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.

(Washington Blade)   So even though you live in a state where your marriage is not recognized, you will still be considered legally married when it comes to Federal Student Aid, talk about rubbing salt in a wound   (washingtonblade.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1295 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2013 at 3:12 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-13 10:07:42 PM
I see lots of happy Womyns Studies majors.
 
2013-12-13 10:18:30 PM
State law is different from Federal law. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.
 
2013-12-13 10:28:16 PM

doglover: State law is different from Federal law. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.


You do know this isn't always an option don't you?
 
2013-12-13 11:47:24 PM
How come the feds will respect state law when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to marijuana?

/just sayin'...
//*ducks*
 
2013-12-14 12:09:04 AM

doglover: If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.


Because all of us gay people are rich and don't have jobs or families or connections to an area or any other concerns outside of politics.

You think my husband and I would be living in Milwaukee if we could live elsewhere? I already moved from Arkansas to be with him. You honestly think that if we did have the money for him to quit his job and move wherever we wanted, that marriage laws would be more important to us than any of the other eight billion things people look for in a place to live? 

US citizens aren't supposed to have to move to enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment.
 
2013-12-14 12:49:14 AM

Churchill2004: doglover: If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.

Because all of us gay people are rich and don't have jobs or families or connections to an area or any other concerns outside of politics.

You think my husband and I would be living in Milwaukee if we could live elsewhere? I already moved from Arkansas to be with him. You honestly think that if we did have the money for him to quit his job and move wherever we wanted, that marriage laws would be more important to us than any of the other eight billion things people look for in a place to live?
US citizens aren't supposed to have to move to enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment.


US citizens also aren't supposed to have their right to own weapons infringed, be subject to search or seizure without signed accusations, be slaves to super low wages, or have taxation without representation. Yet all these things are so.

The US has more issues than Time Magazine. Pointing them is fine, but frame them right. This story isn't outrageous, it's wonderful. 20-30 years ago, federal law would be against you too. This position is only possible because things are getting better. Slowly, but steadily. Now all we have to do is fight one or two stupid states, not 50. And believe me, after PA, I know states can be really stupid.
 
2013-12-14 01:49:55 AM

doglover: This story isn't outrageous, it's wonderful


I wasn't objecting to the story, or anything having anything to do with the rest of this post. I was objecting to this:

doglover: If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.


That's a stupid, glib, and incorrect thing to say to someone who actually lives in a state that doesn't recognize my marriage. I have no problem with voting with your feet, but to raise that possibility as if it's an answer is totally missing the point.
 
2013-12-14 02:52:31 AM

Churchill2004: doglover: This story isn't outrageous, it's wonderful

I wasn't objecting to the story, or anything having anything to do with the rest of this post. I was objecting to this:

doglover: If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.

That's a stupid, glib, and incorrect thing to say to someone who actually lives in a state that doesn't recognize my marriage. I have no problem with voting with your feet, but to raise that possibility as if it's an answer is totally missing the point.


d1-  bullshiat.
c2004- continue
d2- bullshiat.
c2004v2.0- continue!!
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-14 03:13:20 AM

doglover: State law is different from Federal law. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.


I think that would make lots of people in many states very happy. I think Washington DC traffic would get much worse.
 
2013-12-14 03:18:41 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How come the feds will respect state law when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to marijuana?

/just sayin'...
//*ducks*


According to TFA, they  aren't respecting state law on gay marriage.  Actually, they never did, remember DOMA?  They just used to not respect it in the opposite direction (the feds didn't recognize marriages legal in the state).
 
2013-12-14 03:30:02 AM

Jim_Callahan: MaudlinMutantMollusk: How come the feds will respect state law when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to marijuana?

/just sayin'...
//*ducks*

According to TFA, they  aren't respecting state law on gay marriage.  Actually, they never did, remember DOMA?  They just used to not respect it in the opposite direction (the feds didn't recognize marriages legal in the state).


yikes...stop whargarbling...  vote for things like img.fark.netimg.fark.netimg.fark.net
 
2013-12-14 03:40:35 AM

doglover: US citizens also aren't supposed to have their right to own weapons infringed, be subject to search or seizure without signed accusations, be slaves to super low wages, or have taxation without representation. Yet all these things are so.


Next time you complain about gun control laws in your state, I'm going to suggest that you simply move to another state.
 
2013-12-14 05:38:46 AM

DeltaPunch: doglover: US citizens also aren't supposed to have their right to own weapons infringed, be subject to search or seizure without signed accusations, be slaves to super low wages, or have taxation without representation. Yet all these things are so.

