Feds extend legal benefits to gay spouses

[Magical Realist]

(CNN) -- "In a major milestone for gay rights, the United States government plans to expand recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."

The federal expansion will include 34 states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, but the new federal benefits being extended to those states will apply only where the U.S. government has jurisdiction, Holder said.

For example, a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts can now have their federal bankruptcy proceeding recognized in Alabama, even though it doesn't allow same-sex marriages. In the past, the U.S. government could challenge the couple's joint bankruptcy because Alabama doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

Holder's announcement was revealed in an advance copy of a Saturday night speech at the Human Rights Campaign's gala in New York City. At its blog, the advocacy group cheered what it called a "landmark announcement" that it "will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better."

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, criticized what he called the latest move by President Barack Obama's administration "to undermine the authority and sovereignty of the states to make their own determinations regulating the institution of marriage."

"The American public needs to realize how egregious and how dangerous these usurpations are and how far-reaching the implications can be," Brown said in a statement. "The changes being proposed here to a process as universally relevant as the criminal justice system serve as a potent reminder of why it is simply a lie to say that redefining marriage doesn't affect everyone in society."

The move affects how millions of Americans interact with their federal government, including bankruptcy cases, prison visitation rights, survivor benefits for police officers and firefighters killed on the job, and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse.

Holder compared his work for the gay rights cause to the 1960s civil rights struggle and then- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's support for equality.

"This means that, in every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States -- they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said of his initiative.

Under the new policy, the Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples -- including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses.

Also, the government won't contest same-sex married couples their rights in states where previously prosecutors could argue that the marriage is not recognized in the state where the couple lives, Holder said.

Couples in same-sex marriages will be allowed to file for bankruptcy as a couple. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. Federal inmates with same-sex spouses will now have full visitation, compassionate release and other benefits.

The Justice Department's policy change will extend benefits to same-sex couples who benefit from federal programs such as the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Radiation Exposure Compensation program and to the families of police officers and firefighters who receive benefits from the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program.

"Just like during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the stakes involved in this generation's struggle for LGBT equality could not be higher," Holder said. "As attorney general, I will not let this Department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history."

 

[superstring01]

This is good news. It's really a tidal wave of change. I knew it would happen in my lifetime, but the pace of it is stunning. And we're moving ahead of other countries that -- frankly -- I thought would put us to shame. Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Australia -- all of these countries are marginally more liberal than the USA. Now the US is finally moving, and quickly, in the correct direction. It isn't so much that Germany and Australia are "far behind us" (indeed, they each have far better national legislation than the US), it's just that the USA used to be somewhat of a pace-setter in human rights. Now it feels like we're finally becoming the example we should be.

I guess I should have expected it to be like this. We're not so much of a national union when it comes to tippy-toeing into civil rights territory as we are an amalgam of different local attitudes who cautiously experiment with different ideas at different times. This may be our strength as a union. Colorado and Washington (and others) experiment with decriminalizing drugs. Others experiment with assisted suicide. Others experiment with civil unions and marriage equality. Sometimes I wish it could happen at once, but the fact that states can experiment with ideas and "prove" them, then others replicate them, must mean something good for the long term.

~String

 

[Dinosaur]

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships. The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

 

[Asguard]

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships. The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

isn't it interesting that those who say they are not homophobic ARE the homophobs. was going to tear this post apart but I think I will wait for Tiassa to do it far more elegantly

 

[Sorcerer]

This is good news. It's really a tidal wave of change. I knew it would happen in my lifetime, but the pace of it is stunning. And we're moving ahead of other countries that -- frankly -- I thought would put us to shame. Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Australia -- all of these countries are marginally more liberal than the USA. Now the US is finally moving, and quickly, in the correct direction. It isn't so much that Germany and Australia are "far behind us" (indeed, they each have far better national legislation than the US), it's just that the USA used to be somewhat of a pace-setter in human rights. Now it feels like we're finally becoming the example we should be.

