If you still think "civil unions" should be left up to the states...

[Sapphocrat]

...or that civil unions are a satisfactory alternative to legal marriage:

Domestic partnerships pose unique tax problems, conflicts

<snip>

Domestic partnership . . . confers many of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage -- including being responsible for the partner's debts. However, the status is recognized only in some states, including California, but not by the federal government.

<snip>

Gay and lesbian couples in California can't marry, but they can register as domestic partners.

Starting in 2007, registered domestic partners will be required to file California tax returns just as married couples do. In other words, they'll file jointly or check the "married filing separately" box. However, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, bars same-sex couples from filing jointly -- or as married filing separately -- on federal returns.

The bottom line: Domestic partners can either choose a tax authority to defy or file state tax returns that are completely different from their federal returns, Beck said.

<snip>

Estate-tax issues are equally troublesome for much the same reason, she said. The state's domestic partnership law recognizes each partner's equal right to the household's community property, but federal law does not.

<snip>

Much more, with examples:
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061112/BUSINESS04/611120345/1019/BUSINESS

[customerserviceguy]

1. The same thing already happens in Massachusetts

When I was stuck in Utah in 2005, I got a job working at H & R Block, the only place that would hire a non-Mormon. We had access to filing instructions for all of the states with an income tax, as it was assumed we'd be filing for people who moved in from out of state, and for service members stationed in Utah. I saw clear directions that said married filing jointly was what to use on MA state tax returns for gay couples, but single or head of household (if applicable) was the only way to file Federal returns in this case.

It would be good to have a test case work its way through the courts, perhaps the US Supreme Court would allow joint filings in states that have equal marriage, or its fundamental equivalents. On a few occasions, tax law fights have led to equality, there were rules that applied to widows, and not widowers, that were extended to men back in the 1970's, as I recall.

[nofurylike]

9. exactly. that is one way the scotus could realize the writing on

the wall.

[Ian David]

13. States need to take the initiative to defend the rights of their citizens

and to defend their own State's Rights as well.

For example, Massachusetts should withhold their contributions to the federal government until the federal government gives full faith and credit to their married citizens, and recognizes their marriages.

If the federal government doesn't want to let all Massachusetts' married couples file joint tax returns, then we won't contribute to all those federal pork-barrel projects and interstate highway funds.

Or perhaps Massachusetts could refuse to allow the federal government to enforce the collection of any federal taxes in our state.

Or freeze federal assets held in Massachusetts banks.

Or refuse to allow any federal agency to operate within Massachusetts-- closing down the IRS, FBI, CIA, and other offices within our state.

[cali]

2. One word-

or rather one acronym- DOMA. MA same sex marriages have no more access to federal rights and responsibilities than CUs, and though I'm strongly in favor for marriage for all, I do think that state by state is the only viable means for achieving marriage equality at this time.

[Sapphocrat]

3. Why?

I do think that state by state is the only viable means for achieving marriage equality at this time.

Would you explain why you think so? I promise, I'm not laying a trap for you -- I really want to know why.

The only possible reason I can imagine, for anyone in favor of marriage equality, is that this sort of red tape (the tax returns, the estate planning, the potential invalidation of advance directives across state lines, etc.) will make such a tangled mess of federal DoMA in the courts, the only solution will be do undo DoMA, and for SCOTUS to subsequently rule all state marriage bans unconstitutional. (Yes, I'm dreaming, but.)

But I really want to hear why you'd rather leave it to the states.

[ISUGRADIA]

4. The numbers are not there in Congress to repeal DOMA

So marriage will have to be fought state by state. The current Supreme Court is not going to rule that marriage is a right so I see no alternative.

[nofurylike]

7. they said that about sodomy laws too, didn't they? and other

surprise realizations of what is law by this scotus.

[ISUGRADIA]

11. That was much different court

Roberts and Alito were not helpful additions

[nofurylike]

12. true. important point. i'll be thinking it over, thank you.

i was just going off again, but saw your post. to be continued tonight, okay?
any more thoughts on this aspect, i would appreciate.


peace!

[ISUGRADIA]

15. I wish this would be an easy fight to win but it's not

Incremental victories are a start. The New England states that are coming along. AZ defeating the state ban was big. And even the loss in SD by 52-48. That it was not a landslide there is a good thing.

[nofurylike]

17. me too, ISUGRADIA. thank you for the camaraderie. it's true

that those votes showed real change.
it looks like more people are getting perspective.

peace!

[cali]

5. As is stated in post #4

We don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of repealing DOMA now. That's year's down the road. States, and state courts in particular, are more amenable to equal marriage rights. I'm not saying that there won't be a day when we can undo DOMA, but it's not today. And we will make gains in states, as evidenced by NJ, and Spitzer's election in NY. One thing is certain; it won't happen overnight. This is a long slog.

[nofurylike]

8. OR scotus simply waking up to how much smarter, cheaper,

easier it would be to just honor what already is the law.

they may not be egalitarian, but sometimes they are pragmatic.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Bingo...