Next time you complain about gun control laws in your state, I'm going to suggest that you simply move to another state.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-14 05:45:41 AM

DeltaPunch: doglover: US citizens also aren't supposed to have their right to own weapons infringed, be subject to search or seizure without signed accusations, be slaves to super low wages, or have taxation without representation. Yet all these things are so.

Next time you complain about gun control laws in your state, I'm going to suggest that you simply move to another state.


Are you somehow trying to insinuate that our god-given gun rights are somehow as important as who someone decides to love and marry????
 
2013-12-14 06:06:27 AM

HooskerDoo: Are you somehow trying to insinuate that our god-given gun rights are somehow as important as who someone decides to love and marry????


And why can't I marry my gun? Actually it's probably only a matter of time until Texas legalizes gun marriage.
 
2013-12-14 06:28:59 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How come the feds will respect state law when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to marijuana?

/just sayin'...
//*ducks*


Because you have this:
www.danhausertrek.com

vs. this:
www.marijuana.com

And politicians can't resist men in uniform.
 
2013-12-14 07:08:35 AM
I don't see why the article makes this move seem so negative. Unless you are marrying a sugar daddy, it seems more than likely you will be better off financially being married for FAFSA purposes. Chances are your parents make more than you and your partner do, which means more financial aid. Also, a good number of parents might not financially support their gay offspring as much as they would if they were straight even though their income will be held against you until you are either married or 26.
 
2013-12-14 07:24:15 AM
The FAFSA is specifically designed to be as exclusive as possible.  This is a good or bad thing depending on whether you believe the government should even be involved in funding college.
 
2013-12-14 07:31:12 AM
You cant have your cake and eat it too?  Why?
 
2013-12-14 08:08:32 AM
What's this new "Blade" web-site?  Sounds kinda edgy.
 
2013-12-14 08:09:06 AM

Gwyrddu: I don't see why the article makes this move seem so negative. Unless you are marrying a sugar daddy, it seems more than likely you will be better off financially being married for FAFSA purposes. Chances are your parents make more than you and your partner do, which means more financial aid. Also, a good number of parents might not financially support their gay offspring as much as they would if they were straight even though their income will be held against you until you are either married or 26.


24.
 
2013-12-14 09:40:34 AM
If you're married, you must have done it somewhere it was legal. So even if the state you're currently in doesn't acknowledge it, the feds can. If that somehow screws up your take from the FEDERAL student loan program, that's your problem. Along with where you've chosen to live.
 
2013-12-14 09:47:49 AM

Jim_Callahan: According to TFA, they  aren't respecting state law on gay marriage.  Actually, they never did, remember DOMA?  They just used to not respect it in the opposite direction (the feds didn't recognize marriages legal in the state).


They are respecting the marriage that was legally performed in whatever state they got married in, which is how that has always worked everywhere in the US aside from DOMA.

mikaloyd: You cant have your cake and eat it too?  Why?


They get to have and eat their cake, they are just trying to argue that they shouldn't put on any weight because of it.

Everyone who just fought for the rights of couples to have their marriages recognized at a federal level should punch the people complaining about this in the throat.
 
2013-12-14 10:20:01 AM

Wyalt Derp: HooskerDoo: Are you somehow trying to insinuate that our god-given gun rights are somehow as important as who someone decides to love and marry????

And why can't I marry my gun? Actually it's probably only a matter of time until Texas legalizes gun marriage.


Believe me - a lot of these guys already have.
 
2013-12-14 10:30:31 AM

jso2897: Wyalt Derp: HooskerDoo: Are you somehow trying to insinuate that our god-given gun rights are somehow as important as who someone decides to love and marry????

And why can't I marry my gun? Actually it's probably only a matter of time until Texas legalizes gun marriage.

Believe me - a lot of these guys already have.


When a man loves a shotgun, he can't keep his mind on nothing else
He'll shoot the world with the 12 gauge he's found
If the target's where he can't see it, he will shoot again
Blast the back of his best friend if he put her down
 
2013-12-14 10:55:27 AM
Its just another "benefit" of being married.

Why is this is an outrage?

Wait till the IRS hits you with the marriage penalty tax.
 
2013-12-14 11:15:30 AM
Seems like a fair policy.

Or Obama hates gays.
 
2013-12-14 11:24:50 AM
I wonder how much profit the Government will make off students, gay or not, this year.   For Federal Student Loans.

Well, even if it is several billion dollars profit, I'm sure they need that money more than college grads trying to make a start in life.
 
2013-12-14 11:31:42 AM

Churchill2004: US citizens aren't supposed to have to move to enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment.


This times a million.
 
2013-12-14 11:50:59 AM

doglover: US citizens also aren't supposed to have their right to own weapons infringed, be subject to search or seizure without signed accusations, be slaves to super low wages, or have taxation without representation. Yet all these things are so


You're cherry-picking constitutional implying there are absolutes being violated (or that said absolutes even exist). The Second Amendment doesn't contemplate completely unrestricted civilian weapon ownership, the Fourth Amendment specifically protects us from  unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, nowhere does the Constitution require a base wage (although there's an argument in the Thirteenth Amendment), and there is no requirement in the Constitution that a person must have political representation to be taxed (DC is the closest to that, they don't have a single voting seat in Congress but they do provide electoral college votes). A Fourteenth Amendment argument requiring  some recognition of another state's marriage is long, well-settled law (the big issue used to be whether one or both parties were too young to consent to marriage in the other state) - DOMA and the other gay marriage knee-jerk crap was the product of wedge issue politics. It was a manufactured problem to address something our 200+ years of common and constitutional law already covered quite succinctly.
 
2013-12-14 11:53:30 AM

Churchill2004: That's a stupid, glib, and incorrect thing to say to someone who actually lives in a state that doesn't recognize my marriage. I have no problem with voting with your feet, but to raise that possibility as if it's an answer is totally missing the point.


It's not that I agree with anti-miscenegation laws. It's just that I don't see why people are so angry about them. I mean, if you want to marry a black person, there are lots of states where it's legal to do so. The good people of Virginia should be able to go out to the diner for a milk shake without seeing an unnatural couple if that's what they decide at the ballot box.
 
2013-12-14 12:07:35 PM
So the last quote in the article is a spokesman for HRC praising the new policy as bolstering equality. I don't see where anyone is trying to make this a negative.
 
2013-12-14 12:13:54 PM

netcentric: I wonder how much profit the Government will make off students, gay or not, this year.   For Federal Student Loans.

Well, even if it is several billion dollars profit, I'm sure they need that money more than college grads trying to make a start in life.


The government doesn't make money. They guarantee the loans which means if that repayment doesn't happen the government pays off the loan. Then the former student owes the government, not 5th 3rd Bank or whoever made the loan. The bank is guaranteed a profit, Sallie Mae is guaranteed a profit and if the government incurred any cost the former student is screwed. That is a public default. No passport. Ineligible for any government aid. Tax refunds seized. Huge hit to credit rating. You can't eliminate a public default in bankruptcy procedures. To get out of that mess they want a 20% immediate down payment before setting a new repayment plan.

The entities that made the loan get their money. The government not so much.
 
2013-12-14 12:18:29 PM

BolloxReader: No passport


Really? You can't get a passport if you owe the US government money? Not like a tax obligation, but a normal debt? I thought there were treaties that obligate that the government to issue individual passports?
 
2013-12-14 12:35:33 PM

Churchill2004: BolloxReader: No passport

Really? You can't get a passport if you owe the US government money? Not like a tax obligation, but a normal debt? I thought there were treaties that obligate that the government to issue individual passports?


You don't even have to owe the government. Lose your job and fall behind in child support payments and you'll lose your passport once you are something like $2500 behind.
 
2013-12-14 12:35:48 PM

Churchill2004: BolloxReader: No passport

Really? You can't get a passport if you owe the US government money? Not like a tax obligation, but a normal debt? I thought there were treaties that obligate that the government to issue individual passports?


no, it has nothing to do with your passport.


Last week, this announcement got a huge applause at the federal student aid conference, and I was lucky enough to be sitting near the financial aid guy from Liberty University who had a super pissed off look on his face.

 
2013-12-14 01:23:16 PM

BMFPitt: They get to have and eat their cake, they are just trying to argue that they shouldn't put on any weight because of it.

Everyone who just fought for the rights of couples to have their marriages recognized at a federal level should punch the people complaining about this in the throat.


You do realize that you're talking about people who don't exist, right?

There's no one in this thread complaining about it. There's no one in the article complaining about it. Just this one lonely figure, a creation of your post:
ih2.redbubble.net
 
2013-12-14 01:24:51 PM

doglover: State law is different from Federal law. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

If your state doesn't recognize your marriage, stop recognizing your state and MOVE.


Alfred Hirschman wants a word about Exit vs Voice strategies.

TL/DR: If your only response to laws you don't like is to move away, your democratic institutions are broken.
 
2013-12-14 01:40:23 PM

Theaetetus: BMFPitt: They get to have and eat their cake, they are just trying to argue that they shouldn't put on any weight because of it.

Everyone who just fought for the rights of couples to have their marriages recognized at a federal level should punch the people complaining about this in the throat.

You do realize that you're talking about people who don't exist, right?

There's no one in this thread complaining about it. There's no one in the article complaining about it. Just this one lonely figure, a creation of your post:


At a minimum, it appears that Subby is complaining.

