Congratulations, Illinois!!!

[Mertex]

Same sex marriage has the same effect as poisoning the water supply. It's toxic once accepted.

I'm sure that's the way many felt about mixed marriages at one time - probably still think so!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you think same-sex marriage is going to make crimes against children from gays even higher?

Okie - dokie!

wow idiot what part of less gay than straights but percentage of gay sexual attacks on children are higher than straight don't you ******* understand?

Ha,ha, you seem to be the idiot. This thread is about same-sex marriage, you bring out pedophiles and compare them to gays, then you tell me that their percentage of crimes is higher for gays, and so tell me how does same-sex marriage affect the percentage?

Never mind, you seem to be having a problem focusing.

and I told you there is no difference between peds and queers. both have a sickness.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh the perks of being a same-sex couple...

State of celebration refers to the jurisdiction in which the couple was married, meaning the same-sex pair can file their federal taxes as married even if they live in a state that does not recognize their marriage.

Same-Sex Married Couples Await State Tax Word | Fox Business

I wish I could live in a state without a state income tax, and not have to pay Illinois income tax as an out-of-state resident with income generated within Illinois

You think having to file joint federal and separate state taxes is a "perk" for being a gay couple?

Joint federal- yes. After being married in a state that recognizes the marriage, then moving to a state that does not.

As I stated, this would be akin to me moving to a state with no state income tax then NOT being taxed as an Illinois out-of-state resident even though I have income generated within the state of Illinois.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Joint federal- yes. After being married in a state that recognizes the marriage, then moving to a state that does not.

As I stated, this would be akin to me moving to a state with no state income tax then NOT being taxed as an Illinois out-of-state resident even though I have income generated within the state of Illinois.

Not even the same. You are mixing Federal recognition of valid Civil Marriage with State recognition.


>>>>

 

[Mr. H.]

Joint federal- yes. After being married in a state that recognizes the marriage, then moving to a state that does not.

As I stated, this would be akin to me moving to a state with no state income tax then NOT being taxed as an Illinois out-of-state resident even though I have income generated within the state of Illinois.

Not even the same. You are mixing Federal recognition of valid Civil Marriage with State recognition.


>>>>

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

 

[GHook93]

Well done, if only Australia could get with the times and follow - gay marriage is now legal in the ACT, but the Federal government is going to court to overturn the ruling. Homophobes.

Noomi, I know we have had out difference, but I am glad you bring an international opinion to this board. That said, I wouldn't put down Australia, they have much going for them and much to envy. I have a buddy who left the States for Australia's oil industry and he isn't coming back. But I digress.

I live in IL and welcome this law, however, it ignorant to say that the people against it are homophobes (some are, but most aren't). In fact the vast majority of IL legislators voted for civil unions just last years, which gave gays all the legal protections and tax benefits that marriage offers. They were just opposed to the religious part of the union, which I think they have incorrect, but I do see their point.

Actually, I don't care who you screw. It is the financial aspect that I find troublesome. Our SS system was not designed for the extra people. We better be recruiting more illegals to pay into it.

What does SS have to do with it? Gays accumulate SS the same way straight people do. You point makes no sense!

 

[GHook93]

Oh, right!! Yeah. Just like gays got equal rights right after interracial couples.

not the same thing and you know it. interracial marriage is a man and woman of different races.

gay marriage is something quite different----biologically.

They made the same argument about mixed race marriages

That it was biologically wrong to mix the races

That is a false weak straw man. In the biracial argument, the argument was the future children would have lifelong hardships, that they wanted to keep purity of the races. It was nothing about biological difference. While you support gay marriage or not, you must recognize they procreate. That is a much different argument then racial purity!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Joint federal- yes. After being married in a state that recognizes the marriage, then moving to a state that does not.

As I stated, this would be akin to me moving to a state with no state income tax then NOT being taxed as an Illinois out-of-state resident even though I have income generated within the state of Illinois.

Not even the same. You are mixing Federal recognition of valid Civil Marriage with State recognition.


>>>>

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

 

[Mr. H.]

Not even the same. You are mixing Federal recognition of valid Civil Marriage with State recognition.


>>>>

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

 

[Seawytch]

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

They can only file married federal and not state. It's the opposite of what us LEGALLY married gays have been doing, filing joint state and separate federal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

Why? Their state of residence is irrelevant to their legal status of Civilly Married - that is based on the state where the Civil Marriage was entered into. Just because they move does not mean that magically them become "unmarried", they are still married per the State where they got married and in the eyes of the Federal government (barring a legal divorce decree of course).

If you would like to have federal Civil Marriage recognition be conditional based on the marriage being performed in the state of residence, fine go for that. But you are going to piss off a lot of heterosexual couples when you tell them that their marriage is invalid across state lines and that any time they move they are going to have to get remarried in the new state of residence.



>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

wow idiot what part of less gay than straights but percentage of gay sexual attacks on children are higher than straight don't you ******* understand?

Ha,ha, you seem to be the idiot. This thread is about same-sex marriage, you bring out pedophiles and compare them to gays, then you tell me that their percentage of crimes is higher for gays, and so tell me how does same-sex marriage affect the percentage?

