If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Many same-sex couples may pay more in taxes after they get married. Heterosexual couples: "We told you so"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 90
    More: Followup, marriage penalty, child tax credit, income taxes  
•       •       •

2141 clicks; posted to Business » on 29 Jun 2013 at 10:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-30 02:31:44 AM  

Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite


After 13 years of progress since Matthew Shepherd, I'll take the inevitability of national SSM as a sign we're finally acting like adults about gay lifestyles.
 
2013-06-30 02:50:18 AM  

dirkfunk: Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

After 13 years of progress since Matthew Shepherd, I'll take the inevitability of national SSM as a sign we're finally acting like adults about gay lifestyles.


This.

Though, my grandparents still think I'm going through a phase, even though I've been out for 12 years.

/will be ex-communicated from the Mormon church too. What fun!

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: There's already a more complicated case going  on.  Thomas Beatie (the so called "pregnant man" and his wife filed for divorce earlier this year in Arizona (where they had moved to at some point in the last few years).


Yup, I'm familiar. I had an existential crisis for a little while, because he represents my ultimate "cake and eat it too" scenario. The only problem is, I can't be guaranteed as good results as he got, and I'd lose my fiancé in the process. Too high a price to pay for questionable return.

/I can always be male in my dreams
 
2013-06-30 07:10:20 AM  
And a single income, head of household parent pays the same rate as the double-income married couples so STFU.
 
2013-06-30 07:19:52 AM  

Pincy: Fark_Guy_Rob: In my experience, there is very little financial reason to get married; but there is a lot of increased risk.

Hey, don't assume the rest of us will make the same bad decisions you did.


Umm - I didn't assume anything about anyone's decisions, good or bad.

Single people are their own legal entity.
Married people are mostly a combined legal entity.

If I'm living with my girlfriend, *I* could strategically default on debts, declare bankruptcy and suffer a loss of credit....but my girlfriend would be unaffected by this.  If I'm living with my wife, it isn't the same.

Sure, maybe you'll never need to file for bankruptcy, or countless other government programs, but the way these things are written, you almost always, end up with fewer options if you are married.

Take student loans....

If my wife is a full-time student and I'm a full-time employee - if she were to apply for student loans, she would need to declare everything *I* make, everything she makes, and every asset (excluding a home, if we own one).  And those figures would be used to determine how much loan money she would be eligible for.

If my girlfriend is a full-time student and I'm a full-time employee - she can file by herself.  She doesn't need to provide any of my information, or my assets.

There's also the undeniable fact that it is very, very easy to get married and much harder to get divorced.  I'm not even talking about 'love' or any of that jazz; I just mean the legal status.  I haven't been following insurance laws and what not in the US, and I know there have been changes, but....the last time I was a worker in the US - I could update my insurance plan once per year *OR* when I had a major life event - and marriage was one of them.  Meaning, if I were single and living with my committed girlfriend *all* I needed to do to re-select my insurance plan was to fill out one sheet of paper at the court house and pay $15.

If we were married, it would cost hundreds of dollars to get divorced, including months of waiting and testifying that we have been separated for 6 months.

Most of the time, there isn't a huge difference between being single and married.  If one person makes a lot more than the other, being married can mean slightly less in taxes.  But it's really easy to get married....so you can do that strategically as it makes sense.  But if you ever need to take advantage of any of the numerous government programs you are forced to support financially, it's almost always better to be divorced.  And if you're in a situation where you need to do that, you won't have a lot of financial resources and divorces are a lot harder than marriages.
 
2013-06-30 07:22:35 AM  

dantheman195: SDRR: Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Government sanctioned "Marriage" has nothing with love, commitment, or anything like, it is about allocation of assets, that is all.

Why do we have Government sanctioned marriage in the first place?

Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it


I would prefer they fix the farked up tax code.
 
2013-06-30 07:54:59 AM  

SDRR: dantheman195: SDRR: Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Government sanctioned "Marriage" has nothing with love, commitment, or anything like, it is about allocation of assets, that is all.

Why do we have Government sanctioned marriage in the first place?

Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it

I would prefer they fix the farked up tax code.


How about this...

Get rid of Government...PERIOD.

I don't need the government to protect myself and my community.
I don't need the government to regulate my economy.
I don't need the government to pave my roads.
I don't need the government to provide my health care.
I don't need the government for a single mother fraking thing...not ONE.
 
