:1-7 tells us that Solomon had 700 wives. He certainly wasn't the only one with a 'traditional Biblical marriage' of having multiple spouses. King David's wives are listed in 2 Samuel 3:2-5.

Society over the years has changed the definition of marriage to where in most cultures, only one wife is allowed. (But not in all cultures.) I'm wondering what right those people had to change the definition of marriage? And they certainly didn't base that change on the Bible.

In the genealogy of Christ, I don't know who would be more important as a role than Kings David and Solomon. Surely God wouldn't have allowed Christ's ancestors to have had multiple wives if that was against God's will, would He? So anyone using the Bible to define 'traditional marriage' as one man and one woman is mistaken, misinformed, and ignorant of the Bible and certainly of Christ. No personal offense, you're just misinformed and mistaken.

Fr. Mackelhenry (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I am writing a research paper right now on the "big gun" and the "big magazine". What is this all about? I have noticed one man will buy a gun, and the man next to him will want a bigger gun, or he wants a bigger load than the fellow next to him or he wants more shots. I wouldn't take a child to a gun range any more than I would tell them the truth about Santa Claus.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
A question for the Biblical/Torah/Tanakh/Quran scholars: How many wives and how many concubines did Abraham have?

Fr. Mackelhenry (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
From what I understand now, they think the Bible was written backwards from Isaiah, and then forwards again; and that what became the Jewish faith was actually a collection of tall tales brought up from Egypt by 15 tribesmen from the territory of what is now Jordan. So I'm not even sure there was an Abraham. I wanted to get NMex's opinion about this and we can do it in the chat room I guess.

As Edith Hamilton said, Herodotus was a shrewd judge of the improbable:

"In the highest tower in Babylon, in the topmost chamber, there is a great couch on which god himself is reported to sleep. So the priests told me, but I do not believe it."

A wise man was Herodotus.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
One time at the gun range, I saw a man hold another man's big gun up to the sun and admire its length and heft, and comment on how well it had been lubricated. He said that the gun "had not been over-oiled, and had just the right amount of lubrication on it and no rust."

I thought at the time that I'd rather die than have my gun go rusty. I'm mostly mechanical.

MWPXYZ (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
"I'm also pretty sure that 'traditional Biblical marriage' was all about plural marriage."

"Surely God wouldn't have allowed Christ's ancestors to have had multiple wives if that was against God's will, would He?"

It seem you ignore progressive revelation (Hebrews 1:1,2), and Matthew chapter 19 (which is not just about divorce, it lays the foundation via defining marriage for God's hatred of divorce). Remember God allowed divorce (because of hard hearts) and He wasn't too happy with David's and Solomon's choices, either. One's behavior in following, or trying to follow, Christ is going to be a lot different than merely doing what God allows.

Regarding the application of tax law: is it possible that the definition of "people" is the same as "persons" under most state laws or the 14th amendment?

Wiles (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
Many laws, especially those that intend to prohibit certain human behavior are based upon morality, what is right and wrong. For those that believe there is a God, I believe they have 3 positions to take about whether or not their society should should have laws that prohibit sins. (1) Society should have no laws that prohibit sins, (2) Society should have laws that prohibit all sins, or (3) Society should have laws that prohibit some sins.

If you are a Christian, then you will likely find yourself taking that 3rd position. You need to ask yourself, "How do we decide which sins society should have laws against?" If it is by popular vote or through our elected representatives, then you probably need to start embracing that 1st position. Simply because something is a sin is not sufficient to make it illegal. Therefore, forget political action and spend your efforts working with the individual. It is far better to help an individual gain an understanding of God, acknowledge their sins and work to stop that behavior, than to pass a law against it.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I've been doing some calculations on the back of a napkin since we've been talking here this morning, and here is the sorry state of affairs I come up with.

Between all the gay men, and our other "men" who spend most of their time admiring and buying "big guns" and firing off skeet at the range, and oiling their bazookas for action, and sniffing Hoppes No. 9 like there was no tommorrow (see Poppers), and teaching the young men how to "shoot" too, and after all that, and after the last symbolic tallywhacker is fired off for the day, then some of them self-load and oil up again to shoot the next day.

