Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Finally! I've been filing joint CA taxes for years...now Fed too!!! Woo freaking hoo!
Finally! I've been filing joint CA taxes for years...now Fed too!!! Woo freaking hoo!
These are indeed exciting times for all Americans wishing to see the comprehensive implementation of the Framers original intent: citizens free to express their individual liberty absent interference by the state.
The IRS decision not only puts the Agency in compliance with Windsor, but manifest an important precedent for other public services agencies.
Finally! I've been filing joint CA taxes for years...now Fed too!!! Woo freaking hoo!
These are indeed exciting times for all Americans wishing to see the comprehensive implementation of the Framers original intent: citizens free to express their individual liberty absent interference by the state.
The IRS decision not only puts the Agency in compliance with Windsor, but manifest an important precedent for other public services agencies.
Except that's not how the US Supreme Court just interpreted the Constitution. Instead of holding up deviant sexuality, including polygamy [because how can you discriminate one from the other, right?] as a "race" with "undeniable rights" as to marriage, the Court instead interpreted the US Constitution retroactive to the founding of the country to say that each state has a right to consensus, to pick amongst the many the vote of "yes" or "no" on gay marriage.
Sorry, only the US Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Try again next time. Gay marriage has never been legal in CA. Get married in one of the only 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal gay marriage June 2013.
Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it
not after we invade syria and russia takes us over
The Framers' blocked the deviant fascism of Silhouette, not permitting her personal beliefs to trump others.
Silhouette's civil and religious liberty are in no way infringed on by same sex marriage.
The Framers' blocked the deviant fascism of Silhouette, not permitting her personal beliefs to trump others.
Silhouette's civil and religious liberty are in no way infringed on by same sex marriage.
And he has every right to hate homosexuals, however irrational.
But he does not have the right to attempt to codify that hate.
The Framers' blocked the deviant fascism of Silhouette, not permitting her personal beliefs to trump others.
Silhouette's civil and religious liberty are in no way infringed on by same sex marriage.
And he has every right to hate homosexuals, however irrational.
But he does not have the right to attempt to codify that hate.
there is no hate involved. this is not about hate. you libs always resort to calling people haters if they don't agree with your liberal agenda.
the truth is that you are the haters, you hate anyone who dares think for themselves.
And he has every right to hate homosexuals, however irrational.
But he does not have the right to attempt to codify that hate.
there is no hate involved. this is not about hate. you libs always resort to calling people haters if they don't agree with your liberal agenda.
the truth is that you are the haters, you hate anyone who dares think for themselves.
Calling other tax paying citizens "deviants" for the consenting adult they congress with and wanting to deny those citizens simple equality shows hate. You can't spin that as "disagreement".
I get what you're doing, the old "if I show enough entities "recognize" "gay marriage" then it will become real."IRS will recognize same-sex marriages, even if states do not - The Maddow Blog
IRS will recognize same-sex marriages, even if states do not
I imagine if you're a far-right culture warrior, today is one of those days you probably wish you hadn't gotten out of bed. The Obama administration's Department of Health and...
By Steve Benen|The Rachel Maddow
Just because a lot of people recognized cocaine users, doen't mean its legalization will become real..lol..
I'll, let you in on a little hint. If I married my dog and money was involved, the IRS would recognize that to if it meant a reason to glean away or keep tabs on extra cash. The IRS does not either trump the recent US Supreme Court finding that Prop 8's consensus in California was its legal and constitutional right. SCOTUS is it. The law. The last stop in on the train tracks. They said this right was retroactive to the founding of the country. Both Prop 8 and Prop 22 were lawfully decided thereby with consensus since the founding of the country. They are, therefore, the law. Article III in the CA state constitution mandates that no official there may refuse to enforce the iniatives once they are lawfully enacted. So, as we speak, Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown are in full contempt and violation of their state's constitution and in contempt of the US Supreme Court.
The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..
In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.
They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.
Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times. Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other
An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.
In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.
The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:
Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry
A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.
Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?
there is no hate involved. this is not about hate. you libs always resort to calling people haters if they don't agree with your liberal agenda.
the truth is that you are the haters, you hate anyone who dares think for themselves.
Calling other tax paying citizens "deviants" for the consenting adult they congress with and wanting to deny those citizens simple equality shows hate. You can't spin that as "disagreement".
I don't recall using the word "deviant". I did use "aberration" because thats what homosexuality is, thats not an insult it is merely a statement of fact.
Calling other tax paying citizens "deviants" for the consenting adult they congress with and wanting to deny those citizens simple equality shows hate. You can't spin that as "disagreement".
I don't recall using the word "deviant". I did use "aberration" because thats what homosexuality is, thats not an insult it is merely a statement of fact.
Self absorbed much? Clayton was talking about Silhouette when he was talking about hate but you just had to make this all about you didn't you?
Self absorbed much? Clayton was talking about Silhouette when he was talking about hate but you just had to make this all about you didn't you?
Self absorbed much? Clayton was talking about Silhouette when he was talking about hate but you just had to make this all about you didn't you?
Ever read the allegory "Never Cry Wolf"? People are weary of the "if you disagree with anything of the gay subculture, you're a "hater" routine...
Routine...
Routine...
zzzzzzz......
Does that change the recent Supreme Court Ruling Upholding retroactively to the founding of the country, each and every single sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus [to say "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage? No. Prop 8 is Upheld as legal consensus. Sorry. All lower rulings since the founding of the country in conflict with the recent and most Supreme Ruling are null and void. Check with your attorney and marry in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal "gay marriage".
Self absorbed much? Clayton was talking about Silhouette when he was talking about hate but you just had to make this all about you didn't you?
Ever read the allegory "Never Cry Wolf"? People are weary of the "if you disagree with anything of the gay subculture, you're a "hater" routine...
Routine...
Routine...
zzzzzzz......
Does that change the recent Supreme Court Ruling Upholding retroactively to the founding of the country, each and every single sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus [to say "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage? No. Prop 8 is Upheld as legal consensus. Sorry. All lower rulings since the founding of the country in conflict with the recent and most Supreme Ruling are null and void. Check with your attorney and marry in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal "gay marriage".
Nope...the SCOTUS only ruled on the "Yes" states. They punted the "No" state back to the lower court...whose ruling was?
Self absorbed much? Clayton was talking about Silhouette when he was talking about hate but you just had to make this all about you didn't you?
Ever read the allegory "Never Cry Wolf"? People are weary of the "if you disagree with anything of the gay subculture, you're a "hater" routine...
Routine...
Routine...
zzzzzzz......
Does that change the recent Supreme Court Ruling Upholding retroactively to the founding of the country, each and every single sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus [to say "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage? No. Prop 8 is Upheld as legal consensus. Sorry. All lower rulings since the founding of the country in conflict with the recent and most Supreme Ruling are null and void. Check with your attorney and marry in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal "gay marriage".
Nope...the SCOTUS only ruled on the "Yes" states. They punted the "No" state back to the lower court...whose ruling was?
Ever read the allegory "Never Cry Wolf"? People are weary of the "if you disagree with anything of the gay subculture, you're a "hater" routine...
Routine...
Routine...
zzzzzzz......
Does that change the recent Supreme Court Ruling Upholding retroactively to the founding of the country, each and every single sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus [to say "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage? No. Prop 8 is Upheld as legal consensus. Sorry. All lower rulings since the founding of the country in conflict with the recent and most Supreme Ruling are null and void. Check with your attorney and marry in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal "gay marriage".
Nope...the SCOTUS only ruled on the "Yes" states. They punted the "No" state back to the lower court...whose ruling was?
off topic, but your avatar chart is totally wrong. You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID in any state. illegal sales can take place without an ID.
Typical of the misinformation from the gay left.
Ever read the allegory "Never Cry Wolf"? People are weary of the "if you disagree with anything of the gay subculture, you're a "hater" routine...
Routine...
Routine...
zzzzzzz......
Does that change the recent Supreme Court Ruling Upholding retroactively to the founding of the country, each and every single sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus [to say "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage? No. Prop 8 is Upheld as legal consensus. Sorry. All lower rulings since the founding of the country in conflict with the recent and most Supreme Ruling are null and void. Check with your attorney and marry in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized as having legal "gay marriage".
Nope...the SCOTUS only ruled on the "Yes" states. They punted the "No" state back to the lower court...whose ruling was?
what did the people of CA vote for----twice?
