Federal Judge Weighing Challenge to Kentucky Gay Marriage Ban

Jan 15, 2014 Full story: EDGE 74

A federal judge in Louisville is weighing the fate of Kentucky's ban on same sex marriages as similar laws around the country have been overturned.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1 Jan 15, 2014
Wow. This is getting interesting.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3 Jan 15, 2014
Christsharian Deelite wrote:
Wait. This could mess up the state/district/commonwealth count we are just now painstakingly working out here at topix.
We should get a judicial stay on the basis of arithmetic.
The only one trying to work that out is you.

And what kind of stay are you expecting in Kentucky that would be beneficial to gays and lesbians?

Doing the math we are still outnumbered, and you say we deserve a stay based on arithmetic?

I'll remember that next time you make a troll like comment about my math skills.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#4 Jan 15, 2014
Wait until April 14th... This is about to get interesting...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#6 Jan 15, 2014
This is getting interesting and I'm not sure how the State of Kentucky can argue that the Plaintiffs DON'T have legal standing to sue when they are all married from some other area and reside in the State of Kentucky!!!

Maybe the Judge will rule in favor of the State or maybe not.....either way.......it will be appealed and will probably have a ruling sometime this summer as well.

This summer is going to be VERY interesting with rulings by SCOTUS regarding the photographer from New Mexico whose religious beliefs are up against anti-discrimination policies(which so far she has lost at all previous levels)

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in both the Utah and Oklahoma cases regarding States bans which appear to be in violation of both Due Process and Equal Protection vs The Federal Constitution

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding the legal challenge to Nevada's ban on the right to marry for Same-Sex couples

As well as lawsuits in Virginia and other states.......can't wait to see how this all goes!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Jan 15, 2014
DNF wrote:
Wow. This is getting interesting.
No SHYTE !!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 15, 2014
The timing on these is going to pack the polls with reactionary GOPs.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#9 Jan 16, 2014
snyper wrote:
The timing on these is going to pack the polls with reactionary GOPs.
Are ya always so positive? I mean it might or it might not.........lol!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#10 Jan 16, 2014
snyper wrote:
The timing on these is going to pack the polls with reactionary GOPs.
They will do that anyway. Just to keep Pres. Obama from getting more seats in the House and/or retaining the Senate. I only wish that the Independents and the Democrats were as vociferous.
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#11 Jan 16, 2014
SSM BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

That is all any judge needs to know.

CIVIL RIGHTS CANT BE BANNED.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Jan 16, 2014
So unlike most other cases, this is a direct challenge to the remaining Sec 2 of DOMA as well as Kentucky's constitutional amendment.

Kentucky is one of the few states which specifically refuses to recognize 1st cousin marriages even if the marriage occurred in another state where it was legally contracted. And that ruling was upheld by the state Supreme Court (in 1868), though to my knowledge it has never been challenged in federal court.

That COULD factor into the judge's ruling.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Jan 16, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So unlike most other cases, this is a direct challenge to the remaining Sec 2 of DOMA as well as Kentucky's constitutional amendment.
Kentucky is one of the few states which specifically refuses to recognize 1st cousin marriages even if the marriage occurred in another state where it was legally contracted. And that ruling was upheld by the state Supreme Court (in 1868), though to my knowledge it has never been challenged in federal court.
That COULD factor into the judge's ruling.
The case down in Oklahoma always has been a direct challenge to Section 2, it wasn't until the Windsor ruling that such challenges had any sort of chance.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Jan 16, 2014
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Wait until April 14th... This is about to get interesting...
Actually, people will begin filing tax returns as soon as W2's arrive--over the next two weeks. And you're right: It's going to be chaos when couples who filed a joint federal return are required to file separately in the state system. As far as I know, only Missouri has headed off the pending fiasco by ordering the DOR to accept joint returns from married couples.

