IRS recognizes same-sex mariages in all states

[JakeStarkey]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

 

[bodecea]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

Good it will be on public record and give address.
Love it.

 

[NightFox]

Check the IRS Information Release again. It does not apply to civil unions or registered partnerships. But it does apply to anyone who is legally married in another jurisdiction who moves to a state that does not recognize such marriages. A same-sex couple married in Massachussetts who move to Georgia will file a married joint return for their 2013 federal income tax.

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

Like 'separate but equal,' you mean?

No, what I meant was;

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;" -- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

The game is over for your 'separate but equal' fascists, bigrebnc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is the legal and recorded commitment of two individuals to love and sustain one another come what may.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "high morality" states practice separate but equal, right, bigrebnc?

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

The game is over for your 'separate but equal' fascists, bigrebnc.

God will take care of that.
Just like he did at Sodom
Live it up your time is short.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How does this affect revenue for those States that don't recognize gay marriage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The IRS departments of those states would have to audit the married returns one by one.

They don't have the manpower for it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

"Separate but equal" terms isn't that bad an idea as a transition, but over time all State governments and the people will be referring to it as "marriage" anyway.



>>>>

Just to be clear using the word "marriage" doesn't bother me personally in the least bit, however I do understand where more traditional people are coming from when they say that it bothers them and given that the opinions of those citizens does matter when it comes to the redefinition of a traditional institution, I think it's both fair and (for those that want to achieve expansion of legal status) politically expedient.

I think you're exactly right though, this is just a step along the way to achieving complete equality in both practice and name before the law in all states.

I don't mind the term "marriage", but what creeps me out is hearing some dude refer to his partner as his "husband" [shiver] That's just plain weird.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How does this affect revenue for those States that don't recognize gay marriage?

Probably not at all, their revenues will remain flat as nothing changes.

On the other hand I remember reading about how states that have allowed SSCM have seen a revenue boost due to more commercial activity based on increased numbers of Civil Marriages. Not just more revenue from more licenses being purchased, but increased commercial activity (wedding chapels, florists, caterers, banquette halls, etc.) which then generates more sales tax.


So revenues would generally be up for both the private sector and for the government.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Naw, still have to get past the voters in a lot of states to legalize same sex marriage, which IMHO would be a lot easier in a number of states if those that want it legalized would call it something other than "marriage", like civil unions or something. It's subjective of course but I run into a lot of people that support same sex couples having all the same privileges and responsibilities of traditional married couples but object to redefining the word marriage, it's all about how you word it on the ballot measures.

Check the IRS Information Release again. It does not apply to civil unions or registered partnerships. But it does apply to anyone who is legally married in another jurisdiction who moves to a state that does not recognize such marriages. A same-sex couple married in Massachussetts who move to Georgia will file a married joint return for their 2013 federal income tax.

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

 

[Redfish]

Check the IRS Information Release again. It does not apply to civil unions or registered partnerships. But it does apply to anyone who is legally married in another jurisdiction who moves to a state that does not recognize such marriages. A same-sex couple married in Massachussetts who move to Georgia will file a married joint return for their 2013 federal income tax.

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

gays in committed two person relationships should have equal tax obligations with traditionally married couples.

Why not allow a "married" tax rate for two sisters or two brothers who are living together and sharing expenses and caring for each other? No sex, but a committed relationship. How about mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, cousins? Where does it end for you guys?

Is it the gay sex that makes it different?

 

[NightFox]

Check the IRS Information Release again. It does not apply to civil unions or registered partnerships. But it does apply to anyone who is legally married in another jurisdiction who moves to a state that does not recognize such marriages. A same-sex couple married in Massachussetts who move to Georgia will file a married joint return for their 2013 federal income tax.

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

I personally don't care what they call it and I'm not suggesting forcing anybody to do anything. What I'm suggesting is that if homosexuals want legal recognition of same sex marriage in the states where voters have so far rejected it that they may want to show some empathy for those that do have deeply held moral objections to redefining the traditional institution of marriage and accept a compromise where they get all the privileges and responsibilities under a different name.

Alternatively they can keep banging their heads into a brick wall and getting nowhere in those states.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

 

[JakeStarkey]

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

gays in committed two person relationships should have equal tax obligations with traditionally married couples.

Why not allow a "married" tax rate for two sisters or two brothers who are living together and sharing expenses and caring for each other? No sex, but a committed relationship. How about mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, cousins? Where does it end for you guys?

Is it the gay sex that makes it different?

It's too late for that. Even Bush supported the idea in 2004 and got booed down.

This is over.

 

[rightwinger]

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

gays in committed two person relationships should have equal tax obligations with traditionally married couples.

Why not allow a "married" tax rate for two sisters or two brothers who are living together and sharing expenses and caring for each other? No sex, but a committed relationship. How about mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, cousins? Where does it end for you guys?

Is it the gay sex that makes it different?

Is the concept of "love" outside your comprehension?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Night Fox, the problem with that is that so many of the reactionaries on the far right had no sympathies for decades for same sex folks.

We can't go back to what was not.

 

[Redfish]

What I'm suggesting is to call it something else but give it the same exact legal status in the state in which it takes place as traditional marriage so that those that want it expanded into additional states don't have to fight an uphill battle against people that would vote "YES" on it if it wasn't a redefinition of the word "marriage". Getting the tax code adjusted to include whatever verbiage XYZ state chooses to use isn't the main challenge involved in getting more states to recognize same sex "marriage" as legal.

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

I personally don't care what they call it and I'm not suggesting forcing anybody to do anything. What I'm suggesting is that if homosexuals want legal recognition of same sex marriage in the states where voters have so far rejected it that they may want to show some empathy for those that do have deeply held moral objections to redefining the traditional institution of marriage and accept a compromise where they get all the privileges and responsibilities under a different name.

Alternatively they can keep banging their heads into a brick wall and getting nowhere in those states.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

excellent logical suggestion---------but face it, thats not what the gays want. They want the government to FORCE those who object to gay marriage to accept and condone it or be punished. Its thought control at its worst.

This debate is not about equality-------its about government mandated societal change.

 

[Redfish]

You are free to call it anything you want

Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?

gays in committed two person relationships should have equal tax obligations with traditionally married couples.

Why not allow a "married" tax rate for two sisters or two brothers who are living together and sharing expenses and caring for each other? No sex, but a committed relationship. How about mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, cousins? Where does it end for you guys?

Is it the gay sex that makes it different?

Is the concept of "love" outside your comprehension?

Of course not, in my examples the people love each other, they just don't have sex with each other. Why should they be punished for not having sex?

read it again:
Why not allow a "married" tax rate for two sisters or two brothers who are living together and sharing expenses and caring for each other? No sex, but a committed relationship. How about mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, cousins? Where does it end for you guys?