Posted on 08/30/2013 9:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Same-sex couples who get a marriage license in a state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, but who live in a state that does not recognize their marriage, will be treated as a married couple for federal tax purposes, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced Thursday.
The change in tax policy came after the U.S. Supreme Court this Summer struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that says marriage will be defined as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.
The decision left unclear what it would mean for same-sex couples who married in one state but live in a state that does not recognize their marriage. It was left to the executive branch to decide many details about how the Supreme Court's decision would be implemented. Thursday's ruling, therefore, was the executive branch's clarification of the issue.
"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a press release. "This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change."
The ruling will apply to any part of the tax code that recognizes marriage. Civil unions, though, will not be recognized for tax purposes.
Same-sex couples can choose to, but are not required to, file an amended return for 2010, 2011 or 2012, and may receive a refund. Beginning with their 2013 tax filings, same-sex couples with a marriage license must file as either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately."
The ruling does not apply to state taxes. So, a same-sex couple that has been married in a state that has redefined marriage, but lives in a state that has not redefined marriage, would file as married for their federal taxes and as single for their state taxes.
Please read my comment with the real reasons fags want same sex marriage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3060665/posts?page=29#29
And is the fags who’ve made marriage a fedgov issue, not conservatives.
This will be pushed on to these states in all other areas: employer insurance, medicaid, state inheritance issues, etc. Count on it.
In a tragic, indirect sort of way, all this was Romney’s fault. First, for ushering in the new paradigm of “same-sex ‘marriage’” in America (yes, he did it - he didn’t have to); then, by running for president without a backbone to win, and destroying every other conservative candidate who could have won.
But, but.... the oh-so-wise liberaltarians and moderates said we shouldn't take that route unless absolutely necessary. NOW we can do it since it's necessary, right?
“And is the fags who’ve made marriage a fedgov issue, not conservatives.”
Is Habeaus Corpus a state issue?
Is Habeaus Corpus a state issue?
No.
https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/habeas_corpus/
Habeas Corpus
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”—Article I, Section IX of the U.S. Constitution
Habeas corpus, a fundamental tenet of English common law, does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Its importance was such that it was enshrined in the Constitution itself. And it is of such magnitude that all other rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, are dependent upon it. Without habeas corpus, the significance of all other rights crumbles.
The right of habeas corpus was important to the Framers of the Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is “in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny,” the Founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.
The History of Habeas Corpus
Translated as “you should have the body,” habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, by which those imprisoned unlawfully can seek relief from their imprisonment. Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government must either charge a person or let him go free.
While serving as President, Thomas Jefferson addressed the essential necessity of habeas corpus. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Jefferson said, “I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough.” But, said Jefferson, our nation was “the world’s best hope” and, because of our strong commitment to democracy, “the strongest government on earth.” Jefferson said that the sum of this basic belief was found in the “freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”
In the two centuries since the Constitution was ratified, habeas corpus has only been suspended twice. It was first suspended on April 27, 1861, in Maryland and parts of midwestern states by President Abraham Lincoln in response to riots and local militia action, as well as the threat that Maryland would secede from the Union. The second suspension of habeas corpus occurred during Reconstruction, in the early 1870s, when President Ulysses S. Grant responded to civil rights violations by the Ku Klux Klan. It was then limited to nine counties in South Carolina.
Throughout the twentieth century, the importance of the right of habeas corpus has repeatedly been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And one federal appeals court observed that the Supreme Court has “recognized the fact that ‘[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.’”
(excerpt)
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”—Article I, Section IX of the U.S. Constitution
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html
Take a gander at this.
Yeah, you must have seen me there wielding all my influence with justice kennedy. Maybe I can have him give you a shout out in the next opinion he writes.
Yep, must have been those queers decades ago that put all those tax exemptions for passing on assets to the spouse and all the other special treatment for married people. Crafty buggers they are, laying all that ground work while calling it family values and whatnot.
Seriously guys...conservatives helped make that mess. Own it, learn from it and move on. Or keep shaking your first at the sky and looking for someone else to blame for your own short sightedness.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Amazing how a tiny percentage of the population who define themselves solely by perverted sexual practices now run the show. For how long, though?
If anyone wants on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.
BTW accusations that "we" who are opposed to pretending that marriage means two perverts of the same sex "marrying" each other want a Huge Nanny Fedgov - your argument that the fedgov should "stay out of marriage" is specious.