Never mind, you seem to be having a problem focusing.

and I told you there is no difference between peds and queers. both have a sickness.

your sig is kinda gay..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ha,ha, you seem to be the idiot. This thread is about same-sex marriage, you bring out pedophiles and compare them to gays, then you tell me that their percentage of crimes is higher for gays, and so tell me how does same-sex marriage affect the percentage?

Never mind, you seem to be having a problem focusing.

and I told you there is no difference between peds and queers. both have a sickness.

your sig is kinda gay..

until you meet the tiger.

 

[Flopper]

It's preferential treatment nonetheless and in my opinion, same sex couples are not deserving of such.

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

The IRS settled this a few months ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

This could have implications far beyond just taxes. For example, Social Security has just started processing same sex marriage benefits. Then there are IRA rules for spouses, inheritance taxes, etc. Some states may elect not to issue same sex marriage licenses, but all states will recognize them.

This reminds me of a dispute over a hundred years ago involving a couple legally married in one state at age 14 and another state not recognizing the marriage.

IRS issues tax rules for married gay couples

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Extending equal treatment and not discriminating without a compelling interest is not extending "preferential treatment". It's extending the same treatment.

Unless of course you could provide a logical example of how same-sex couples would be treated better then different-sex couples, that would be "preferential treatment".


>>>>

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

The IRS settled this a few months ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

This could have implications far beyond just taxes. For example, Social Security has just started processing same sex marriage benefits. Then there are IRA rules for spouses, inheritance taxes, etc. Some states may elect not to issue same sex marriage licenses, but all states will recognize them.

This reminds me of a dispute over a hundred years ago involving a couple legally married in one state at age 14 and another state not recognizing the marriage.

IRS issues tax rules for married gay couples

The IRS is not the government you moron they are agents of the government therefore they cannot create any laws.

 

[Seawytch]

If a same sex couple is legally married in one state, then yes they should be able to file their federal returns as "married". If thy subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, they should not be allowed to file as married on their federal return. That's simple enough to understand isn't it? If you disagree, no big deal.

The IRS settled this a few months ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

This could have implications far beyond just taxes. For example, Social Security has just started processing same sex marriage benefits. Then there are IRA rules for spouses, inheritance taxes, etc. Some states may elect not to issue same sex marriage licenses, but all states will recognize them.

This reminds me of a dispute over a hundred years ago involving a couple legally married in one state at age 14 and another state not recognizing the marriage.

IRS issues tax rules for married gay couples

The IRS is not the government you moron they are agents of the government therefore they cannot create any laws.

We still get to file joint federal taxes if we were legally married in a state that has done the right thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The IRS settled this a few months ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

This could have implications far beyond just taxes. For example, Social Security has just started processing same sex marriage benefits. Then there are IRA rules for spouses, inheritance taxes, etc. Some states may elect not to issue same sex marriage licenses, but all states will recognize them.

This reminds me of a dispute over a hundred years ago involving a couple legally married in one state at age 14 and another state not recognizing the marriage.

IRS issues tax rules for married gay couples

The IRS is not the government you moron they are agents of the government therefore they cannot create any laws.

We still get to file joint federal taxes if we were legally married in a state that has done the right thing.

The point is the IRS hasn't settled anything and they aren't authorized to create laws. Which this seems to be the case.

 

[Seawytch]

The IRS is not the government you moron they are agents of the government therefore they cannot create any laws.

We still get to file joint federal taxes if we were legally married in a state that has done the right thing.

The point is the IRS hasn't settled anything and they aren't authorized to create laws. Which this seems to be the case.

It's a rule not a law.

 

[Mertex]

wow idiot what part of less gay than straights but percentage of gay sexual attacks on children are higher than straight don't you ******* understand?

Ha,ha, you seem to be the idiot. This thread is about same-sex marriage, you bring out pedophiles and compare them to gays, then you tell me that their percentage of crimes is higher for gays, and so tell me how does same-sex marriage affect the percentage?

Never mind, you seem to be having a problem focusing.

and I told you there is no difference between peds and queers. both have a sickness.

That's your take and you're entitled to think crazy stuff, but that doesn't make it so.

Your're thinking is beyond crazy.

 

[Mertex]

not the same thing and you know it. interracial marriage is a man and woman of different races.

gay marriage is something quite different----biologically.

They made the same argument about mixed race marriages

That it was biologically wrong to mix the races

That is a false weak straw man. In the biracial argument, the argument was the future children would have lifelong hardships, that they wanted to keep purity of the races.

And that argument went down the drain. And as far as keeping purity of the races, that's a Nazi idea.

It was nothing about biological difference. While you support gay marriage or not, you must recognize they procreate. That is a much different argument then racial purity!

Many straight couples are not able to procreate. That doesn't mean they can't get married, and as far as mixed-race couples, the children of such couples are not having any more problems than children of straight couples......all just supposition and fear for some, was all that it was, just like it is for same-sex marriage.