2013-06-30 09:55:09 AM  
I keep wanting to make mean-spirited jokes about how gay people aren't thankful enough to straight people for degrading societal stigma about divorce to the point where it's no longer a big deal but then I think of how it must feel to wake up every day knowing that society thinks you are diseased and being told over and over about how how you feel is unnatural and I don't want to feed into any more negativity about the subject even if it's my own concept of humor which really isn't very funny or pointed.

So remember, when you make the choice. Choose homosexuality. The hot, sexy choice.
 
2013-06-30 10:20:44 AM  

studs up: k1j2b3: Wondering what some of the liberals on here think of the idea that a governor can just decide not to defend a law he doesn't like? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? As in, what if the 'people' get an anti-gay marriage law passed, a gay couple takes it to court, and the governor chooses not to defend it? What then? Will this Supreme Court decision be so awesome? Like it or not, the Prop. 8 decision was really about who had standing to pursue the case. It wasn't about gay marriage.

I know someone who listens to Jon and Ken....


A Mother Jones writer made the same comments a day after the ruling.
 
2013-06-30 10:27:55 AM  
I still don't get why americans are pushing for the expansion of bad governmental policy. State marriage is a non defined contract whose terms are defined only at divorce. All marriages should require a well defined contract of terms on entry. At that point no government recognition is needed, just standard contract enforcement.

Also get rid of marriage benefits, it is unequal benefit to singles. A single person may just want their best friend a hospital bed, yet they get denied. It is unequal to those who do not marry.
 
2013-06-30 11:07:01 AM  

nemisonic: dchurch0: jake3988: There is no marriage tax penalty... at least not anymore.

If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference.

If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes.

In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.

I'm getting married tomorrow. I make about 80K and the wifey only works 5 hours a day, for $9.00 an hour. She probably brings home about 15K/year. Plus, we just bought a house a couple months ago, so I'm actually looking forward to next years taxes.

All will be well and good until wifey wants to buy a house in a town with a good school system- where prices are set by $160k earning families.

//we all learn wifey's true nature when the answer is "I can't afford (huge capital expense to a man, representing status and social tier to a woman)"

///good luck


This is my second marriage. The first wife was exactly as you describe, and it was horrible.

The woman I'm marrying now is a small town country girl. We just bought the house we wanted a couple months ago after looking for three years. It's a small 3BR on a nice corner lot, in a town of about 15K. We're both very happy with it, so I think I'll come out OK.

Thanks for the good luck wishes.
 
2013-06-30 11:09:49 AM  

MyRandomName: I still don't get why americans are pushing for the expansion of bad governmental policy. State marriage is a non defined contract whose terms are defined only at divorce. All marriages should require a well defined contract of terms on entry. At that point no government recognition is needed, just standard contract enforcement.


That's how it works now, moran. The fights are all about splitting up the assets when a divorce happens. There's a well-defined procedure for it, but the question is whether the parties will fight nice or fight dirty. When trust is broken, as is often the case during divorce proceedings, it's very hard for couples to split amicably. It's doubly hard with our antagonistic and confrontational system of justice.
 
2013-06-30 11:10:07 AM  

Tourney3p0: dchurch0:
I'm getting married tomorrow. I make about 80K and the wifey only works 5 hours a day, for $9.00 an hour. She probably brings home about 15K/year.

That sounds like a beautiful beginning to a long-lasting... divorce proceeding.  Good luck!

Just for kicks, maybe bookmark this thread for a few years from now to check on after convincing yourself that "no one could have possibly seen this coming".


I appreciate you pessimism, but I think I'll be OK.
 
2013-06-30 12:33:14 PM  

Divinegrace: SDRR: dantheman195: SDRR: Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Government sanctioned "Marriage" has nothing with love, commitment, or anything like, it is about allocation of assets, that is all.

Why do we have Government sanctioned marriage in the first place?

Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it

I would prefer they fix the farked up tax code.

How about this...

Get rid of Government...PERIOD.

I don't need the government to protect myself and my community.
I don't need the government to regulate my economy.
I don't need the government to pave my roads.
I don't need the government to provide my health care.
I don't need the government for a single mother fraking thing...not ONE.


