Skip to comments.NY plaintiff: Gay benefits 'bigger than marriage'
Posted on 12/30/2012 2:32:28 PM PST by bgill
"I feel like everybody's treating me like a hero. Everybody thinks it takes enormous courage." ...
Windsor maintained that the federal government's insistence in the Defense of Marriage Act that a marriage can be only defined as a relationship between a man and a woman meant she was not entitled to a marital deduction on Spyer's estate.
That meant, she said, that she owed $363,053 in taxes that she would not have to pay if the law did not unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wasn’t at least one of the reasons for tax deductions for married couples the fact that they generally bring children(a/k/a future taxpayers) into this world? By very definition same-sex twosomes literally cannot do that without, of course, going outside of their relationship?
Since secular socialism/marxism is the very reason this whole “gay rights” business started, she should be overjoyed to give as much of her money to the government as possible.
So, without being married or having those marriage benefits there is no way a gay (remember not so many years ago when that just meant happy)person can leave money or property without enormous tax liability? Somehow I just believe this is true. In marriage as any relationship, if you don’t do proper estate planning the government will screw the survivors over, gay,straight or martian!
I don’t doubt many homosexuals and lesbians feel they are being wronged when we don’t accept their perversion. It’s simply a matter of nature. They cannot be married. Now it wouldn’t be the first time that government ignored reality (they’re doing a really good job of that concerning economics), but nature is what it is.
We’re on a slippery slope here. If “love” is the prime criteria for state-recognized marriage, then how can we possibly say polygamy, incest, polyandry, etc. are not “marriage.” Isn’t it possible for two women to love a man or two men to love a single women the same way as this lesbian loved her friend? I think so. In fact, I’d say polygamy has an even better argument going for it than homosexual “marriage,” because polygamy includes the natural male/female physical union.
There’s no reason why any party should not have the option to benefit from estate deductions as long as the govt is willing to bend the meaning of marriage.
I’m looking forward to the day an ordinary party sues for equal treatment of ‘marriage’ benefits. Why not allow two corporations to ‘marry’, a fraternity, a bowling team?
So they never heard of estate planning?
>> Were on a slippery slope here.
Not necessarily. Taking the ‘homo marriage’ agenda to the extreme marginalizes the intent. The pro ‘homo marriage’ bigots don’t want arbitrary parties to enjoy their special state sanctioned privileges — the bigots wish to persecute those that refuse to service homosexuality. As far as I’m concerned, any party should have the right to govt ‘marriage’ farce.
they want to legislate thoughts and ‘attitudes’
Always something to flame about!
It’s not their fault, it’s ours....like everything else they do wrong.
“Im looking forward to the day an ordinary party sues for equal treatment of marriage benefits.”
I’m following this matter very close. As a CPA, I have a case now being petitioned to US Tax Court as a result of a client IRS audit. My client is a strait unmarried couple. The wife paid in excess of $10,000 per year in health insurance premiums for her “domestic partner” who she has lived with for many years. The insurance premiums were deducted on the returns for all three years under audit.
(Note: Although many employers offer health insurance coverage for domestic partners, the IRS does not recognize this as a tax free fringe benefit (whether straight or gay)and thus the amount of premiums paid for the unmarried partner is taxable income to their employee.)
The IRS denied a deduction for the premiums for three years tax returns as they claimed her domestic partner is NOT a family member under current federal law. State law does not matter.
I have a back up position in that the domestic partner has worked full time in the business as an unpaid employee. Need to research that one further.
Bottom line is that if the gays get the deduction, so do straight domestic partner relationships.
“If love is the prime criteria for state-recognized marriage...”
The prime criteria of state recognized marriage is whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think marriage should be at any one time, at least in the modern era. Pope Leo XIII warned about the dangers of the state’s involvement 130 years ago.
“In fact, Id say polygamy has an even better argument going for it than homosexual marriage, because polygamy includes the natural male/female physical union.”