By the end of tax season, state officials will be panicking. More lawsuits will be filed.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Jan 16, 2014
snyper wrote:
The timing on these is going to pack the polls with reactionary GOPs.
Whatever gets people to the polls helps Democrats. The rote Republican voters always show up anyway.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jan 16, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The case down in Oklahoma always has been a direct challenge to Section 2, it wasn't until the Windsor ruling that such challenges had any sort of chance.
Actually my understanding is the judge in the Oklahoma didn't rule on that aspect of the case.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, people will begin filing tax returns as soon as W2's arrive--over the next two weeks. And you're right: It's going to be chaos when couples who filed a joint federal return are required to file separately in the state system. As far as I know, only Missouri has headed off the pending fiasco by ordering the DOR to accept joint returns from married couples.
By the end of tax season, state officials will be panicking. More lawsuits will be filed.
Not to minimize things, but it's really not that complicated to file married on your federal return and single on your state return.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Jan 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever gets people to the polls helps Democrats. The rote Republican voters always show up anyway.
Good point.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Jan 16, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Actually my understanding is the judge in the Oklahoma didn't rule on that aspect of the case.
I haven't had the chance to read this ruling yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't, the Windsor ruling pretty much makes Section 2 useless against an equal protection argument.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Jan 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The only one trying to work that out is you.
And what kind of stay are you expecting in Kentucky that would be beneficial to gays and lesbians?
Doing the math we are still outnumbered, and you say we deserve a stay based on arithmetic?
I'll remember that next time you make a troll like comment about my math skills.
You poor irony impaired darling.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#21 Jan 16, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to minimize things, but it's really not that complicated to file married on your federal return and single on your state return.
Have you done your 2013 taxes yet and are you and your partner legally married?? My husband and I will be filing our Federal return jointly this year, but I am *NOT* going to file our state taxes jointly because we can double up on our itemized deductions from the Federal level if we file jointly (one of us takes all our itemized deductions and the other takes the standard deduction--saving us money on the State level).

Even if we lived in a state that doesn't recognize our marriage but would allow us to file our taxes jointly, I wouldn't do it unless our tax bill would be lower that way. I'm not going to pay more taxes to file as a couple and still not have our marriage recognized.

I'm also curious about how they're going to handle Michigan this year because our hate-based amendment is one of the ones that forbids any and all recognition in any way, shape, or form for any purpose whatsoever. Which means it's technically illegal for the State of Michigan to adopt an "if you're married at the Federal level" tax schedule, as I have heard they've done this year. I wonder how that's going to work since, according to our Constitution, they're not allowed to recognize us.

I guess it's okay to recognize us if it's in the process of NOT recognizing us... Freaking idiots....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#22 Jan 16, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to minimize things, but it's really not that complicated to file married on your federal return and single on your state return.
Actually, it is. Most states require a copy of your federal return be filed with your state return. Many states simply apply a few adjustments to the income reported on the federal return and apply their rates to the results.

So couples would have to submit a synthetic individual tax return along with their state tax return. That act, in itself, would be illegal since they law specifies a COPY of their federal tax return, not a hypothetical return.

Or perhaps the couple would submit the federal return along with state returns reflecting only the individual data. In this case, how would the state department of revenue verify the sources of income and amounts claimed by each spouse? Where both spouses are legal parents, how are dependent deductions allocated?

Even more importantly, states share extensive compliance information with the federal government. How would this work if the basis of reporting were completely different? Every return filed by a spouse in a same-sex marriage would kick out.

Then we come to the quite common issue of couples who file taxes in multiple states. So they will be filing jointly in some states, independently in others. Different reporting bases again sabotage the system. And it's hard enough filing tax returns in two, three, four, or more states. Reporting each on a different basis is a ridiculous burden.

Imagine, for instance, a couple that lives in Maryland. One spouse works in Virginia, the other in Pennsylvania. They have a summer home on the Outer Islands of North Carolina. Or perhaps they jointly own Dunkin Donut franchises in the various states.

People haven't thought ahead. But I suspect the Obama administration DID think ahead and determined that (a) IRS acceptance of marriages would force states' DOR's to also accept them and (b) any other solution would engender the same confusion, albeit on a smaller scale.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kentucky Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min The Apostle 153,258
McConnell faces toughest test 10 min Electra41 1
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr spaceship 131,013
Challenger Grimes' Poll Shows Dead Heat Race Wi... 3 hr GOTP 15
Shawn Foley is a narcissistic sociopath& lives ... 23 hr iwillnottellalie 1
Mitch McConnell faces biggest test yet in race ... Mon kuda 17
Grimes might need campaign reset, observers say Mon Zeppelin 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Kentucky People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••