Posted on 01/26/2005 10:09:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
BOSTON (AP) — As if tax season isn't stressful enough, homosexual "newlyweds" in Massachusetts have a new question to consider: Do they check "married" or "single" on their federal tax forms?
A landmark court ruling made Massachusetts the first state to sanction same-sex "marriage" nearly a year ago, but homosexuals will have to untie the knot in April — on paper at least — because the federal government doesn't recognize their unions.
But some aren't ready to declare themselves "single" to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
"I fully intend to file a married joint return, regardless of the fact that we're not supposed to," said Arthur Henneberger, 46, of Springfield. "If they kick it back, fine; we'll go to court."
Although Mr. Henneberger might expect to get the full backing of homosexual rights groups, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders isn't looking to pick a fight with the IRS.
"It's not something that should be done quickly or precipitously," GLAD spokeswoman Carisa Cunningham said. "We wouldn't advise anyone to try to do it alone."
Instead, the group is advising the state's estimated 4,900 same-sex couples who "married" in the past year to file federal returns as if they are single but to note — either through an attached letter or on the return itself — that they were "married" in Massachusetts. Same-sex couples who are residents of Massachusetts can file joint state returns.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
If it's not there, they should create the box, then check IT off.
If the homosexual claims, on Form 1040, to be married, and claim a 'dependent' thereon, then he, she, or it is guilty de facto of tax fraud.
Of course, whether this feckless gov't will prosecute this crime is another matter entirely.
Ah prob'ly won' be holdin' mah breath on this 'un, Ms. FormerMilitaryChick, ma'am.
Against the IRS? Now that is a misplaced priority. What is to fight for since the 'marriage penalty' has been tossed? These nellies whine for the sake of it.
Sounds to me like homosexual agenda double-speak for: "We don't want to really stir up the rabble while Bush is in office; it might rally enough support the FMA through this time. Let's wait until [Billary's] in. Then it's payback time for all of us."
But I may be reading too much into that statement.
Regardless of my feelings about homosexual marriage, the state of Massachusetts has determined that same-sex couples are a legal domestic contract (termed marriage) recognized within the state. The taxation issue just may be a valid issue for judicial examination - the IRS doesn't recognize a contract, the state of Massachusetts does. This is not a matter of who feels what about gay marriage, but rather as issue of federal vs. state rights. The people of Massachusetts recognize this. Who is anyone to quash a democratic system?
Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Sometimes I just wish they would all go back INTO the closet.
...The people of Massachusetts recognize this."
In theory the people and the state are synonomous, but in this case that wasn't so. Legitimized homosexual unions were not put in place via a state constitutional amendment sanctioned by the people. This was not even a law enacted the state legislators. Solely by judicial decree was this monumental decision made.
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who made mention that the downfall of this nation would come via the judges?
Who is anyone to quash a democratic system?
Nobody is trying to quash the democratic system (other than some folks in black robes). If the residents of Massachussettes want to accept homosexual marriages, let them vote. And if the majority if American citizens do not want to be forced to accept those "marriages" let us make our voices heard as well.
Legally, in the state of Mass, they are.
Just another back-door method to gain federal recognition of their "marriages".
There is no such thing as Gay marriage... sorry guys and gals.. it does not and can not exist.
Sorry, but marriage is a legal contract recognized by the government, and in Mass, a marriage between two men or two women is recognized.
No, a marriage is not a legal contract... from a state's perspective they may call that a marriage, but everyone knows that this is not what a marriage is.
Two people can enter into a binding contract that spells out every aspect legally of the marriage relationship without it being labeled a marriage, and always could.. which is but one of the reasons the whole gay marriage thing is a sham.
There is nothing a marriage grants individuals toward one another that could not be done with standard contract law... other than perhaps survivorship and custodianship of children... but of course homosexual activity CANNOT produce children... and even that can be spelled out in their wills, so that's moot as well. So they gain nothing by calling it a marriage other than attempting to mainstream and legitimize their deviant behavior.
Marriage is not simply two people living together under a legal agreement, though legally this may be the case. Marriage is an inherited construct from religious law, that exists to protect the family and the baring and raising of the next generation.
Two homosexuals cannot consumate, they cannot produce offspring.. they cannot be married, the two cannot become one. Whether taxechusettes wishes to dillude itself into believe they can will marriage to be something different than its always been and nothing more than some legally prescribed construct, that's their dillusion to bear.
The fact is, Gays could always get "married" for their own personal show, but finding some kook church willing to hitch them.. and there have always been the order of the blessed hedonist "churches" out there willing to do it... They just don't wan't to be "married" they want to be accepted. Whether the government burned my marriage certificate tommorrow, and the tax system disallowed "married" as an option, and no one legally could call themselves married... my wife and I would still be married. Our marriage is not based or dependent on the secular world of some judges or legislatures jurisprudence.. and were Homosexuals honest about it, neither could theirs (if indeed marriage is what they truly wanted, but its not, because it doesn't exist).
This is all about ramrodding deviant behavior into the mainstream, under the guise of 'normality' by giving it some name that is commonly used. I don't care if two (or more) sodomites do in their bedroom, I don't care what they do in the living room.... they can spend their entire lives together, be loyal completely to one another (not overly likely given that livestyle) but its not a marriage.
They don't have a choice. the 1996 DOMA says file single, they are not married for federal purposes.
consider also that this is an attempt to make a future claim on the spousal social security benefits. By being "married" for ten years, it will allow for future drains on social security just for practicing homosexual behavior.
So, a man and a women, who are married by a justice of the peace and are unable to reproduce are not married?
Its a further sticky situation. In addition to your above point, it is illegal for one to file a federal return and state return with different marital status. So it is illegal for them to file a federal return as single and a Mass return as married. And I wonder if there is further legal issues if they file their Mass return as single to avoid federal issues.
No society rewards the insitution not the individuals.
As a matter of law, consumate the marriage has been interprited as engage in sexual intercourse. At common law it was to take into account that just one sex act can produce a child.
In addition the childless couple who adopts a child can seamlessly claim the child as produced of the couple. Remember most infants who are adopted NEVER know they are adopted. Homoesexuals who live in the MINORITY of states with second "parent" adoption can NEVER conceal the fact that they are a couple strictly for recreational sex as a matter of law.
A man and woman marriage ALWAYS reinforces the institution of marriage as a mother and father even if not with children.
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.