Posted on 09/21/2013 7:35:00 AM PDT by WXRGina
Based on the Supreme Court ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, I don’t know that the Department of Labor could have come to any other conclusion.
Basically, the Supreme Court decision told the feds that the states had the right to marry whomever they wanted and the feds could not ignore the rights of the states. Therefore, if California said you were legally married, then you were legally married for federal purposes too.
So... the feds can’t “unmarry” a legally married couple when it comes to imposition of federal law.
ERISA is federal law. It sets certain requirements for qualified plans such as 401k’s. Spouses have certain rights according to ERISA. Since it is federal law, the feds have to recognize legally married spouses which includes same sex couples. What this announcement from the Department of Labor is saying is that when a legally married couple moves to a state which does not recognize their marriage, they are still married in the eyes of the original state and, therefore, in the eyes of the feds. Moving to a different state does not “unmarry” them. The states which don’t allow same sex marriages can still ignore those couples for state purposes, but they don’t have a say over how the feds treat them. At least that’s my reading of what took place.
Here are the gory details: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-04.html
I wonder if the Wookie has had her HIV test?
No telling where Bath house Barry has been.
I'm not hiring anyone.
That way I can't be accused of "discrimination".
If it can be imposed by order from the top, then it can be reversed by order from the top.
FWIW, the federal government and states have long recognized “legal” marriages performed “legally” in other states even if those marriages wouldn’t have met another state’s legal requirements if they had taken place there.
For example, if a state required blood tests or a test for venereal disease prior to the issuance of a marriage license or did not allow 1st cousins to marry or those over the age of 16 but under the age of 18 without parental permission, if a couple were residents of and had gotten legally married in a state that didn’t have such requirements and restrictions and later moved to a state were such would have been required had the marriage taken place in that state, the marriage does not become invalid for either state or federal tax purposes.
Putting aside same sex marriage debacle for a moment, can you imagine the nightmare that would result if every time a hetero married couple moved to another state, their marriage became invalid for both federal and state requirements or they had to re-marry under the laws of the new state they had just moved to?
I work in payroll/HR and my company operates in several states. My company as long extended domestic partner benefits to both same and opposite sex partners with proper documentation of the domestic partnership. The federal government however does not recognize domestic partnerships for federal tax purposes and neither do some of the states we operate in. So when it comes to federal tax treatment of the portion of section 125 benefits attributable to the domestic partner, that portion of employee payroll deduction cannot be made on pre-tax basis and in fact the employer paid portion attributable to the domestic partner becomes imputed income to the employee. In states that also do not recognize domestic partnerships the state tax treatment follows the fed’s but in states that do recognize domestic partnerships, the state tax treatment is the same as for those of married couples. If an employee in a domestic partnership moves from a state that recognized domestic partnerships for state tax treatment to a state that does not or only same sex domestic partnerships, only the state tax treatment changes based on residency and not the federal tax treatment. Makes my job real “fun” doesn’t it. : )
It is as exactly as you described when it comes to same sex marriage – “Moving to a different state does not “unmarry” them. The states which don’t allow same sex marriages can still ignore those couples for state purposes, but they don’t have a say over how the feds treat them.”
Actually, it comes under “Natural Selection” which is not a tragedy, but natures way of eradicating the freaks of nature (homosexuals) from the face of the earth.
States do NOT have to comply.
Actually, it comes under “Natural Selection” which is not a tragedy, but natures way of eradicating the freaks of nature (homosexuals) from the face of the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Homosexuals are parents, just not with their homosexual partners. And most homosexuals are the product of a heterosexual couple. So I’m not quite sure natural selection is being very effective here.
Worse, it is a back-door way to weave homo "marriage" so deeply into the law and public sphere that even if we manage to get a constitutional amendment forbidding it, it will be impossible to reverse.
States that refuse to recognize sodomite marriage should simply refuse to comply with this order. Civil disobedience on a mass scale is the only way to stop this until we can halt it in the courts.
It all works out in the end. Once one moron/homosexual gets the ball rolling, it snowballs then crashes at the end. I love Mother Nature...or maybe it’s Father Nature to the homosexuals lurking about.
This says it all.
Under what authority can the Labor Department order YOU to so anything? Defy them.
States do NOT have to comply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely. As far as state-only situations.
One situation comes to mind, though... retirement plans for state employees. Corporations offer 401(k) plans to their employees. 401(k) plans are not available to employees of state universities. They, instead, have 403(b) plans. Like their 401(k) counterparts, contributions to 403(b) plans are tax deductible for federal tax purposes and the income in the plans can grow tax free. My bet is that the Department of Labor’s Technical Release applies equally to 403(b) plans. Therefore, states will have to recognize same sex spouses from other states when it comes to 403(b) plans. They risk the plans becoming non-qualified if they do not. And that’s a bad thing.
Good point, what kind of “rights” is Obama giving any American for that matter by flushing the economy down the toilet? He’s pretty much ensuring that everyone, homosexuals included, gets totally screwed over in terms of finances, yet he’s still some kind of hero to them...
Sometimes, I never understand some people’s logic...
Unfortunately, this is not satire. And, our Congress would have to actually do something to overturn this "rule".
And, that leads me to a question for the other Freepers: If the Congress does not take exception to a Labor Dept. flunky making new law, does that cause a "precedent"? Does that mean, that since the Congress has now forfeited it's duty to unelected officials of an Administration, that they no longer have any say about this issue?
This decision by the Department of Labor is a direct result of the Supreme Court deciding that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to overturn this decision.
Basically the Supreme Court told the feds that they have to respect the decision of states to marry same sex couples. They don’t have the power to “unmarry” them when they move to other states. Therefore, federal laws which apply to spouses have to apply to all legally married spouses, no matter where they live.
This ought to spark the next civil war, and yet, I just hear crickets.
This is blatant tyranny, nothing less.
You're forgetting one very crucial point: ALL of DOMA wasn't dismantled, Section 2 is STILL FEDERAL LAW. So, Perez is violating federal law by making this edict.
You’re right FWDude. I heard Rush mention this on his show the other day, and he said that the media is not going to make a big deal of it, because they don’t want to bring attention to it. These leftists know that it’s not in their best interest to shout this garbage from the rooftops.
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.