Yeah, you do.
 
2013-06-30 12:41:19 PM  

Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.


This, but when my girlfriend talks about getting married I remind her how much it would cost her in increased taxes and she accepts it as a good reason not to. For now.
 
2013-06-30 01:05:06 PM  
dchurch0:

I appreciate you pessimism, but I think I'll be OK.

Genuinely good luck.  My wife and I have been married for almost 6 years now and we're doing great.  For comparison purposes when we first got married I was making a little under 80k a year and she's a social worker...so maybe $10.50 an hour.  We survived our first home buying experience, a move from NE Pennsylvania to Mississippi, and our parents.  We'll see what other curve balls get thrown. 

 
2013-06-30 01:24:58 PM  

Divinegrace: SDRR: dantheman195: SDRR: Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Government sanctioned "Marriage" has nothing with love, commitment, or anything like, it is about allocation of assets, that is all.

Why do we have Government sanctioned marriage in the first place?

Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it

I would prefer they fix the farked up tax code.

How about this...

Get rid of Government...PERIOD.

I don't need the government to protect myself and my community.
I don't need the government to regulate my economy.
I don't need the government to pave my roads.
I don't need the government to provide my health care.
I don't need the government for a single mother fraking thing...not ONE.


I think you should pack up and live in the woods.
 
2013-06-30 02:51:25 PM  

MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.


The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.
 
2013-06-30 03:02:07 PM  

jake3988: In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.


There are three categories that need to be compared here:

Two married people filing jointly

Two married people filing separately

Two people who have never met, each separately filing their own tax returns, using two different addresses, with no reason for the IRS to suspect that their finances are somehow entwined

Since heterosexual married couples have been known to go to great lengths to try to masquerade as that third category (getting divorced and continuing to live together, getting married in a private religious ceremony and never telling the government about it, etc.), I assume there is some tax break to be had there.
 
2013-06-30 03:05:35 PM  

dragonchild: We've run the numbers on filing jointly or separately and there's no real difference in our current situation.


Have you run the numbers as if you were two people who had never met, as opposed to "married filing separately"?
 
2013-06-30 03:06:12 PM  

flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.


Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.
 
2013-06-30 03:10:02 PM  

bark_atda_moon: My significant other and I are not married and have a son.  I file as Head of Household and I make more money than she does.  I have used Taxcut to simulate the difference between us being married and filing jointly, us being married filing separately, and us filing as singles.

For us filing single was slightly more advantageous than filing jointly (we save $240).  If we had been married filing separately we would have really been boned.  The reason filing as single for us was better is that each of us could take advantage of certain deductions that have a maximum for single filers that is equivalent to that of married filers.


I thought that in such cases, the IRS could say "Congratulations, you are 'married' whether you like it or not."  And that now they will be able to do that to same-sex couples as well.
 
2013-06-30 03:16:31 PM  

flondrix: Have you run the numbers as if you were two people who had never met, as opposed to "married filing separately"?


That would be a very disingenuous thing to do because we have common deductions -- namely the mortgage interest deduction.  Whoever gets that is going to pay a lot less in taxes; whoever doesn't is going to pay a lot more.  As it is, "married filing separately" forces the issue; imagining we're strangers doesn't change that part of the equation.

I SUPPOSE if you assumed as strangers we each bought a house that we'd be paying a lot less in taxes but that's a particularly retarded complaint.  Who cares if we're missing out on a few thousand in tax dollars when living separately means we'd be paying an extra mortgage every month??
 
2013-06-30 03:20:10 PM  

dantheman195: Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it


Actually, it will make the core problems that same-sex couples worry about worse.  If you are fighting for the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, being able to wave a marriage certificate that is valid in the same state in which the hospital is located will do wonders.  (Yes, I realize that even now this is not an option for a lot of gay couples.  But with the addition of California, it will be true in a lot of the more populous states.)  If we do away with government recognized marriage, but the government does continue to recognize parent-child relationships, then your mother-in-law can keep you from seeing your dying spouse irregardless of your genders.
 
2013-06-30 03:23:17 PM  

borg: Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.


Do we have any actual lawyers on FARK?  Because I thought that this was one thing that the decision did NOT do.  A Texan gay-married to a military service person or other federal employee now gets spouse benefits, but I thought the state did not have to recognize anything.
 