Is already the law, and has been since Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

That said, I agree it will be a state by state, generally court, battle until the right case hits the Supreme Court. Once Loving v. Virginia is affirmed as requiring states to grant full faith and credit to marriages created in other states individual state laws barring marriage within the state will fall - they are pointless as long as couples can go out of state to marry, return, and have their marriage honored.

[nofurylike]

16. thank you, Ms. Toad.

that is very interesting and important information.
i will be processing that, intently, and passing it on!
there are ideas.

i hope to discuss this more with you on these boards, some time.


peace!

[Recovered Repug]

19. I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on tv, and I didn't even stay at

a Holiday Inn express last night. Having said that, it seems that Loving v Virginia and gay marriage is apples and oranges for the following reason. Marriage between a man and a woman was already legal, Loving just dealt with state laws against interracial marriages. DOMA is, theoretically, Congress exercising its authority governing "the effect" of the full faith and credit clause. So unless DOMA is repealed/overturned, it seems state by state is the only way to go.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Can't guarantee the result will be the same,

but it is exactly the same issue. It is a federal constitutional issue. The US constitution requires that, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Marriage falls into that category, whether it is a marriage between individuals of the wrong age to qualify in the home state, the wrong races, too closely related, or the wrong gender. The only way around granting full faith and credit it is when there is a "strong public policy" reason to refuse to do so. Although that is what the state marriage discrimination acts are about, mere prejudice (blacks and whites shouldn't mix, for example, the basis of the laws in Virginia) is not a sufficient constitutional basis for a "strong public policy" exception. The argument here is whether there are sufficient rational bases for the marriage discrimination acts (the assertion of "strong public policy" to make it constitutional to refuse to grant full faith and credit to a marriage created in another state. As more and more states and countries recognize marriage or civil unions without imploding it becomes less and less realistic to argue that recognition creates some legally recognizable public harm.

With respect to DOMA, federal statutes do not trump the federal constitution. To the extent the federal marriage discrimination act tries to, it has not yet been tested. There are quite a few unconstitutional laws that stand for years because no one bothers to challenge them.

FWIW, I am, but not on TV, and I'm camped in a hotel but not a Holiday Inn express. Although this is not my practice area, because it has a major impact on my family it is an area of the law I have spent a significant amount of time studying.

[kiahzero]

23. Your analysis is pretty much spot on IMO

I'm not a lawyer yet, but I will be in three years.

Edit: Typo.

[Ms. Toad]

25. 1L? (somewhat OT)

First exams coming up shortly....Free advice: allocate time for each question on the exam, when you hit the end of the allocated time take 1 minute to write: "If I had additional time I would also analyze the following:" , them move on to the next question. Go back if you have extra time. Chances are you won't, but you will have answered a substantial part of each question - and more than your classmates who got stuck on question #1 because it was s-o-o-o long.

[kiahzero]

26. Yeah... we already had a fake midterm

I'm feeling pretty good about finals, but we'll see how long that confidence lasts. Thanks for the advice.

[kiahzero]

22. Marriage between two people is already legal.

A future case will simply strike down state laws against same-sex marriage because they are discriminatory on the basis of sex (in the same way that anti-miscegenation statutes were discriminatory on the basis of race).

[nofurylike]

6. "for SCOTUS to subsequently rule all state marriage bans

unconstitutional."

exactly.

it's not *only* (wonderful) dreaming, Sapphocrat. it is the law, and the difficulties of fighting just plain seeing that may soon outweigh stupid and wasteful prejudices, even to the stupid and wasteful.

you know, in mass, it really was just a matter of a judge saying, once and for all, look, it's the law. it had always been the law; same-sex marriage had, simply, always been legal - it was a matter of then having to decide if they would make it illegal. back then, the legislation and governor, and even the democratic attorney general fought facing it, but the simple law held.

it's just the law. the state constitutions in most states say that each person has the right to marry the person of her/his choice, within the bounds of the law. it is because people presumed that meant 'of the opposite sex,' that it wasn't specified. that's why they're trying to get it in the laws now. but those constitutions still say it is each person's right...

it seems to be time for us all to send from our 'higher-spirits' to the judges' 'higher-spirits' that the very least obstructive and costly thing to do is to just plain stop fighting what is already the law, and get over their phobias.

the entire infrastructure for doing that is already in place everywhere.

if new york is now going to let people define their gender for themselves, it seems that many must be looking for the truly most pragmatic solutions.


peace and solidarity, always!

[nofurylike]

10. kick and recommend

[NMMNG]

18. Indeed

We are not fighting for Marriage just to piss off the religious or win a battle of semantics. We are fighting for Marriage because it is the only thing that will give us the equal rights we deserve.

[Jamastiene]

21. Kickin' it.

[Zhade]

24. ...then you must think it's okay for some states to ban interracial marriage.

Just playing off your subject line - it's true!