I guess I should have expected it to be like this. We're not so much of a national union when it comes to tippy-toeing into civil rights territory as we are an amalgam of different local attitudes who cautiously experiment with different ideas at different times. This may be our strength as a union. Colorado and Washington (and others) experiment with decriminalizing drugs. Others experiment with assisted suicide. Others experiment with civil unions and marriage equality. Sometimes I wish it could happen at once, but the fact that states can experiment with ideas and "prove" them, then others replicate them, must mean something good for the long term.

~String

Really great news. It's time that the US asserted its moral authority again. I think even those US sates which have anti-gay laws on the books are slowly yielding.

 

[Tiassa]

Seeking the Affirmative Assertion

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

What is the legal argument underpinning that proposition?

 

[Dinosaur]

In my Post #3:

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

From Post #4 by Asguard:

isn't it interesting that those who say they are not homophobic ARE the homophobs.

Can you quote something from my Post which disparages gays & justifies calling me a homophobe?

I was not claiming that legislation providing for gay marriages is unethical, illegal, fattening, or unconstitutional.

BTW: I try to use unethical rather than immoral, which tends to be a theological term

Also from my Post #3:

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

From Post #6 by Tiassa:

What is the legal argument underpinning that proposition?

BTW: What is the legal argument underpinning benefits provided to heterosexual & gay couples? Whatever it is, why does it not apply to parent/child & sibling couples who cohabit, especially if one qualifies as a dependent for income tax purposes?

I merely mentioned one financial benefit for gay couples & asked why similar benefits could not be provided for cohabiting parent/child or sibling couples. It seems to me that parent/child & sibling couples should at least be considered for (if not given) benefits accorded to gay & heterosexual couples.

Isaac Asimov once wrote a SciFi novel which had the following statement by a powerful politician:

If I propose & advocate the legislation you are requesting, I will lose the next election 6 months from now. If I lose that election, I do not care if the sun goes nova in 5 years & destroys the solar system.

The above defines the basic nature of a politician.

Legislation giving special benefits to married couples was allegedly viewed as having some worthwhile merit, but was probably motivated by concern about some election. Legislation giving the same rights to gay couples is probably similarly motivated.

Some sage once said:

He who robs Peter to pay Paul will always get Paul’s vote.

Giving benefits to gay & heterosexual couples is wonderful for politicians. There is no obvious Peter being robbed. A little bit of Peter income is taken from almost everybody who has taxable income & is not married.

 

[Tiassa]

Argumentative Considerations

BTW: What is the legal argument underpinning benefits provided to heterosexual & gay couples? Whatever it is, why does it not apply to parent/child & sibling couples who cohabit, especially if one qualifies as a dependent for income tax purposes?

I merely mentioned one financial benefit for gay couples & asked why similar benefits could not be provided for cohabiting parent/child or sibling couples. It seems to me that parent/child & sibling couples should at least be considered for (if not given) benefits accorded to gay & heterosexual couples.

So ... let me see if I've got this straight:

• We are over twenty years into the current arc of the Gay Fray, which officially opened in 1990 in Corvallis, Oregon, and hit the national stage in 1992 when two states were asked to pass initiatives that would use force of law to ostracize homosexuals in society.

• In that nearly quarter-century, the arguments have remained fairly stable: The homophobes offer an aesthetic argument rooted in supestition and fear, while the civil rights argument looks to the law itself.

• That civil rights argument won, by the way.

• Yet you are ignorant of this history?​

The civil rights argument is pretty straightforward: Homosexuality is a product of nature; our society does not discriminate against such produce of nature; equal protection demands that reservation of marital rights to heterosexuals constitutes sex discrimination.

Your argument about parents and children, or siblings, would suggest that we should legalize incestuous marriage. Presently, the standing precedent is that the state has a prurient interest in combating incest. I personally don't see the argument to get around that except to say that sure, the state has a prurient interest, but who cares.

The arguments against incestuous relations range from the biological to the sociological to the psychological. The argument in favor of incest, at least as put forward by the homophobic argument, is that there is no functional difference between homosexuality, incest, or the rape of children and animals.

If that's not your argument, then it would be helpful if you would post something affirmative. After all, ignorance of the historical record is no excuse for hiding behind fallacy.

Legislation giving special benefits to married couples was allegedly viewed as having some worthwhile merit, but was probably motivated by concern about some election. Legislation giving the same rights to gay couples is probably similarly motivated.

That's a lot of probablies. The historical truth is that marriage itself was never really legislated insofar as the "special benefits" of marriage were carried over, according to tradition, from English common law and other influences at the advent of the nation.

Given that such legislation would leave a paper trail, perhaps you might wish to secure your probablies by presenting that record.

Giving benefits to gay & heterosexual couples is wonderful for politicians. There is no obvious Peter being robbed. A little bit of Peter income is taken from almost everybody who has taxable income & is not married.

An odd suggestion. Then again, I think an Oklahoma Republican has the answer for you:

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, 'We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered ....

(Konopasek)​

Talk about picking up the ball and going home ....

Still, though, had you familiarized yourself with the issues, you would already be aware that there are, indeed, voices in the marriage equality crowd that would accept this outcome. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've even said it a few times.

Indeed, such an outcome might even prove to be ideal. In the past, marriage and taxes was a tax issue. People complained of a "marriage penalty" that never really was very well explained. But at some point they abandoned that, and perhaps because they needed to construe the marriage penalty as a marriage benefit in order to complain that homosexuals are getting special benefits in exercising their constitutional right to marry one another.

The one thing I can say, though, about marriage penalties and benefits, is that these issues were never raised as an objection to state recognition of heterosexual marriage.

Of course, this is "the gay", so the marriage penalty is now a benefit, and the tax code is a reason to prevent marriage.

It's not much for substance, but it's got quite the comedic punch.

Seriously, though, the affirmative arguments for homosexual marriage equality are all over this website and shot through the public discourse. If we are to take your ignorance of the issue seriously, okay, fine. But that still doesn't excuse you from the necessity of making an affirmative argument in favor of this incestuous principle you're advocating.
____________________

Notes:

Konopasek, Michael. "Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma". News 9. January 24, 2014. News9.com. February 11, 2014. http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma

 

[barcelonic]

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships. The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

Can you quote something from my Post which disparages gays & justifies calling me a homophobe?

I would like to break these paragraphs down:

1) In this first paragraph your question likens gay people to people in unethical relationships. No statement is required because a question can, and in this case clearly does, make an implication.

2) I often criticise subjective evidence but here there is no evidence. You give a subjective account of your history with gay people but it serves no purpose here.

3) I'm going to assume you were not in a romantic relationship with your family members, and this is the crucial difference. It is absurd to suggest that if gay couples get legal benefits then so should close family members. This seems to be what you are touching upon here.

I would not call you a homophobe, but I would expect most people to arrive at that conclusion after a post like this, as here you demonstrate very little understanding of homosexuality whilst making comparisons they would invariably find offensive.

 

[Dinosaur]

From my Post #3:

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships. The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

What irked me about tax benefits for gay couples is that I could not have the same benefits in two periods of my life when I cared for a widowed mother & later a son who was very ill & died before he was 50.

If a person can claim a parent, child, or sibling as a dependent, why not allow the filing of a joint tax return?

Due to the above Post #3, one Poster accused me or suggested that I was a homophobe. That Poster probably has no knowledge of the coffee house habitues of the 1950's, many of them gay & many young folks still living with parents or attending college. They were meeting places for people who did not frequent bars or cocktail lounges. I enjoyed the company of the chess players & other generally bright people who frequented those coffee houses, which was the first place where I encountered & became friendly with gays.

BTW: In the 1950's gays were called faggots & were often the victims of brutal assaults, which was probably the initial motivation for gay activism. More modern gay activism might be motivated by the financial benefits accorded married couples.

Tiassa: Your apparently did not understand what I was saying.

Your argument about parents and children, or siblings, would suggest that we should legalize incestuous marriage. Presently, the standing precedent is that the state has a prurient interest in combating incest. I personally don't see the argument to get around that except to say that sure, the state has a prurient interest, but who cares.

The arguments against incestuous relations range from the biological to the sociological to the psychological. The argument in favor of incest, at least as put forward by the homophobic argument, is that there is no functional difference between homosexuality, incest, or the rape of children and animals.

The first part of your statement is either a slanderous insult or a failure to understand the nature of my Post.

When I mentioned caring for my widowed mother & her being my dependent for income tax purposes, you essentially accused me of having an incestuous relationship with her. You similarly implied that I had an incestuous relationship with my son.

I also mentioned siblings who live with each other. Are you suggesting that all such situations involve incest?

I merely remarked that there are closely bonded siblings & parent/child couples who live together and asked why they should not be treated the same way as married couples (hetero or homo) for tax purposes.

 

[Bells]

Bleh.. this needs to be cleared up..

From my Post #3:What irked me about tax benefits for gay couples is that I could not have the same benefits in two periods of my life when I cared for a widowed mother & later a son who was very ill & died before he was 50.

If a person can claim a parent, child, or sibling as a dependent, why not allow the filing of a joint tax return?

In the context of this discussion and with the law itself, it applies as what would apply to a spouse. In other words, if you are in a defacto relationship with someone or you are married to them... *cough*.. have a sexual relationship with them and living with them as one would live with a spouse.. *end cough*

Which would not apply to living with and caring for your mother or your son.

Tiassa: Your apparently did not understand what I was saying.The first part of your statement is either a slanderous insult or a failure to understand the nature of my Post.

When I mentioned caring for my widowed mother & her being my dependent for income tax purposes, you essentially accused me of having an incestuous relationship with her. You similarly implied that I had an incestuous relationship with my son.

I also mentioned siblings who live with each other. Are you suggesting that all such situations involve incest?

I merely remarked that there are closely bonded siblings & parent/child couples who live together and asked why they should not be treated the same way as married couples (hetero or homo) for tax purposes.

When you respond and complain that you are denied the benefits that married and and those living together as though married homosexuals get, when you cared for your family members, it kind of sets an uncomfortable tone that makes people go 'what what??'..

You weren't living with your family members as though you were married to them, nor had you married them. For example:

I merely mentioned one financial benefit for gay couples & asked why similar benefits could not be provided for cohabiting parent/child or sibling couples. It seems to me that parent/child & sibling couples should at least be considered for (if not given) benefits accorded to gay & heterosexual couples.

When you apply the word "couples" in describing your relationship with your parent, sibling or your child.. To put it bluntly, when you live with or care for a parent, sibling or child, you are not living with them as you would with a sexual partner - ie, which is the relationship that is usually classified as a 'couple'. In short, if you are in a defacto relationship or married, then you are a couple. When you use that kind of language and wording and apply it to your parent, sibling or child and declare that you and your parent, sibling or child living together makes you a couple, it can send the wrong message.

I would suggest that the words you employ assigned a relationship you may not have meant, so being a bit more choosy with the words you use may be in order. For example, not declaring that you are cohabiting with a parent or child as a "couples".

Should there be benefits for carers (<---- the correct terminology) who provide care for their families and loved ones? Certainly. But that is a completely different subject matter and not connected at all to the subject of benefits that stem from marriages or defacto relationships.

 

[Dinosaur]

It seems that other Posters to this thread consider it necessary for there to be sex (alleged or actual) involved in a relationship as a prerequisite for filing a joint return.

Why should that be a primary criteria? Is either a normal parent/child or a normal sibling bond known to be not as strong as the bond between couples allegedly or actually in a sexual relationship?

In a life versus death crisis situation, I am fairly sure that my instinct would favor a parent over my wife or mistress. I spent more years establishing that bond.

If given time to make the decision (Example: A hostage situation), I would probably consider the life expectation remaining for each person & might choose to save the wife or mistress.

BTW: In a crisis situation, if I had to choose between saving a child or an adult (neither of which was known to me), I would tend to save the adult. The adult would be facing more terror due to being more aware of mortality.

If a parent, child, or sibling is considered to be a dependent for income tax purposes & in the absence of a legally recognized spouse, I do not understand why there should be a reason to absolutely deny the privilege/right to file a joint tax return.

It is current IRS law to allow a joint return only for legally married couples. I merely question why this should be the case.

 

[gmilam]

Just out of curiosity, let's suppose you were taking care of your mother and your son at the same time... do you feel the three of you should have been allowed to file a joint return? Why or why not?

 

[Tiassa]

If/Then

The first part of your statement is either a slanderous insult or a failure to understand the nature of my Post.

Um, no, it's more a response to the application of marriage laws you invoked.

When I mentioned caring for my widowed mother & her being my dependent for income tax purposes, you essentially accused me of having an incestuous relationship with her. You similarly implied that I had an incestuous relationship with my son.

See, here's the thing: (chortle!)

Okay, let's try that again.

See, here's the thing: (snort!)

Damn. One more time.

See, here's the thing: (guffaw!)

Okay, okay, okay. I promise .... I can do this.

See, here's the thing: What are people supposed to think when you ask why marital benefits shouldn't be extended to your relationship with your mother?

I asked you about the legal argument underpinning the proposition? Your answer?

"BTW: What is the legal argument underpinning benefits provided to heterosexual & gay couples? Whatever it is, why does it not apply to parent/child & sibling couples who cohabit, especially if one qualifies as a dependent for income tax purposes?

"I merely mentioned one financial benefit for gay couples & asked why similar benefits could not be provided for cohabiting parent/child or sibling couples. It seems to me that parent/child & sibling couples should at least be considered for (if not given) benefits accorded to gay & heterosexual couples."​

And then you went off on politicians.

I mean, really?

Seriously:

"If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners."​

Here's what you missed:

If "gay couples are allowed to file joint returns" [under equal protection in marriage law], then why not allow parents and children to do so?​

There's a reason I asked you about the legal underpinning.

The legal structure through which marital benefits are extended to homosexual partners is marriage law.

Please fill in the blank: The legal structure through which marital benefits are extended to parent-sibling relationships is _____.

When you just turned it around and left it about marriage law ... er ... I mean ... well?

 

[Dinosaur]

GMilam: From your Post #13

Just out of curiosity, let's suppose you were taking care of your mother and your son at the same time... do you feel the three of you should have been allowed to file a joint return? Why or why not?

If current IRS law recognized polygamy & allowed more than two people to file jointly, I would say yes. It is my understanding of current IRS law, that joint return relates to two people & I would reply no.

Tiassa: From your Post #14

See, here's the thing: (chortle!)

Okay, let's try that again.

See, here's the thing: (snort!)

Damn. One more time.

See, here's the thing: (guffaw!)

Okay, okay, okay. I promise .... I can do this.

The above is pertinent to this discussion?

From my Post #12:

If a parent, child, or sibling is considered to be a dependent for income tax purposes & in the absence of a legally recognized spouse, I do not understand why there should be a reason to absolutely deny the privilege/right to file a joint tax return.

It is current IRS law to allow a joint return only for legally married couples. I merely question why this should be the case.

The flavor of your remarks suggest that an alleged or actual sexual relationship is a main criterium for filing a joint return. Perhaps two married people 90+ years old should be required to provide proof that their relationship includes sex.

BTW: For various legal purposes, two unmarried people can be considered have a common law marriage. I wonder if the IRS recognizes such a “Marriage”

 

[Tiassa]

One would think certain things obvious, even if the other obvious things aren't.

The above is pertinent to this discussion?

Well, sure. It's a way of making the point about how silly you are being.

The flavor of your remarks suggest that an alleged or actual sexual relationship is a main criterium for filing a joint return.

I would suggest that's a misrepresentation, except you went ahead and did so, anyway with the point about common law.

You appear to be asking why marriage law should not be extended to parent-child and sibling relationships.

And as to the ninety year-olds, it varies from state to state. That is to say, some still require consummatioon, and non-consummation is considered grounds for annullment, as opposed to divorce.

However, it is rather quite the phenomenon to witness: The same general bloc (anti-gay/traditionalist/homophobic) that fretted over homosexual marriage leading to incest, polygamy, and bestiality, are starting to drag these other issues into the debate in order to open up the possibility.

That is to say, watching a general group of people struggle to fulfill their own doomsday prophecy is something you don't often get to witness on this scale.

An analogy would be if House Republicans started building legislation to install a "death panel" to the ACA.

Look, virtually everybody on the civil rights side of this argument finds the incest/polygamy/bestiality argument absurd. We've alternately laughed heartily at it over the last few decades while also scratching our heads and wondering how it is that nobody can explain how that projection works as well as why it persists.

And now we're getting the answer: Because it's what those "traditionalists" want to happen.

It's one of those weird propositions where you look at the mob on the other side of the protest and wonder how it is that they are incapable of considering these issues.

Like I said, the vehicle for gays is marriage law. For parents and siblings? Not so much. Well, unless we want to open marriage law to such relationships. While I'm not prepared to do so, one upside is that I could make a living cleaning up the messes people make of their lives by extending marital law to immediate family.

Now, what it would seem, ultimately, is that you want to create some sort of new laws, based on marriage law, that would extend the same tax benefits to non-marital relations. In the end, I have no problem with that. It'll have to be done carefully, of course, but that's the thing: I asked you for the legal argument underpinning your proposal. You responded by demanding the legal argument underpinning marriage equality. The answer to your inquiry is marriage law.

What remains unanswered is the question I asked you last week:

Dinosaur: If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

Tiassa: What is the legal argument underpinning that proposition?​

To the one, we can get avoid the whole question by simply getting around to the long-suggested review and revision of our tax code; that would take care of the tax question, for instance, by eliminating the "married/filing jointly" pathway.

If, however, we are looking to extend this condition to parent-child and sibling relationships because of gay marriage, that's an entirely different legal question.

There is what we want, and then there is how we get it. The people who gave up on flight because they couldn't flap their arms hard enough obviously didn't give it enough thought; in the end, it's not the flapping that's important.

 

[billvon]

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships.

To me that's like saying "it irks me that interracial couples are being given the same benefit as husband/wife partnerships."

The key here is that all MARRIAGES should afford couples the same rights - no matter what their race, no matter what their gender, no matter what their religion.

 

[barcelonic]

To me that's like saying "it irks me that interracial couples are being given the same benefit as husband/wife partnerships."

The key here is that all MARRIAGES should afford couples the same rights - no matter what their race, no matter what their gender, no matter what their religion.

Well said.

Tiassa could afford to be a little more respectful to Dinosaur, if you ask me, but essentially I find little logic in what Dinosaur has been saying in this thread. It would seem that if he is truly not a homophobe then he would be able to understand very clearly why gay couples get couples benefits and those who are not couples can not.

 

[Bells]

It seems that other Posters to this thread consider it necessary for there to be sex (alleged or actual) involved in a relationship as a prerequisite for filing a joint return.

No, we consider that the law should apply to homosexual spouses, as they do for heterosexual spouses.

Why should that be a primary criteria? Is either a normal parent/child or a normal sibling bond known to be not as strong as the bond between couples allegedly or actually in a sexual relationship?

Once more. This is about making sure that spouses, be they heterosexual and homosexual have the exact same benefits. This is not about carers and any benefits that should apply to them.

In a life versus death crisis situation, I am fairly sure that my instinct would favor a parent over my wife or mistress. I spent more years establishing that bond.

I am sure your wife or mistress will be thrilled to hear this. However, this has nothing really to do with this thread's topic. If you wish to discuss extending benefits to relatives, then perhaps you could start a thread about it?

If given time to make the decision (Example: A hostage situation), I would probably consider the life expectation remaining for each person & might choose to save the wife or mistress.

BTW: In a crisis situation, if I had to choose between saving a child or an adult (neither of which was known to me), I would tend to save the adult. The adult would be facing more terror due to being more aware of mortality.

If a parent, child, or sibling is considered to be a dependent for income tax purposes & in the absence of a legally recognized spouse, I do not understand why there should be a reason to absolutely deny the privilege/right to file a joint tax return.

Then perhaps you could take this up with your local representatives? Because this thread is about extending spouse benefits to all spouses, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is current IRS law to allow a joint return only for legally married couples. I merely question why this should be the case.

Correction, you are questioning why your familial couples - such as how you described your relationship with your parent/sibling/child - is not afforded the exact same benefits as a "spouse" would. And as we have all been trying to explain to you, the word "spouse" is exceptionally important here and it is a clear example of why you do not have those same benefits with your parent/sibling/child.

Should carers be given some benefits for caring for ill family members? Certainly. But this is a whole different subject.

To be frank, complaining that gay couples can now have those benefits and you can't have those same benefits with your child kind of sounds a tad wrong. As I explained to you earlier, correct wording goes a hell of a long way in this discussion. Long long way. Way long way. Just saying..

---

Back to the thread's subject...


Well, it seems that political point scoring is well in the works:

As the winter snows put a freeze on congressional action, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) took advantage of the lull on Thursday to introduce S. 2024, a bill that would empower the states to decide whether to extend the rights accorded to married couples in the federal justice system to legally married same-sex spouses.

In a statement announcing their so-called State Marriage Defense Act, the Tea Party-allied senators called the Supreme Court’s historic decision in United States v. Windsor, which effectively overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), “improperly” decided and an infringement of the sovereignty of the states under the Tenth Amendment.

The move by Cruz and Lee appears to have been prompted by the February 8 announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would afford same-sex spouses the same rights and privileges that opposite-sex married couples enjoy when dealing with the federal justice system, regardless of whether the state in which the DOJ claims jurisdiction on a particular matter recognizes marriages between members of the same sex. These include a prohibition on requiring spouses to testify against one another, as well as spousal privileges between inmates in federal prisons.

“The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states,” Cruz said in a written statement. “We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.”

With virtually no chance of passage in the current Congress, the Cruz-Lee bill appears to be motivated by politics. Cruz is often cited as a potential candidate for the 2016 presidential race, and has a knack for drawing attention to himself, as he did when he convinced Tea Party-allied members of the House of Representatives to shut down down the federal government in October—a move that played badly with the general public, but won approval from the right-wing base that turns out in Republican presidential primaries.

Lee, on the other hand, suffered a drop in popularity since the government shutdown, after he joined Cruz’s filibuster-like marathon speech arguing for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for the passage of the continuing resolution that was needed to keep the government open. But in Utah, where politics are dominated by the anti-LGBT Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the faith home of Mormons, Lee is likely eager to change the subject back to a topic that enjoys more popular support in his home state. A recent ruling by a federal judge that overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage created an uproar when it was issued in December. It has since been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
​

While it has no chance of passing, it always pays to shore up the 'anti-gay marriage' base. I sense a 'at least we tried' comment of some form stemming from them at some point in the next election cycle.

 

[barcelonic]

Ye i heard about that Cruz thing. Personally i doubt it'd pass as it would massively undermine any and all gay rights in the US.

But i think this is more a case of Cruz trying to fin some favour with his party and its followers. I think he knows it'll likely fail but is doing it anyway so that he can say he tried.
Political point scoring indeed!