If you would have told someone in the 60’s that the state would eventually end up recognizing something called ‘gay marriage’ before polygamy, they would have thought you were completely wacked.
‘In fact, Id say polygamy has an even better argument going for it than homosexual marriage, because polygamy includes the natural male/female physical union.’
And as a consequence, may produce an actual child as a result(something that homosexual relations can never do). Wouldn’t that child have a right to have his father married to his mother if they wanted to.
From the religious perspective, polygyny(one husband, two or more wives) despite its problems is more biblical than alleged “same-sex marriage” is.
If you had told people in the ‘80s that, the majority of them would’ve thought the very same thing.
“Im looking forward to the day an ordinary party sues for equal treatment of marriage benefits. Why not allow two corporations to marry, a fraternity, a bowling team?.....”
Can someone explain why two homosexual people can claim marriage benefits (i.e. a family status), and thus get benefits from their relationship recognized under the law - when two siblings who live together and take care of an elderly parent cannot claim any such benefits. The latter ase is a true family repationship. The former is a case of two person of the same gener engaging in sexual activity, which is not natural and is against most traditional moral laws???
Seems to me the government is promoting sexual activity between same sex people; while denying any family relationship benefits to adult children who are single and caring for their parent. They are punished because they are not being immoral sexually, just being good children caring for parents.
They just grab something at the sperm bank (Rosie O'Donnell) or use a surrogate (like Neil Patrick Harris or Elton John). These "advancements" leveled the playing field in the '70s rendering the line of argumentation you suggest outmoded and moot.
It was a pandora's box and the Catholic Church certainly tried to argue that but its argument did not win the day. Now we're still dealing with these consequences.
“They just grab something at the sperm bank (Rosie O’Donnell) or use a surrogate (like Neil Patrick Harris or Elton John).”
Yes. They’re reproducing heterosexually as homosexual persons have always had the freedom to do so except this time via a dish. Any children produced as a result of IVF still have a biological father and a biological mother, not two biological mothers with no biological father nor two biological fathers with no biological mother. They’re just suppressing this truth in unrighteousness and robbing the child of his or her biological mother or biological father.
Thank you. Someone else sees this.
There isn't one argument for homosexual marriage that can't be used to justify any of these other types of marriage. Once you accept the fact that the sole reason for marriage between one man and one woman is to build families and bring about the next generation, then everything flows from there. Strong families build a strong society , that's why we're in so much trouble today.
“Seems to me the government is promoting sexual activity between same sex people; while denying any family relationship benefits to adult children who are single and caring for their parent. They are punished because they are not being immoral sexually, just being good children caring for parents.”
That’s exactly it. The government is pushing sexual immorality in order to ultimately destroy the natural family and replace it with the state.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
>> I have a back up position in that the domestic partner has worked full time in the business as an unpaid employee.
An “off the books” employee opens up another set of problems, and the potential fines can hurt far more than not having the deductions.
Sounds like a proprietorship.
>> Seems to me the government is promoting sexual activity between same sex people;
It’s all about persecuting the faithful in my opinion.
Don't you wish you had the courage to be that gay?
Technically, she probably was already committing some sort of tax code violation.
When they moved in together, if the one woman had all the money, and then they opened a joint checking account, it was like the one woman making a gift of half the money to the other woman. And since they were not married, gifts are limited to a small amount, and the rest should have been taxed.
The estate tax is only the last tax the government uses to control the transfer of wealth.
Why not just give everybody the right to leave their money to whoever they want, without having to pay taxes?
“Why not just give everybody the right to leave their money to whoever they want, without having to pay taxes?”
Because socialist governments are bloodthirsty leeches who want to tax absolutely everything. In Britain, they have a tv tax if you own a tv.
“An off the books employee opens up another set of problems, and the potential fines can hurt far more than not having the deductions.”
An “off the books” employee is illegal. Commonly referred to as “paid under the table.”
An unpaid employees is often volunteer help. An example is when a wife works in her husbands business, such as on a farm. In this case, the domestic partner (guy) was working in his partner’s (gal’s) business.