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
click here to read article
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Amazing how a tiny percentage of the population who define themselves solely by perverted sexual practices now run the show. For how long, though?
If anyone wants on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.
BTW accusations that "we" who are opposed to pretending that marriage means two perverts of the same sex "marrying" each other want a Huge Nanny Fedgov - your argument that the fedgov should "stay out of marriage" is specious.
You know the ones who made it a fedgov issues? Guess.
Mentally ill sex perverts, that's who.
Your arguments not only don’t hold water, they don’t hold anything but exhalations from dope smokers.
Marriage has been recognized as a distinct legal state for millenia.
Libertarians and leftists are the reason why fags have any power at all.
Own it! Love it! Marry it!
It’s a mental illness and they’re working to infect all of us.
Not quite. The worst of it took place when Marx and the French exported their bad ideas. It makes sense - planning works and worked for the American corporate barons of the 19th century. It generated so much wealth for them that people left the poverty of the farms and worked in factories. Why?
Safer for one. Get injured on a farm and you face death, in a factory you have a chance and people will know. Pay was better along with the benefits of living in cities.
But, “do-gooders” only saw filth, tenements, immigrants and poverty. The same as existed out in the country, but invisibly. Then the first Roosevelt started his campaign for “progress” and a few idiots later you’ve got today.
That’s only partly correct. Conservatives allowed the Feds to pass the Edmunds Act. That lead us directly to where we are today.
Followed closely by the even worse and more egregious Edmunds-Tuckers Act:
The irony that Christian persecution of heretics gave us international Islamism and, eventually, homosexual (& everything else) marriage shouldn’t’ be lost on a single Christian conservative.
We shouldn’t be using the government to make people live how we want them to. That’s what our brains and prayer are for.
I don’t see that making polygamy illegal as a bad thing.
Your claim that “Christian persecution of heretics gave us international Islamism and, eventually homosexual (& everything else) marriage”.
How you get from “a” to “z” is a mystery. By “persecuting heretics” are you referring to your second link, or something else? Mormons are odd cult and they were engaging in some pretty nefarious acts including criminal ones and I reeeeeally don’t think either one of those acts you link to have a single solitary thing to do with the homo agenda or Islamic jihad, which has been around for 1400 years. BTW Islam has been internationally conquering, terrorizing, mass slaughtering and forcibly concverting since 700 AD.
Oh please. Get off your big government high horse. You hypocritical prudes are going to need the libertarians if for no other reason than to negotiate with the anarchists. You guys will eventually realize the demographics corner you're painted into. No one else will stand by your side for gun rights and lower taxes. Or you can let the Leftists have their way with you. Doesn't really matter to libertarians. We'll be treated just as badly by them as we are by you.
Where am I on a big gov high horse?
Please explain, since I object to the fedgov forcing fag “marriage” on any states.
Oh, you used the word “demographics”. So you think soon everyone in the US will either be a fag or luv fags.
You could not be more wrong, buddy. Speaking of buds, maybe you’re a doper, many libertarians are. That explains your complete lack of any shred of rational cognitive thinking.
Do a little search on the Monophysites and the Ghassanids - another “odd cult”, “engaging in some pretty nefarious acts”. The Byzantines persecuted them into the hands of Islam.
If you think that marriage is a federal issue and religious freedom isn’t then by all means celebrate laws that target specific religions for their religious practices. That’s not Constitutional, at least not per the American Constitution. It’s the entire reason America exists - religious liberty, the freedom of thought and conscience.
We’re paying dearly for those 19th century sins against religious practices. The issue of marriage isn’t a federal question, it isn’t a national question it’s a question of religious liberty, the freedom of thought and conscience.
Homosexual marriage is a farce, but federal interference in what amount to thought crimes and religious practices is quite directly the cause of today’s trauma. There’s little federal action you can look to reverse if you think those cases are Constitutional.
The Court didn’t look to the Constitution, which is patently clear, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, instead they looked to the letters of Thomas Jefferson. They equated polygyny which is Biblical and God has condoned in the past with human sacrifice which [Judeo-Christian] God has always condemned.
In short, they twisted the Constitution to fit a popular view. Take a read of the proceedings:
Here’s a short summary: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0
Now what if government outlawed a religious action, like proselytizing, but not an opinion? Replace polygamy with proselytizing or baptizing or prayer and you’ll see, perhaps more clearly why it’s bad law and why we continue to suffer under it today.
Our public school system was born of the same manipulative intent to control the human mind. It’s a bad idea all around.
Since you are self evidently not a conservative, what are you BESIDES a cheerleader for the leftist promotion of homosexual sex normalcy?
When you gave fedgov power to deny it, you also gave fedgov power to grant it. You lost in giving it any jurisdiction. If you can't see that, then further explanation is wasting everyone's time.
Tell you what sport...come back to me when you can find one thing I’ve posted in favor of homosexuality. I won’t hold my breath because you can’t.But feel free to keep making s**t up if it makes you feel better.
Bad strategy is still bad strategy.
Ah, more generalized sloganeering! How convincing, concise, and detailed.
I never gave the fedgov anything except some hard earned dollars, very grudgingly.
And due to reasons known only to yourself, you don’t see that the fedgov shoving fagdom down our throats is not due to evil conservatives, but to fags and their leftist and libertarian admirers!
Yeah, pointing out where ya’ll screwed the pooch is sloganeering. You guys can’t even get the point of a lesson after you’ve had to learn the hard way. You’re the architects of your own ruin.
Toke on and have fun with your mind!
It isn't about gay "marriage" so much as it is about getting "benefits" (i.e. profiting from redistribution of wealth) and breaking down millennia old social structures.
Now that marriage is being redefined legally to mean anything, while people who can obtain a legal "marriage" document can receive all kinds of benefits because of that word "marriage", expect a lot of people to suddenly be discovering the joys of marriage. They don't have to be sexually involved--marriage could be between roommates who have no desire to form lasting relationships with members of the opposite sex, but who want all the benefits the law offers to actual married couples. These "married" roommates, while enjoying the financial benefits of marriage, would still be living single lifestyles and dating and so forth. Another use of "marriage" would be to evade inheritance taxes. Perhaps a businessman has no children to leave his estate to, but he doesn't want the inheritance tax levied on it. So he "marries" his business partner in order to leave his holdings to him.
And so forth. The one thing that legalizing gay "marriage" is almost certainly *not* about is love or relationships. It's all about societal destruction and wealth redistribution.
Not really “granting” anything, they are recognizing the legal marriage of two persons who have been married by a state which allows same-sex marriages, regardless of whether the state they presently reside in recognizes such. Out of the two IRS options with the repeal of DOMA (any-state or resident state) this one makes the most sense.