Brother, that's the real America; and I come up with a grand total of 32 straight men left in the country, and all of them Eskimos.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I think you nailed it Gazoo. I saw an article in a psychologist's office last week that many of our young men today can't get an erection if they don't get in the groove first with a sniff or two of Hoppes 9.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
That's the reason they raise such a ruckus when the government threatens to change or interfere with the American gun show.

The men are not content to play with their own gun anymore, by cracky they want to get together today and show off their guns to each other at the "Gun Show". Who's got the biggest gun with the most powerful load is a question on every man's lips at the show. It's where you can go to get a good feel for the "sport", and admire another man's tool, and toy with it and play with it and work out a trade if it suits you.

I've seen some of them at the show with their tongues hanging out and their mouths a'watering over the man with the top gun of the day, of course I can only report what I've seen on the TV.

I am a Martian, and for what the good Lord took from us in height, he gave back to us in extra "gun", and I won't go to a show just to embarrass an earthling.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
As far as legislating or judging what is 'sin', please do refer back to Lawrence vs. Texas, where the Supreme Court already decided that the government has no business snooping in people's bedrooms. That was, what, 10 years ago?

It certainly is no sin to get married. So all of the 'sin' arguments against marriage are also misguided, misinformed, and without merit.

At one time, many people in the US thought it would be a sin to allow women to vote.

And at one time, many people in the US thought it would be a sin to allow two people of different races to marry. Apparently it wasn't a sin for the married master to have sex with his slave, though. Oh no, that was expected and accepted. "Sin" is always what other folks do who you are trying to justify a reason to marginalize as less a person as yourself.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
In the old days, our conservative friends used to complain about the gay men painting the town red and staying out to all hours and moving from affair to affair. "These men need to slow down and live right."

Now the gay men want to get married and settle down and they complain about that too. The good poeple of America should not take moral advice from a bunch of Hoppe's sniffers and gun lovers. *wink* I know what that is all about. The nerve of these people.

Women and men, all of you, cast off your chains. The curtain of Oz is in tatters. It's been in tatters. We won't have a charlatan pulling the levers and the wool over our eyes any more. The smoke and mirrors and the lies of the Great Oz have now worn thin. If Oz wants the witch dead, let him do the deed; I won't work for him on account of fear. We have one life to live free, and the clock is ticking. Take the responsibility to live free, and expect the darts and arrows to come your way for a'doing it.

Before I was born, I lived in the shadow of death, but I had no fear. The only nobility I will ever have is to live free and true and responsibly in the shadow of my death.

Rejoice! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFPwm0e_K98

Wiles (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
"Sin" is always what other folks do who you are trying to justify a reason to marginalize as less a person as yourself.

Sin is any willful action that is in violation of God's will & nature. It separates mankind from his/(her) intended & ideal relationship with God. If there is no God, then there is no Sin. If there is a God, then there is Sin.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
No offense at all Kevin, I respectfully disagree with your most humble opinions (sarcasm intended). I will just press on with my prejudiced mindset, continue to proceed with my weekend tradition of gay bashing and marching against all Civil Rights that don't align with my misinformed mind (more sarcasm) and I will just say Vaya con Yehovah (no sarcasm intended) to you sir and I will continue to forever be in awe of your enlightened advice sir (a bit sarcastic but mostly cynicism with a dash of right back at ya disrespect but always brotherly love).

Thank you Wiles for your comments, your words are most wise.

It's good to know where people stand. I will keep my future personal opinions silent to not stir the hornets nest (save for the comment above, sorry its been a long time coming but now I am finished).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
Wiles, certainly your definition of 'sin' is correct. I was merely pointing out that people like to pick and choose what they believe should be the sins deserving of mention versus sins deserving of vehement protest. They don't seem to give much credence to what Christ said was important (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40&version=NIV).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
EADave, I think that if you and I (and others) take religion/sin out of the discussion, and focus on the tax implications of the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA, we will be able to agree on much more than that on which we disagree. Truce?

