Skip to comments.IRS Will Recognize Same-Sex Marriages in States That Don't Allow Same-Sex Marriage
Posted on 08/30/2013 9:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Same-sex couples who get a marriage license in a state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, but who live in a state that does not recognize their marriage, will be treated as a married couple for federal tax purposes, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced Thursday.
The change in tax policy came after the U.S. Supreme Court this Summer struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that says marriage will be defined as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.
The decision left unclear what it would mean for same-sex couples who married in one state but live in a state that does not recognize their marriage. It was left to the executive branch to decide many details about how the Supreme Court's decision would be implemented. Thursday's ruling, therefore, was the executive branch's clarification of the issue.
"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a press release. "This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change."
The ruling will apply to any part of the tax code that recognizes marriage. Civil unions, though, will not be recognized for tax purposes.
Same-sex couples can choose to, but are not required to, file an amended return for 2010, 2011 or 2012, and may receive a refund. Beginning with their 2013 tax filings, same-sex couples with a marriage license must file as either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately."
The ruling does not apply to state taxes. So, a same-sex couple that has been married in a state that has redefined marriage, but lives in a state that has not redefined marriage, would file as married for their federal taxes and as single for their state taxes.
“the effort to address gay marriage seems well out of proportion to the real problem in this country.”
Is the effort intended to curtail or promote the degredation of the family?
It may or may not be a state issue but it certainly isn’t something the feds were authorized to meddle with. Are you guys seeing what happens when you let uncle fedgov do favors for you? Funny how you big government types love having that big pitbull in your yard and then cry when it turns on you.
“certainly isnt something the feds were authorized to meddle with”
Now we’ve got gay marriage in all 50 states.
Thanks to you. Good job trashing DOMA.
“big government types”
Yawn. The only thing you ever criticize are social conservatives.
Of course they will. Law, schmaw. The law is whatever they say it is at any given time.
Because you invited fedgov into your institution. You all did that when you let it do those favors for you.
Yawn. The only thing you ever criticize are social conservatives.
Show me some liberals here and I'll make fun of them, too. But really you guys are providing me such a target rich environment with all the double standards and hypocrisy.
“Because you invited fedgov into your institution. You all did that when you let it do those favors for you.”
Ok, which is why you were opposed to DOMA, which, the instant it was removed we had gay marriage in all 50 states.
You say the ‘states have control over marriage’. Yet, there’s not a peep from you until I came in and called out liberaltarians for their opposition to DOMA.
How is that whole ‘states rights thingy’ working out for you? I asked the question how spousal visas were going to work. Silence. I asked about how bigamy and polygamy was going to be rejected. Silence.
Now that gay marriage is in all 50 states, you got what you wanted!
I wasn’t the one who invited the vampires into the house. When all the fools who begged for and accepted fedgov’s money and favors is when the door was kicked wide open for it to shove gay marriage down your throats. You simply have no libertarians to blame for that one. That should have been a teachable moment for you, but you just can’t let go of your love for an all powerful fedgov.
Orange misses the point. The real reasons fags want “marriage” are listed below by homo spokespeople and leaders. And BTW - marriage (aka “real” marriage) has been recognized legally by some for of government for millenia. Pretending otherwise is not only nuts but a lie.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
I think you are blind to the big picture regarding what GOV's role is and how it's role to be legitimate must be limited.
Right now we see GOV regulating and taxing and fining businesses for reasons far more than protecting individuals life and property -we see GOV attempting to social engineer, in essence redistribute wealth arbitrarily' fairly. I would suggest that this is what is happening with the marriage institution as well. The utopian leftists are taking the societal norm that values families and marriage established for centuries and turning it on its head to be fair. To in essence redistribute the benefits to other groups.
This is not about a government of the people protecting institutions in existence before GOV was even constituted. This is about GOV being used to impose upon society a perverted leftist morality. This is about GOV overstepping its legitimate limits.
Conservatism is not about no GOV, it's about limited GOV.
See the real reasons why pervs want “marriage”, I just posted above. In their own words.
Sure, it says it's about smaller, limited government. Like how it shrank and limited government when it had control after the 2000 elections? The conservatism that gave us homeland security, medicare part d and all of the other things that shrank and restrained fedgov back then? I hear a lot of talk to get the suckers to the polls and then a lot of hypocrites making excuses for making fedgov bigger and more intrusive after the elections. Color me skeptical... At best.
LOL. Marriage has always been a state issue. Show me your “national marriage license”. It doesn’t exist.
The IRS is a national imposition. It comes from the 16th Amendment, the dirty one before the 17th. We have a federal, not a national government. Think of the word confederation and take away the con. We have a federation of states with a very limited federal government.
Read the Constitution and familiarize yourself with it. Marriage isn’t a federal issue.
Civil unions aren’t recognized, that way the lawsuit which will force this on the states will hold water.
It’s all a strategy to get marriage equality for homosexuals.
The world’s turned upside down by these “liberals”.
We should have passed a Marriage Amendment years ago. Polygamy is next.
“Marriage has always been a state issue. Show me your national marriage license. It doesnt exist.”
Again - you’ve been preaching this for how long now? The result, no DOMA, and gay marriage everywhere.
“We should have passed a Marriage Amendment years ago. Polygamy is next.”
Exactly. But I’m sure we’ll hear more liberaltarian whining about any attempt to restrict sharia law.
Nice job breaking it!
“The real reasons fags want marriage are listed below by homo spokespeople and leaders”
I’m willing to bet even money that Orange isn’t married which is why he’s supportive of the agenda.
“I wasnt the one who invited the vampires into the house.”
You collaborated with them to take down DOMA. Kneecapping social conservatives is really working out great for you now, eh?
Call me when the SCOTUS upholds a state ban on gay marriage and then we can talk about the success of your strategy. So far you’ve been batting 0 for a helluva lot.
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.