DOMA goes down!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Why is God so douchey about gay marriage anyway?

He's not. Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Christians are.

and Bill Clinton

And Obama until the 2012 election.

[sys]

heard on the radio some smart lawyery professors talking about how they expect that many of the federal benefits, including the tax benefits, will only be extended to homosexual couples living in states that allow homosexual marriage, not to everyone.  said they could decide to extend to all, but that it would be consistent with past policy to only extend to residents of those states, and that was what they expected.

i was/am dumbfounded.  i just assumed it would apply to everyone that got legally married, not just the residents of the favored 13 states.  makes the court's decision to duck the california case look even worse.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

[steve dave]

that's great

[Mrs. Gooch]

heard on the radio some smart lawyery professors talking about how they expect that many of the federal benefits, including the tax benefits, will only be extended to homosexual couples living in states that allow homosexual marriage, not to everyone.  said they could decide to extend to all, but that it would be consistent with past policy to only extend to residents of those states, and that was what they expected.

i was/am dumbfounded.  i just assumed it would apply to everyone that got legally married, not just the residents of the favored 13 states.  makes the court's decision to duck the california case look even worse.

I read that different government agencies have different policies. Some go by the rule of the state you live in - if gay marriage is legal there then they accept gay married people living there. Others go by the state you were married in - if a gay couple was married in a legal state but live in a state that doesn't have gay marriage, you can still get benefits from those particular agencies.

[steve dave]

heard on the radio some smart lawyery professors talking about how they expect that many of the federal benefits, including the tax benefits, will only be extended to homosexual couples living in states that allow homosexual marriage, not to everyone.  said they could decide to extend to all, but that it would be consistent with past policy to only extend to residents of those states, and that was what they expected.

i was/am dumbfounded.  i just assumed it would apply to everyone that got legally married, not just the residents of the favored 13 states.  makes the court's decision to duck the california case look even worse.

that's really shitty if true. doesn't even make sense.

[GCJayhawker]

heard on the radio some smart lawyery professors talking about how they expect that many of the federal benefits, including the tax benefits, will only be extended to homosexual couples living in states that allow homosexual marriage, not to everyone.  said they could decide to extend to all, but that it would be consistent with past policy to only extend to residents of those states, and that was what they expected.

i was/am dumbfounded.  i just assumed it would apply to everyone that got legally married, not just the residents of the favored 13 states.  makes the court's decision to duck the california case look even worse.

that's really shitty if true. doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense from a legal perspective, but not really from a good policy standpoint IMO.  There are some states that currently recognize same sex marriage as being legal and equal with different sex marriages. It makes sense that those states would be required to give benefits to same sex couples because to not do so would be violating the equal rights of the legally married same sex couple.

Now in states that do not recognize same sex marriage there is currently not an equal footing between different sex married couples and same sex couples since those same sex couples can't be married.  Therefore the courts can differentiate between the two couples and say giving federal benefits to the married couple does not violate the same sex couple's rights since they are not married.

Essentially I think the court was not ready to make a widespread ruling regarding same sex marriage because so many states are using the legislative process to legalize same sex marriage and the SCOTUS has been hesitant to make widespread rulings, particularly on social issues, until they deem the legislative process has reached a tipping point on the issue.

[Shacks]

Kansas representative Tim Huelskamp leads the charge to make sure marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/27/house-republican-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-defining-marriage/

[steve dave]

Kansas representative Tim Huelskamp leads the charge to make sure marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/27/house-republican-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-defining-marriage/

WHIP THEIR ASSES TIM!

[michigancat]

Kansas representative Tim Huelskamp leads the charge to make sure marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/27/house-republican-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-defining-marriage/

  <-tim

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why is God so douchey about gay marriage anyway?

I checked, and god loves his gay children.

Unfortunately science hates the gays, and has rendered their reproductive organs useless.

#teamgod

[steve dave]

heard on the radio some smart lawyery professors talking about how they expect that many of the federal benefits, including the tax benefits, will only be extended to homosexual couples living in states that allow homosexual marriage, not to everyone.  said they could decide to extend to all, but that it would be consistent with past policy to only extend to residents of those states, and that was what they expected.

i was/am dumbfounded.  i just assumed it would apply to everyone that got legally married, not just the residents of the favored 13 states.  makes the court's decision to duck the california case look even worse.

that's really shitty if true. doesn't even make sense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-usa-gaymarriage-tax-idUSBRE97S11N20130829

"The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage."

[sys]

good job, irs.