EADave (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
No love lost at all sir, it's that Texas redneck coming out of me from time to time. Old habits due hard.

I really would like to know the implications for States that do not follow Federal law, how this plays out with a same sex couple that chooses to file jointly. Oddly enough I have a few same sex couples (which are very dear clients to me) that would benefit greatly from this Court case. In every instance with my clients one TP is the breadwinner and the other TP earns very little, little enough to qualify as a qualifying relative.

TX has no income tax return, Federal law now allows same sex marriages, Texas doesn't recognize same sex marriages but does that have any bearing on th Federal tax return. My brain is mush.

Kevin, you are a big ball of awesome sir, my apologies for being haughty and crude. I respect your opinion sir. Truce indeed.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
EADave, I respect you also. And certainly meant no harm.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
Texas doesn't recognize same sex marriages but does that have any bearing on th Federal tax return.

I think the consensus is "no," it doesn't matter. As long as the marriage ceremony was held in a state that does permit same-sex marriages, these couples should be fine.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
I wonder how long it will take for the IRS to release guidance, I have heard at least 30 days from the closing if the case. Then again it could be longer because the IRS has been extremely busy making Star Trek videos and playing favorites for big IT contracts.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Ever see the Gilligan's Island IRS video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zU2BxRw9_Q

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
...and playing favorites for big IT contracts. I must have missed that one. Got a link? It interests me.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Link to IT case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/irs-strong-castle_n_3498815.html

I personally would like to either see an I Love Lucy or Munsters episode, although Gilligan's Island was a favorite as a kiddo.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Where have you been, Lenny?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57591030/probe-irs-contractor-won-up-to-$500-million-in-questionable-bids/

EADave (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
The company in the IT "scandal" was a respectable $250K gross per annum kind of outfit. This deal pushed their GR to $500 million, sources say because of the CEO's relationship (good buds) with a top IRS purchasing agent. Interesting.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
I've heard a little bit on the inside about this...and it doesn't sound good at all.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Thanks for the link.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2013/06/26/irs-official-won-testify-contracting-probe/cksPfrj2fr8d7k6N795moL/story.html

Here's another one - Another 5th Amendment pleading, just like Lerner, who they might actually go after for contempt.

EADave (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Woah! The part when the Senator with two lost limbs (war injury) questions this guy about his ankle injury at a military academy (he applied for VA benefits), hard not to say "Oh, snap!" Is that too street?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
...disaster for the IRS. This is what happens when you give a little bit of power to some people. They can't handle it. I'm sure secret investigations are already underway to figure out what the kickbacks were.

MassTaxPro (talk|edits) said:

July 2, 2013
I should have commented earlier on how warm and gratifying it was to see this thread started with a stream of congratulations. If anyone had suggested to me thirty years ago that I'd be legally married in the US eventually, I'd have laughed.

The nature vs nurture debate is irrelevant, because either way, it's still not a conscious, deliberate choice. I'm not stupid, I grew up wanting to have a nice Jewish family, why would I choose yet another reason to be a victim of discrimination and live outside what was then the accepted norms of the community? It took me several years of struggle to accept that I am what I am. Nor can people who are truly gay readily change. To borrow from the lyrics of Trey Parker, et al., this is not something that you can turn off like a light switch. (If you look at some of the so-called success stories, such as the 1979 Masters and Johnson book, you find people who had engaged in same-sex behavior for reasons other than being innately gay; that's a different situation.)

I am, however, bothered by the premise that there is a "Judeo-Christian ethic". The Jewish approach to biblical law is quite different from the Christian, and in particular, it's always been the case that Judaism never characterized being Jewish as the only route to salvation. Worse, the term "Judeo-Christian" ethic is often used to seize ownership of concepts that are quite universal, and not at all limited to just these two groups of religion. Neither Judaism nor Christianity have any sort of monopoly on ideals such as honesty or prohibitions against murder or theft. On the other hand, things like the prohibition against polygamy aren't an inherent part of Jewish law, but instead date back to a Rabbinic decree in the Middle Ages - a decree that was never accepted by the eastern Sephardic Jews. So, while Israel prohibits new plural marriages, people who were in existing polygamous marriages in countries such as Yemen, and who moved as a family to Israel, still have their marriage respected.

In the United States, notwithstanding accidents of history where religious laws were erroneously allowed a civil law presence, we do not turn to individual religions for legal guidance and should not permit the laws of a subset of religions to control our public laws. You are free to use your religious beliefs to guide your own behavior and that of your religious community, but that's where the line ends. If one is going to argue that something must be legislated by reference to religious doctrine, one had better be prepared to show some universality of the doctrine across all religions.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Wow, that was really good.

In the United States, notwithstanding accidents of history where religious laws were erroneously allowed a civil law presence, we do not turn to individual religions for legal guidance and should not permit the laws of a subset of religions to control our public laws.

Our founding fathers got it right - separate the church from the state. Pretty much every country that has failed to do this is, well, an absolute disaster. Our founding fathers envisioned a place where people would come from all over the place - with a divergence of beliefs. So, the only way to make such a melting pot work would be to accept them all, in terms of freedom of practice, but reject them all when it came to governance. And instead, govern by what is universally true - be nice to people, don't damage or destroy people, property or society. Everything else is fair game. I tend to think this is the backbone of all religions. But then again, it's hard to tell what religion is these days, being so fragmented and all.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
What we need today is another wall, which is a wall of separation between corporation and state. But I'm not holding my breath for it to happen. Hold on. I was wrong. My wish would make Koch's wish come true. He wouldn't have to spend on what we politely call lobbying anymore, and the government couldn't regulate him.

When I was young, I mentioned to my preacher that I approved of the close friendship between Jonathan and David, he told me to never mention that to him again and that they were both just going through a phase. Maybe they were, but you can get a lot of mileage out of a phase if you know what you're doing.

The good news for modern man is that God permitted his children to dabble in the arts of love and he even gave David the good housekeeping seal as a man after his own heart.

My preacher threw a big (alcohol free) party for the whole church when I went away for college. My leaving was like a second coming for the man. He had faced down the apocolypse and lived to party another day. (When I say party, I mean a Godly party.)

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
For those that believe there is a God, I believe they have 3 positions to take about whether or not their society should should have laws that prohibit sins. (1) Society should have no laws that prohibit sins, (2) Society should have laws that prohibit all sins, or (3) Society should have laws that prohibit some sins.

I so love when it returns to religion as the basis, and the bible. I have no issue with religious people, I do have issue with the church and the true reasons they exist. I was born Lutheran and am now Methodist, but I am not overly religious, but I enjoy the study of religion. I love talking to people about it. The church on the other hand is simply there to try and control the masses.

If you look at most religions and the way they changed over time. It is all about amassing power, control and money. Most truly have the same basic tenets. Methodism believes that sin is inherent within us and that we will never escape it. That you try to control and live the good life. Catholics believe you can do whatever the heck you want then go to confession and wipe your sins away. You cannot tell me that Al Capone can do the things he did and then on his deathbed confess and get a free pass. Can't believe it.

Then you have the religions where you can buy your way in. I forget the timeframe and the religion, but only so many souls allowed in. It's going to be awfully funny if there is a God and only one of these religions is right.

This is why there is separation, because whose religion is right? The one with the most power of course. Come on now.

As to whether one chooses or not, whether it is an abomination or not, when you take religion away then it's a discussion on being a sin. What other argument is there? So, this sin is ok, but this one is not.