2013-06-30 03:36:58 PM  

Divinegrace: Get rid of Government...PERIOD.

I don't need the government to protect myself and my community.
I don't need the government to regulate my economy.
I don't need the government to pave my roads.
I don't need the government to provide my health care.
I don't need the government for a single mother fraking thing...not ONE.


Did you oppose the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, the Pacific, etc.?

Just checking, since most of the people I know who talk like you draw a paycheck directly or indirectly from the federal government and/or are big supporters of foreign wars.
 
2013-06-30 03:42:51 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: If I'm living with my girlfriend, *I* could strategically default on debts, declare bankruptcy and suffer a loss of credit....but my girlfriend would be unaffected by this. If I'm living with my wife, it isn't the same.

Sure, maybe you'll never need to file for bankruptcy, or countless other government programs, but the way these things are written, you almost always, end up with fewer options if you are married.

Take student loans....

If my wife is a full-time student and I'm a full-time employee - if she were to apply for student loans, she would need to declare everything *I* make, everything she makes, and every asset (excluding a home, if we own one). And those figures would be used to determine how much loan money she would be eligible for.

If my girlfriend is a full-time student and I'm a full-time employee - she can file by herself. She doesn't need to provide any of my information, or my assets.


Does this change with DOMA?

Part of the answer depends on whether the government can declare you common law married, at least for the purposes of a particular legal case, against your will.  If so, then DOMA makes a big difference--same-sex couple now have to worry about this, too.
 
2013-06-30 03:53:39 PM  

jst3p: This, but when my girlfriend talks about getting married I remind her how much it would cost her in increased taxes and she accepts it as a good reason not to. For now.


This is the one respect in which DOMA will affect heterosexuals--Men who don't want to marry are going to hear the whining turned up to 11.  "All our friends are getting married.  Even the cool gay guys down the block are getting married."
 
2013-06-30 04:13:27 PM  

flondrix: borg: Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.

Do we have any actual lawyers on FARK?  Because I thought that this was one thing that the decision did NOT do.  A Texan gay-married to a military service person or other federal employee now gets spouse benefits, but I thought the state did not have to recognize anything.


You are more or less correct.

I have no clue what borg is talking about. Tuesday was when the Voting Rights Act case was passed down. The gay marriage cases were Wednesday. So maybe he lives in some place with a really strange poll test?
 
2013-06-30 04:15:27 PM  

dragonchild: That would be a very disingenuous thing to do because we have common deductions -- namely the mortgage interest deduction. Whoever gets that is going to pay a lot less in taxes; whoever doesn't is going to pay a lot more. As it is, "married filing separately" forces the issue; imagining we're strangers doesn't change that part of the equation.

I SUPPOSE if you assumed as strangers we each bought a house that we'd be paying a lot less in taxes but that's a particularly retarded complaint. Who cares if we're missing out on a few thousand in tax dollars when living separately means we'd be paying an extra mortgage every month??


Actually, I knew unmarried people in Massachusetts who bought houses together; apparently it can be done.  In fact, one of them claimed that having your names appear together on a mortgage was far more binding than marriage.  My point was that "married filing separately" is still a very different thing from two unmarried people filing separately, and it is misleading to claim that the marriage penalty doesn't exist simply because married couples have he option of "filing separately".  It is possible that the marriage penalty no longer exists, but the comparison I want to see proving that is between a married couple and a pair of people who are not legally connected, not between a married couple filing jointly and married couple filing separately.

For a well-to-do couple (and this argument usually involves well-to-do people) I could see them "divorcing" and one of them "getting" the summer house and using it as their legal address for tax purposes.
 
2013-06-30 05:02:29 PM  

borg: flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.

Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.




Wrong. The section of DOMA struck down affects federal benefits, meaning the federal government must treat same-sex couples as married. States still have the right to define marriage.

/not a lawyer
 
2013-06-30 05:12:45 PM  

flondrix: the comparison I want to see proving that is between a married couple and a pair of people who are not legally connected, not between a married couple filing jointly and married couple filing separately.


