Posted on 06/27/2015 8:04:39 AM PDT by HomerBohn
“I wonder if a movement could start for states to pass laws, in which they don’t recognize marriage at all.
There is no federal marriage license. Anyone who has ever gotten married has gotten married subject to state laws, not federal laws.”
“The states could refuse to issue marriage licenses now that the feds have taken it over.”
I have been thinking the same thing.
Usually, when the federal government creates legislation, it creates the means to engage the legislation. In this case, legislation has been created from the supreme (cough cough) court with no means to engage the legislation.
All that is needed to counteract this, is for the states to say ok we are no longer issuing licenses, performing civil ceremonies, etc. It is now for the federal government to do this. Oh, ooops. The legislation that was just created by the federal government through the supreme court doesn’t include all the necessary stuff for following the legislation? Too bad.
The Supreme Disappointment
Now is the time for real talk and action on secession. Now is the time that decent, religious, honest and moral Americans would support it. There is no way that any rational person can claim that we have a shred of representation under this tyrannical regime.
Secession is the ultimate form of nullification.
I believe it was Scalia that addressed those words from Kennedy. Scalia specifically refers to the use of the words “advocate” and “teach.” Scalia noted that the word “excercise” was missing. So we can preach and teach, but cannot refuse to participate.
You’re right!
Anyone to thinks that this evil government is ‘nicer’ than King George V is just plain ignorant.
War has been declared by a central communist government against the peoples of America and only the lazy loafers like status quo.
Indeed there is, Our state can and should prohibit the issuing of marriage licences, and tell the court they may issue their own, but such licences will not be recognized by the state.
That is a passive act of non-cooperation, precisely what nullification is.
Washington’s Corrupt employees in black robes may be able to punish us for what we do but not for what we don’t do.
Liberals may operate on emotions and thus be incapable of fully comprehending the logical and physical ramification of their unending usurpation but I firmly believe a great many of them were dishonest in making such pronouncements knowing full well they were never going to hold true.
You can’t destroy a full dam and not causes a flood.
Sorry - the statistics do not support your claim.
Romney got 1 million more votes than McCain, and Romney lost to Obama by only 3.9%.
In 2012, Obama lost 5.5 million white voters compared to 2008.
Obama won in 2012 because of record turn out by non-white voters.
Almost 46% of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 were non-white minorities.
“The states could refuse to issue marriage licenses now that the feds have taken it over.”
“I have been thinking the same thing.”
and the states can pass Man-Woman cohabitation licenses. Just change the name. If the feds want the word marriage let em have it. we just create our own until they corrupt that and so on.
HOLY Matrimony ...
that sounds good. the states can change the marriage laws to holy matrimony laws. It will work until they corrupt that and take it over. then we will need another term “holy wedlock” etc.
what a mess that would be, even more of a mess than now.
great! the feds broke it, they own it. At the state level grandfather the marriages past into the new legislation.
I am looking at it, and I will admit, rather selfishly and shamelessly so from the prospective of being an HR and Payroll manager, working for a US manufacturer who has plants in more than one state and employees working, mostly in sales positions coast to coast, all across the country.
Prior to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling and since my company had chosen years ago to offer benefits to both married couples based on the prevailing worked in state’s law (including same sex couples) and also to both same and opposite domestic partners, if a same sex couple was “married” in and still living and working in a state that already recognized same sex marriage, then for both federal and state tax treatment, especially for Section 125 – pre-tax benefit deductions and 401k and life insurance beneficiary elections and survivor benefits, they would be treated for PR and tax and benefit purposes just like a heterosexual married couple.
But if a same sex couple was “married” and was “legally” married in a state that recognized it but later moved to and was working in a state that didn’t, I would have to treat the employee’s tax deductions for Section 125 deductions as a pre-tax benefit for Federal taxation, but as a post tax deduction for that state and in fact I would also have to impute the employer’s share of the premium attributable to the “same sex spouse” as imputed income, taxable income for those state’s taxes. The opposite goes for states that recognize civil domestic partnerships, same or opposite sex, as the Fed’s do not recognize them at all for federal tax purposes, but some states do and even down to some local jurisdictions within some states.
Trust me - this sort of thing a real problem and nightmare for us PR and benefits folks to keep track of and stay on top of as the “rules” are they are constantly changing from day to day, and sometimes even retroactively. Not to mention the countless hours I and our benefits manager spend, not to mention all the legal and consulting fees we incur just trying to keep up with ACA (i.e. Obamacare) requirements and reporting.
My point is that if states “started another word for man-wife marriage” but also refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone, not to mention the question of “grandfathering those already married”, then from a legal and PR prospective these employees would or might in many of these states have even less legal rights than would an employee in registered domestic partner relationship in states that recognize them for tax purposes. And if the state by “starting another word for man-wife marriage” enacted legislation to give them the same tax treatment as far as benefits and taxation under state law, but was still not calling them “married” on the state level, the feds might not treat them as being “married” for federal purposes. So in that case, I’d have to treat them as “married” or as in a “domestic partnership” for state and or local taxes and benefits but no so for on the federal level.
Not to mention that say a gay couple got “married” in a state that didn’t previously allow “gay marriage”- as of yesterday, I am now legally required to, have to treat them as “married” for both federal and state taxation and benefits and perhaps even retroactively, but there is no guarantee that when I file my company’s monthly or quarterly payroll tax returns, that any of those states who still dispute the SCOTUS ruling, will have to accept them, i.e. treating the Section 125 deductions as “pre-tax”.
Like I said, from where I sit, how this all affects my job and my responsibility to my employer to stay in compliance – it is, and continues to be a huge and very complicated mess.
IMHO the Constitution does not sanction abortion or homosexual marriage. These 'rights' to murder and impose perversion under force of government were created in the minds of Leftists by perverting the meaning of words to subordinate self-evident and objective truth for moral relative subjective truth.
“Trust me - this sort of thing a real problem and nightmare for us PR and benefits folks to keep track of and stay on top of as the “rules” are they are constantly changing from day to day, and sometimes even retroactively...it is, and continues to be a huge and very complicated mess.”
I agree and i work fed and state compliance at work as well. that is why socialism sucks. The feds and states try to distribute and tax at a level that was never intended and cannot be maintained. i know you can’t at your job and there is little i can do at my job as well. but civil disobedience is the only way to go in the future.
I am unconvinced that the Romney administration would have been that much different. Just a little more business friendly, perhaps
Who do you think were the primary cheerleaders for gay marriage? Big Business. How could they resist such a market with so much disposable income?
Of course, corporations have been pushing this for at least a decade, probably two. Now the American people have jumped on board and seem elated.
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.