I suppose that it means, for example that a same sex couple “married” in some state where it is legal, but residing in Kansas, where it is not, could file a joint federal tax return. They probably could not file a joint Kansas tax return, which might be problematic, because the Kansas filing status is supposed to be the same as the Federal filing status.
As far as I know a state cannot pass a law nullifying action of a federal agency. And in this case the federal government has the backing of the federal courts. What could happen is that the US congress passes a law and the president signs it that would nullify the action and write it in such a way, unlike DOMA, that the SCOTUS upholds it. But let me be perfectly clear on this point before you get your hopes up: THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN with this congress and president.
Courage? Are you kidding? Hes a political hack. It doesnt take courage to coddle the gay vote. It takes courage to stand up to it. ’
As for the Constitution, there is simply NO right to for homosexuals to “marry” under the Constitution. The recent DOMA and Prop 8 decisions were more states rights decisions than anything else , which he is now perverting and trying to overstep his role as AG. And states have every right to define marriage as they see fit despite what these liberal judges think. There is NO discrimination against a homosexual for not being able to have a same sex “marriage”. The state has every right to support heterosexual marriages for the creation and protection of children, while deciding that there is NO state interest in lending support to homosexual unions. When someone can define the benefit to the state of state recognition of homosexual unions, then we can talk. But I have yet to see anyone argue such a benefit for the basis of public policy. Therefore, the state has every right to discriminate against recognition of traditional marriage over gay “marriage”.
Marriage equality is a meaningless propaganda term used to convince nice people like yourself that every marriage is just as valid as the other. There can be no gay “marriage” equality because marriage is one man and one woman for the potential creation and support of children. Without the potential for creating children , the state has no interest in recognizing and supporting marriage. And thus, gay marriage is utterly meaningless and equal to nothing like real marriage.
Its great to be nice and loving and tolerant of other people. But marriage is for a very specific purpose - for the creation and support of children and family unity. We should want the state involved in our lives only when absolutely necessary. Thus , since children sustain society, the state has a reasonable interest to support such traditional marriage which provides a mother and a father! Supporting any other arrangement for the family only distorts the ideal of human community and, the state should only be interested in supporting the ideal institutions. And in terms of gay “marriage” , it is simply UNEQUAL rights to deny both a mother and father to a child in favor of rights of gay parents to be “married” and adopt children. The so-called Marriage Equality that you favor is really child inequality. Children have the right to a mother and a father! Simply put, your “Marriage Equality” = Childrens Rights Inequality!
I don’t think that clause applies, since Holder’s decision only affects the federal government.
The news article uses the example of a same-sex couple who marry in Massachusetts, but later file for federal bankruptcy while living in Alabama. Under Holder’s plan, the couple’s application would have legal standing with the federal courts.
Holder’s decision would only apply to areas in which the federal government has jurisdiction. As someone else mentioned, the same-sex married couple could file a joint federal tax return, but would not be able to file a joint Alabama tax return.