Bet you dollars to donuts that every single person biatching about the "marriage penalty" hasn't done that work.  From my part, I compared my taxes from before and after I was married.  Without adjusting my withholdings and with a static income (yay frozen salaries), I went from owing about $1k every year to getting a $3k refund -- and that was before buying the house.  Though again, my wife's employment situation was probably a big reason for it.  That said, I can't imagine what sort of penalty would net me $4k.  I'll take that penalty any day, and you'll have to pardon me for not bothering to find out how much I was "penalized" considering marriage turned out to be so lucrative.

You are right about a mortgage being more binding than a marriage, though.  Getting married can be done in a couple hours depending on traffic.  Getting into six-figure debt with someone is a Big Deal.
 
2013-06-30 05:46:39 PM  

AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.


If two guys are married, who does the female judge destroy in the settlement?
 
2013-06-30 06:36:21 PM  

borg: flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.

Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.



You're incorrect. Nothing the SCOTUS said this week changed Texas law. There is no recognition of SSM in Texas and the majority of the states.
 
2013-06-30 06:46:50 PM  
One of the benefits of working for TD Bank? They pay the difference in taxes for gay couple who file jointly, what other bank does that? What other bank has the balls/ovaries to march in gay pride parades?
 
2013-06-30 07:21:44 PM  

hoodiowithtudio: One of the benefits of working for TD Bank? They pay the difference in taxes for gay couple who file jointly, what other bank does that? What other bank has the balls/ovaries to march in gay pride parades?


The "gay gross up" is common in law firms. I have yet to hear how the DOMA decision effects it. I assume it is now state by state within the firm's that do it.
 
2013-06-30 07:43:13 PM  

jmr61: Nothing the SCOTUS said this week changed Texas law. There is no recognition of SSM in Texas and the majority of the states.


Has anyone worked it out by population?  The Boston-DC corridor and California account for a lot of the country's population.
 
2013-06-30 08:26:47 PM  

jmr61: borg: flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.

Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.


You're incorrect. Nothing the SCOTUS said this week changed Texas law. There is no recognition of SSM in Texas and the majority of the states.


I'm not wrong, prior federal law covers this: If you legally marry in one State you're legally married in all 50 states SCOTUS struck down marriage being defined as between "one man and one woman" So now  all states have to recognize same sex marriages that took place outside their state.
 
2013-06-30 08:47:01 PM  

borg: jmr61: borg: flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.

Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.


You're incorrect. Nothing the SCOTUS said this week changed Texas law. There is no recognition of SSM in Texas and the majority of the states.

I'm not wrong, prior federal law covers this: If you legally marry in one State you're legally married in all 50 states SCOTUS struck down marriage being defined as between "one man and one woman" So now  all states have to recognize same sex marriages that took place outside their state.




Nope. The states still have the right to define what a marriage is within their boundaries. Most states, Texas included, define marriage as between one man and one woman. A same-sex marriage license issued in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage is void in Texas (and the other states that don't recognize same-sex marriage). The Supreme Court decision regarding DOMA doesn't change that. It just changes how the federal government treats same-sex marriages.
 
2013-06-30 09:38:10 PM  

borg: jmr61: borg: flondrix: MFAWG: Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

The states we are talking about do not want to recognize a gay married couple as ever having been married.  Granting them a divorce means the state is admitting that they were married before the divorce, which sets a precedent that can be used in other cases.  States that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will do anything to avoid setting that precedent.

Again if a same sex couple is legally married in New York or California and move to Texas then they're legally married in Texas and the state of Texas has to recognize that. The world changed on Tuesday morning.


You're incorrect. Nothing the SCOTUS said this week changed Texas law. There is no recognition of SSM in Texas and the majority of the states.

I'm not wrong, prior federal law covers this: If you legally marry in one State you're legally married in all 50 states SCOTUS struck down marriage being defined as between "one man and one woman" So now  all states have to recognize same sex marriages that took place outside their state.


The whole point of the case was that the federal government doesn't get to say who is married - the states do. Some states say ssm can be performed, some say you can't perform it but will recognize it off someone else performs it, and some simply do not recognize it.

Seriously - read the decision. It is pretty damn clear.

There is no automatic comity due to this case.
 
2013-06-30 09:50:50 PM  

k1j2b3: Wondering what some of the liberals on here think of the idea that a governor can just decide not to defend a law he doesn't like?


The governor didn't decline to defend the law, he declined to appeal the district court's ruling.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report