I also hate the labeling of people as liberals or conservatives. How about being about individual issues. I deal with issues, not labels and definitely not parties. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe that we should have universal health care. I believe that a full on free economy is not a good thing. I believe that Corporations should not be big enough to become a nation-state. We needed that in the old days for economies of scale, not so anymore. I believe if you're on welfare, you SHOULD be working for the State. I don't care if you are embarrassed. We get to caught up in people's pride. If you don't want to work, go to the damn soup kitchen. I have friends who work in DSS and give out food stamps. Sickening the stories you get and the DSS employees get in trouble if they ask people why they can't find a job.

We're supposed to be a pretty educated group here. We are not supposed to be the sheep blindly accepting what the mainstream media outlets feed you. Let's get away from labels and begin thinking about what is right.

And yes, I ramble and switch gears. I hope that's not a sin. lol

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

13 July 2013
http://www.bna.com/irs-examining-doma-n17179875157/

In what may be for some taxpayers a welcome indication of congressional intent, 31 senators called on the Obama administration July 11 to act swiftly in ensuring that all “legally-married, same-sex couples are treated equally under Federal law regardless of where they live.”

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

13 July 2013
so, the problem I see DOMA or not DOMA has little to do with hetero/homo sexuality. I don't think marriage is or should be regulated by law - period, with any rights an benefits of being married or unmarried for tax law purposes. People who choose to be married can be, people who don't choose to don't get married, no matter what their sexuality. Tax consequences should have nothing to do with the decision. That's the way it would be if I Ran the Zoo.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

13 July 2013
Your ideas are consistent with what Tkelly wrote above:

Professor Patricia Cain of the Santa Clara University Law School. Professor Cain is one of the nation's leading experts and scholars in this area. In her latest post discussing the Windsor decision she makes a very interesting observation that perhaps it is time to re-think the policy of linking marital status to taxation in the first place, and also acknowledges the uncertainty of just who will be considered married and who will not be considered married for federal tax purposes.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

15 July 2013
Marriage as an institution has many societal effects, some valuable others less so. But one thing marriage does is to protect the mother of young children from becoming a financial burden on the State.

The legal obligation of child support is not dependent on the marital state but alimony is. I personally think, and I believe society mostly agrees, that children of tender years must have constant supervision which is exceedingly difficult to do if you are a single mother who must work to support herself and cannot afford child care. But alimony is grounded in the duty to support one's spouse, both during the marriage and after divorce. That has to affect tax treatment to be even approximately just.

I also am not comfortable with the idea that a man (and it's usually the man) can leave a marriage with the increase in wealth that he enjoys through his own efforts but also through the domestic efforts of his wife. There's a legitimate, taxable property interest that has to be recognized.

I too would like to see the State out of the marriage business but I don't think it can be done without devising something to replace it that will look an awful lot like marriage by another name.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

15 July 2013
I'm not saying there shouldn't be marriage, only that it shouldn't be rewarded or penalized via taxes, insurance or otherwise. It just shouldn't be part of the equation. The choice to marry should be independent of these factors. As far as children of single parents. I think the term "illegitimate" referring to a child is offensive.

MassTaxPro (talk|edits) said:

July 15, 2013
Another tidbit: Back before the MFJ tables were invented, or at least first set so that the tax rate was split across the then-typical single-breadwinner and spouse, the state of Oklahoma observed that many of their wealthier families (due to the oil boon) were moving across the border into Texas, to take advantage of the effective lower tax rate due to community property rules. The response of the OK government was to implement their own form of community property (which I think was knocked down, since it was explicitly designed to manipulate the federal income tax - but that may have been a different state; OK is the only one I remember for sure that tried it).

The implication is that if you're going to do away with government recognition of marriage for tax purposes, then you'll probably need to do what the federal government wasn't willing to do back then, namely allow community property laws to determine who was taxed on which income. Otherwise, there will be big inequities in taxation between the community property and non-community property states.

Or the rest of the states could just follow Wisconsin's 1984 lead by enacting their own, modern era community property regimes.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

18 July 2013
PA permits joint filing for convenience but not calculation. Each person is taxed on their separate income. They also don't believe in losses of any kind (short & sweet version of rules).

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

20 July 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-18/the-irss-gay-marriage-tax-problem

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools