• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DOMA ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Appeals Court

The sad part is the reactionary RW Supreme Court will rule for DOMA.
 
RJKarl said:
The sad part is the reactionary RW Supreme Court will rule for DOMA.
Click to expand...

Reading the story made it seem they were basically saying "leave it up to the states." Do we really think the SC is going to go against that?
 
Marriage is not a federal issue. It's just that simple. DOMA is a horrific piece of legislation on so many grounds. Even if the 14th and 5th amendment grounds are thrown out, you still have the 10th amendment grounds. For me this tarnishes Bill Clinton's legacy (regardless of whether or not he was "good" in the first place)
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Marriage is not a federal issue. It's just that simple. DOMA is a horrific piece of legislation on so many grounds. Even if the 14th and 5th amendment grounds are thrown out, you still have the 10th amendment grounds. For me this tarnishes Bill Clinton's legacy (regardless of whether or not he was "good" in the first place)
Click to expand...

I still find myself checking off a box that says single or married on my federal tax return.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Marriage is not a federal issue. It's just that simple. DOMA is a horrific piece of legislation on so many grounds. Even if the 14th and 5th amendment grounds are thrown out, you still have the 10th amendment grounds. For me this tarnishes Bill Clinton's legacy (regardless of whether or not he was "good" in the first place)
Click to expand...

ONW said:
I still find myself checking off a box that says single or married on my federal tax return.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem. Marriage shouldn't be a federal issue, but there are a number of places in which marriage is an integral part of federal law. The biggest example of this is probably in Federal Tax issues. Married couples can combine gifts, there is a marital deduction for estate taxes, etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
DeaconCav06 said:
This is part of the problem. Marriage shouldn't be a federal issue, but there are a number of places in which marriage is an integral part of federal law. The biggest example of this is probably in Federal Tax issues. Married couples can combine gifts, there is a marital deduction for estate taxes, etc...
Click to expand...

Yup, another completely asinine portion of our tax code is that you get treated differently if you are married. I got married in 2011 and paid taxes like I was a Republican that year. Don't get me wrong, I loved the benefit, but it was completely stupid that my tax status changed because I made the personal decision to get married.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Yup, another completely asinine portion of our tax code is that you get treated differently if you are married. I got married in 2011 and paid taxes like I was a Republican that year. Don't get me wrong, I loved the benefit, but it was completely stupid that my tax status changed because I made the personal decision to get married.
Click to expand...

There are good public policy reasons for a lot of the provisions, and you need a bright line rule as to when that public policy is being served. Marriage is the bright line rule that prevents people from just filing jointly to exploit tax provisions meant to benefit people that are married (excluding gain on the sale of a private residence being one example).
 
DeaconCav06 said:
There are good public policy reasons for a lot of the provisions, and you need a bright line rule as to when that public policy is being served. Marriage is the bright line rule that prevents people from just filing jointly to exploit tax provisions meant to benefit people that are married (excluding gain on the sale of a private residence being one example).
Click to expand...

People shouldn't be able to file jointly, either. Whatever your living situation is shouldn't have an impact on your taxes IMO.
 
Tax policy is the one area BSD breaks from his true liberalness. I'm not exactly sure what I would call your views, but it certainly wouldn't be liberal or party line Democrat.

But back to the topic, we spent a couple hours today looking into and thinking about the implications of the DOMA decisions for a gay client who is a resident of Hawaii and has entered into a civil union. If DOMA falls, one question would be the status of couples who have entered into civil unions in states (like Hawaii) that have the "separate but equal" type of civil union (i.e., treated a married for all state law purposes, but not called married because marriage in the state is defined as between a man and a woman). They aren't technically married, so the government could still argue that they are not entitled to an estate tax marital deduction (or social security survivor benefits or any other federal benefit based on marriage).
 
Ball State Deac said:
People shouldn't be able to file jointly, either. Whatever your living situation is shouldn't have an impact on your taxes IMO.
Click to expand...

Well said. That includes living in a house as well.
 
PhDeac said:
Well said. That includes living in a house as well.
Click to expand...

Don't get BSD started on the mortgage interest deduction (even though he can now take advantage of it). I feel like he would feel like his life was complete if he managed to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top