You know the ones who made it a fedgov issues? Guess.
Mentally ill sex perverts, that's who.
Your arguments not only don’t hold water, they don’t hold anything but exhalations from dope smokers.
Marriage has been recognized as a distinct legal state for millenia.
Libertarians and leftists are the reason why fags have any power at all.
Own it! Love it! Marry it!
It’s a mental illness and they’re working to infect all of us.
Not quite. The worst of it took place when Marx and the French exported their bad ideas. It makes sense - planning works and worked for the American corporate barons of the 19th century. It generated so much wealth for them that people left the poverty of the farms and worked in factories. Why?
Safer for one. Get injured on a farm and you face death, in a factory you have a chance and people will know. Pay was better along with the benefits of living in cities.
But, “do-gooders” only saw filth, tenements, immigrants and poverty. The same as existed out in the country, but invisibly. Then the first Roosevelt started his campaign for “progress” and a few idiots later you’ve got today.
Thanks.
That’s only partly correct. Conservatives allowed the Feds to pass the Edmunds Act. That lead us directly to where we are today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act
Followed closely by the even worse and more egregious Edmunds-Tuckers Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
The irony that Christian persecution of heretics gave us international Islamism and, eventually, homosexual (& everything else) marriage shouldn’t’ be lost on a single Christian conservative.
We shouldn’t be using the government to make people live how we want them to. That’s what our brains and prayer are for.
I don’t see that making polygamy illegal as a bad thing.
Your claim that “Christian persecution of heretics gave us international Islamism and, eventually homosexual (& everything else) marriage”.
How you get from “a” to “z” is a mystery. By “persecuting heretics” are you referring to your second link, or something else? Mormons are odd cult and they were engaging in some pretty nefarious acts including criminal ones and I reeeeeally don’t think either one of those acts you link to have a single solitary thing to do with the homo agenda or Islamic jihad, which has been around for 1400 years. BTW Islam has been internationally conquering, terrorizing, mass slaughtering and forcibly concverting since 700 AD.
Oh please. Get off your big government high horse. You hypocritical prudes are going to need the libertarians if for no other reason than to negotiate with the anarchists. You guys will eventually realize the demographics corner you're painted into. No one else will stand by your side for gun rights and lower taxes. Or you can let the Leftists have their way with you. Doesn't really matter to libertarians. We'll be treated just as badly by them as we are by you.
Where am I on a big gov high horse?
Please explain, since I object to the fedgov forcing fag “marriage” on any states.
Oh, you used the word “demographics”. So you think soon everyone in the US will either be a fag or luv fags.
You could not be more wrong, buddy. Speaking of buds, maybe you’re a doper, many libertarians are. That explains your complete lack of any shred of rational cognitive thinking.
Do a little search on the Monophysites and the Ghassanids - another “odd cult”, “engaging in some pretty nefarious acts”. The Byzantines persecuted them into the hands of Islam.
If you think that marriage is a federal issue and religious freedom isn’t then by all means celebrate laws that target specific religions for their religious practices. That’s not Constitutional, at least not per the American Constitution. It’s the entire reason America exists - religious liberty, the freedom of thought and conscience.
We’re paying dearly for those 19th century sins against religious practices. The issue of marriage isn’t a federal question, it isn’t a national question it’s a question of religious liberty, the freedom of thought and conscience.
Homosexual marriage is a farce, but federal interference in what amount to thought crimes and religious practices is quite directly the cause of today’s trauma. There’s little federal action you can look to reverse if you think those cases are Constitutional.
Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States#Religious_Duty_argument
The Court didn’t look to the Constitution, which is patently clear, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, instead they looked to the letters of Thomas Jefferson. They equated polygyny which is Biblical and God has condoned in the past with human sacrifice which [Judeo-Christian] God has always condemned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States#Religious_Duty_argument
In short, they twisted the Constitution to fit a popular view. Take a read of the proceedings:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Here’s a short summary: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0
Now what if government outlawed a religious action, like proselytizing, but not an opinion? Replace polygamy with proselytizing or baptizing or prayer and you’ll see, perhaps more clearly why it’s bad law and why we continue to suffer under it today.
Our public school system was born of the same manipulative intent to control the human mind. It’s a bad idea all around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