But my comments were written specifically to be as narrow as possible due to the almost zero number of people they were directed at.
 
2013-12-14 02:27:29 PM
"So even though you live in a state where your marriage is not recognized..." ― sooo, everyone in Texas (under their State Constitution as amended by the people on November 8, 2005), then?
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)
 
2013-12-14 02:38:10 PM

COMALite J: "So even though you live in a state where your marriage is not recognized..." ― sooo, everyone in Texas (under their State Constitution as amended by the people on November 8, 2005), then?Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)


While amusing, no, it doesn't work that way. "Identical to or similar to" requires a second thing being compared to a first thing, as in identical twins, identical particle pairs, etc. Under that amendment, marriage can exist, but not any other legal status that is closely comparable.
 
2013-12-14 02:43:49 PM

JosephFinn: Churchill2004: US citizens aren't supposed to have to move to enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment.

This times a million.


The 14,000,000th Amendment?
 
2013-12-14 03:45:03 PM

Wyalt Derp: HooskerDoo: Are you somehow trying to insinuate that our god-given gun rights are somehow as important as who someone decides to love and marry????

And why can't I marry my gun? Actually it's probably only a matter of time until Texas legalizes gun marriage.


Problem is, most gun barrels are too big for the average Texas dick.  That's why they have guns in the first place.
 
2013-12-14 04:08:58 PM
Meh, as long as marriage equality is not the law in all 50 States this type of thing is gonna happen.
 
2013-12-14 04:11:47 PM
For all purposes if you were married in a state (or foreign country) that recognizes gay marriages, the Federal government considers you married. Period. There is no picking and choosing. If a Federal law refers to married couples, it includes gay couples. Federal law does not care what state law says (unless it specifically refers to it). If you are a legally married couple living in Alabama (you got married in another state that recognizes it) but Alabama does not recognize gay marriages, you file your 1040 as married and your Alabama return as single (I am assuming states will update laws to not require the same filing status as the Federal return as was previously done in states recognizing gay marriages).

This should not surprise anyone.
 
2013-12-14 04:36:36 PM

dywed88: For all purposes if you were married in a state (or foreign country) that recognizes gay marriages, the Federal government considers you married. Period... This should not surprise anyone.


It should, considering that until the recent SCOTUS decision, it was the exact opposite.
 
2013-12-14 05:13:38 PM

Theaetetus: dywed88: For all purposes if you were married in a state (or foreign country) that recognizes gay marriages, the Federal government considers you married. Period... This should not surprise anyone.

It should, considering that until the recent SCOTUS decision, it was the exact opposite.


I am pretty sure if you care about gay marriage laws at all you are aware  United States v.Windsor.
 
2013-12-14 05:22:01 PM

unreasonable ass: Its just another "benefit" of being married.

Why is this is an outrage?

Wait till the IRS hits you with the marriage penalty tax.


This.  Financially, bring married sucks.  You guys wanted it?  You got it.  Welcome to the "party"
 
2013-12-14 09:10:43 PM

Theaetetus: COMALite J: "So even though you live in a state where your marriage is not recognized..." ― sooo, everyone in Texas (under their State Constitution as amended by the people on November 8, 2005), then?Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

While amusing, no, it doesn't work that way. "Identical to or similar to" requires a second thing being compared to a first thing, as in identical twins, identical particle pairs, etc. Under that amendment, marriage can exist, but not any other legal status that is closely comparable.


Read it again. Marriage is defined in §32(a). 32(b) says that Texas shall neither create nor recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage as just defined in §32(a)!

It's a fundamental axiom of math, logic, law, and just about every other field of human endeavor, that anything is always identical to itself. The Identity Property of Arithmetic. x = x. A is A.

Had they simply inserted the word "other" between "any" and "legal status," then it would've done what the fundie bigots ordered. But that word isn't there. Judges are required to rule based on the letter of the law.

There are no legally married couples in Texas (at least not under its own constitution), nor have there been since November 8, 2005. And since their constitution forbids them from recognizing as well as creating any such status, this also applies to anyone married prior to then, as well as of couples who were married elsewhere and then moved to Texas, people visiting Texas, or even just passing through.

There are no husbands and no wives in Texas. And every Texan child born on or after November 8, 2005 is illegitimate.
 
2013-12-14 11:59:34 PM

unreasonable ass: Its just another "benefit" of being married.

Why is this is an outrage?

Wait till the IRS hits you with the marriage penalty tax.


Except for most couples being married offers tax advantages.

You need two high income earners before you have any issues.

There are a lot more benefits to being married (both legal and social) than there are disadvantages.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report