Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS: "NO - ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE"
Crosswalk ^ | 6.16.2004 | McCullough/Burchfiel

Posted on 06/16/2004 7:28:02 AM PDT by KMC1

WASHINGTON D.C. - Saying that it will violate the Federal Law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" (or DOMA), the Internal Revenue Service is declining recognition of same sex marriages on all federal income tax issues.

In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department.

They even went as far as to say that even if a state recognizes such unions - that "recognition serves no effect for purposes under federal law".

(Excerpt) Read more at crosswalk.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Connecticut; US: District of Columbia; US: Florida; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: Missouri; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: Ohio; US: Pennsylvania; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: defenseofmarriage; homosexualagenda; irs; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 06/16/2004 7:28:03 AM PDT by KMC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KMC1
"In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department." ...which won't stop Democrats from blaming this on Bush.
2 posted on 06/16/2004 7:30:36 AM PDT by ICX (I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

Whats Rosie Odonell going to do come tax time?


3 posted on 06/16/2004 7:32:02 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter

Ah, liberalism... all things to all people....


4 posted on 06/16/2004 7:32:05 AM PDT by IncPen (Proud member of the Half Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICX

Yeah, I'm glad the IRS threw this one right into the Democrats' lap by citing the law signed by "Sick Willie" Bill Clinton.


5 posted on 06/16/2004 7:32:15 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ICX

Hey if it works, I don't care who they blame!


6 posted on 06/16/2004 7:33:13 AM PDT by beachn4fun (Since Democrats want the rich to pay more taxes, does that include Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ICX

Thank GOD almighty. It's about time the government stood up for the morals of those who started this country.

It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Thank God at least one branch of the government still has a bit of dignity...


7 posted on 06/16/2004 7:33:30 AM PDT by lamarguy91 (Wow that felt good to get all that out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Landru; Mudboy Slim; sultan88; MeekOneGOP

"...the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns..."

Heh, Heh, heh! All thanks to the Sinkmeister...who woulda thought!

Hmmmm. I wonder if libs will now want to abolish their favorite intimidation tool.


8 posted on 06/16/2004 7:36:25 AM PDT by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

The same thing all the other rich liberals do; hire shady accountants and tax lawyers to help her cheat the system.


9 posted on 06/16/2004 7:42:11 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

HEY - MAKE THEM PAY THE MARRIAGE PENALTY!!!


10 posted on 06/16/2004 7:45:31 AM PDT by 2banana (They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMC1; FormerLib

Too amusing.


11 posted on 06/16/2004 7:46:36 AM PDT by MarMema (Up, up, up, there's nowhere to go from here but up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

This has been one of my questions from the beginning.
I also want to know what impacts the same sex marriage would have for employers. Should employers have to provide health benefits for a groups of people who are the highest risk for AIDS? Wouldn[t that action all but bankrupt small employers with premiums they can't afford?
The spector of Same Sex Marriages casts a large shadow, IMHO.


12 posted on 06/16/2004 7:59:49 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

If we made them pay the marriage penalty, we'd soon have the entire press on our side to eliminate it.


13 posted on 06/16/2004 8:04:16 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

I suppose that it's too much to hope that this would now put the gay community and its allies on the side of a flat tax or NRST.


14 posted on 06/16/2004 8:11:50 AM PDT by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FBD; devolve; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe
bump !

"...the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns..."


15 posted on 06/16/2004 8:13:35 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Call me the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KMC1; EdReform; little jeremiah; Alamo-Girl; onyx; ALOHA RONNIE; SpookBrat; Republican Wildcat; ...
IRS: "NO - ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE"

Excerpt:

In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department.

They even went as far as to say that even if a state recognizes such unions - that "recognition serves no effect for purposes under federal law".


Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.


16 posted on 06/16/2004 8:16:45 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Call me the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I agree with you.


17 posted on 06/16/2004 8:17:25 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KMC1
Those folks in "Faggachusetts" are gonna be sorely disappointed.



18 posted on 06/16/2004 8:19:04 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Call me the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana; Cicero

If both work, generally more taxes are owed if you are married than if you shack up. Having the IRS recognize these marriages would cost them money.


19 posted on 06/16/2004 8:20:30 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KMC1

well at lest there is some hope for things


20 posted on 06/16/2004 8:21:05 AM PDT by Charlespg (Civilization and freedom are only worthy of those who defend or support defending It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson