IRS treatment of legally married same sex couples established

[kcjenkins]

Joan, I've moved to CA now. But I agree, CA is different. But I don't understand one thing. We've been told over and over that sexual orientation is not a choice, but an inherent fact. So how, then, can it be an off-and-on thing? I find the concept of bi much harder to understand.

[Mr. Pencil]

I don't understand one thing. We've been told over and over that sexual orientation is not a choice, but an inherent fact. So how, then, can it be an off-and-on thing?

I can't answer that, except that sexuality is not a very logical thing. I will say it has never had much to do with marriage. Other factors like politics or economics or social standing have always been powerful elements. In fact, marriage is a classic cover for homosexuals! My point in this thread was that exclusive state laws are not sustainable. It's a basic right under the Constitution that every state must accord "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states. It already works with common law, underage, and first cousin marriages, so let's get used to it.

[joanmcq]

KC, sexuality is a spectrum from 100% hetero to 100% homo, with many people falling in between (see the Kinsey studies). Someone who is 95% hetero (actually bi) may never act on homosexual impulses or simply not meet many if any people that 'spark' them. For instance, a male friend of mine at Burning Man has never had a homosexual relationship, but totally sparked on a man at another camp. He kept on saying, "what is it about him, he is so frikkin hot!". He's bi on the 'more hetero than not' spectrum. Some bisexuals are totally 50/50; equally attracted to both sexes. Bisexuals usually describe it as "it's the person, not the gender".

In the face of discrimination, bisexuals tend to have it a bit easier in that we can 'pass' by not expressing the gay side.

[Jack from Ohio]

So now your conservative imagination must be running wild if you think you met someone here??

The statements a member made makes me believe it applies to them.

[Guest Taxed]

The statements a member made makes me believe it applies to them.

Good for you, now I know how smart you are? You believe statements made in the course of a debate as positive proof.

Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

[kcjenkins]

I wish government could keep totally out of personal issues like marriage, personally. If it was simply a religious classification, things would be a lot simpler. Of course, for that to happen, you have to abolish the taxes that are impacted by marital status. Which is clearly not going to happen. I think adults should be able to form loving relationships as they please, as long as laws protect the children that are impacted by those relationships. That's where things get extremely complicated sometimes.

[Mr. Pencil]

I think adults should be able to form loving relationships as they please

And so we can! There's no legal restrictions on what used to be called adultery or sodomy. The obligations and benefits are only applicable if the adult lovers freely CHOOSE to involve the government . Of course, most religious organizations include government registration as an element of faith, but religion is also a free choice.

[Guest Taxed]

>>> Of course, for that to happen, you have to abolish the taxes that are impacted by marital status.

Does it make sense to get rid of marital status to determine tax rates and just use an "individual" status, and one table. For example a family of three people. Dad, Mom, Kid. Each files their own tax return and is taxed based on their income.