Reports: Ill. gov. signs same-sex marriage law

Nov 21, 2013 Full story: WAPT-TV Jackson 15

Once you're logged in, at the top of each article, video or slideshow you will see a list of your Facebook friends who recently visited Choose to share stories you'e read with your friends or turn sharing OFF to keep your reading experience anonymous .

Full Story
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1 Nov 21, 2013
Congrats Illinois!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#2 Nov 21, 2013
I'm no sure whether to yell "WOO-HOO !:)"

or say "ho-hum" because this has become so routine.

What we REALLY need is for SCOTUS to rule that FFC MUST be applied to ALL marriages performed in all states. THAT is where the resources should be put.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#3 Nov 21, 2013
And just week Governor Jay Nixon announced his support for same sex marriage and directed the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns for same sex couples legally married in other states.

"Momentum" is such a lovely word.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#4 Nov 22, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
And just week Governor Jay Nixon announced his support for same sex marriage and directed the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns for same sex couples legally married in other states.
"Momentum" is such a lovely word.
Otter, have you noticed, though, that those same returns will not allow certain deductions, credits, and/or exemptions? Admittedly, this is a step in the right direction, but it is still lacking equality.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#5 Nov 22, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Otter, have you noticed, though, that those same returns will not allow certain deductions, credits, and/or exemptions? Admittedly, this is a step in the right direction, but it is still lacking equality.
I suspect that's because the wording in the tax code regarding those deductions specifically say "married" so those that the state doesn't recognize as married still can't take them on their state return.

I'd be curious to see if filing jointly without those deductions would make any sense. In Michigan it definitely would NOT because my husband and I can double-up on our deductions by filing separately--one of us takes all the itemized deductions on one tax return and the other takes the standard deduction on his return, thereby getting more deductions and less taxable income.

We did the same on our Federal returns up until this year. We avoided the marriage penalty and paid a lot less in tax as a result. But we can't do THAT anymore.(still, it's worth it to be recognized as married)

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#6 Nov 22, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Otter, have you noticed, though, that those same returns will not allow certain deductions, credits, and/or exemptions? Admittedly, this is a step in the right direction, but it is still lacking equality.
To be honest, no, I didn't realize there were inequalities still in place after his announcement. I was paying more attention to all the cretins who reacted by calling for Governor Nixon's impeachment. As if ...!

I agree with you, though, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Frankly, I think it's more like a huge leap. I was guessing that Missouri would be one of the last five states to progress on this issue.

The great news is that the bottom layer of cards is getting increasingly wobbly, and the whole house is going to fall sooner than we might once have hoped.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#7 Nov 23, 2013
Go, gay rights, GO!!!!!!!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#8 Nov 23, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that's because the wording in the tax code regarding those deductions specifically say "married" so those that the state doesn't recognize as married still can't take them on their state return.
I'd be curious to see if filing jointly without those deductions would make any sense. In Michigan it definitely would NOT because my husband and I can double-up on our deductions by filing separately--one of us takes all the itemized deductions on one tax return and the other takes the standard deduction on his return, thereby getting more deductions and less taxable income.
We did the same on our Federal returns up until this year. We avoided the marriage penalty and paid a lot less in tax as a result. But we can't do THAT anymore.(still, it's worth it to be recognized as married)
My spouse and I have always filed separately, since that has been the law. This ruling will not change that. He takes all the deductions, since my income is sheltered from taxes. I won't go into details, but I haven't paid taxes since I retired, and he makes big bucks, so he needs all the deductions he can get. Actually, it works out quite nicely for us.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#9 Nov 23, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
My spouse and I have always filed separately, since that has been the law. This ruling will not change that. He takes all the deductions, since my income is sheltered from taxes. I won't go into details, but I haven't paid taxes since I retired, and he makes big bucks, so he needs all the deductions he can get. Actually, it works out quite nicely for us.
In most cases, though, if your income is sheltered from taxes (which is pretty common for retirees), you two *would* be better off filing jointly, at least at the Federal level. You'd still only be paying taxes on his taxable income, but as a married couple, you'd be in a lower tax bracket than him claiming that same amount of taxable income as a single person. LOTS less. Possibly close to half the taxes.

BUT... as I'm sure you know, taxation is complicated stuff and there may well be reasons that your taxes wouldn't work out like that, but even living in Missouri, where your marriage wouldn't be recognized, you're still likely better off married at the Federal level.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#10 Nov 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
In most cases, though, if your income is sheltered from taxes (which is pretty common for retirees), you two *would* be better off filing jointly, at least at the Federal level. You'd still only be paying taxes on his taxable income, but as a married couple, you'd be in a lower tax bracket than him claiming that same amount of taxable income as a single person. LOTS less. Possibly close to half the taxes.
BUT... as I'm sure you know, taxation is complicated stuff and there may well be reasons that your taxes wouldn't work out like that, but even living in Missouri, where your marriage wouldn't be recognized, you're still likely better off married at the Federal level.
As you rightly pointed out, taxes are complicated stuff. Generally your assumption about being married in our situation is correct, but in our case it is a bit different. We would actually pay more than filing separate. I've been working with the tax code for many years, and have filled out the forms both ways. Right now we are better off this way. In the future it may be different, depending on choices we make between now and then.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#11 Nov 24, 2013
What state do you want to HOMOSEXUALIZE next ?!

:)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Nov 25, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you rightly pointed out, taxes are complicated stuff. Generally your assumption about being married in our situation is correct, but in our case it is a bit different. We would actually pay more than filing separate. I've been working with the tax code for many years, and have filled out the forms both ways. Right now we are better off this way. In the future it may be different, depending on choices we make between now and then.
My husband and I will *definitely* be paying more in taxes as a married couple than we did filing as single people--no doubt about it.

But that's because our incomes will be combined, putting us into a higher tax bracket, and we won't be able to double-up on the deductions (itemized on one, standard on the other) anymore.

Remember back a few years ago, I think it was early in the Baby Bush years, when the Republicans were all patting themselves on the back and whoo-hooing over how they went and "fixed" the marriage penalty in the U.S. tax code?? They lied. They partially reduced the taxes that married couples pays, but they didn't come anywhere near getting rid of the marriage penalty. It's still there today and it's easy to see. Just look at the tax tables and add up what two single people will pay versus a married couple making their combined income. Virtually all married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they were filing separately.

The only way a married couple pays less taxes is if one person's income is zero (as in a stay-at-home parent) or their income is very, very low compared to their spouse's (as in a stay-at-home parent with a very part-time job). Both those scenarios are high on the Republican list of priorities--punish those pesky women that insist on going out into the work place and reward the ones that stay home. Like God intended.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#13 Nov 25, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
My husband and I will *definitely* be paying more in taxes as a married couple than we did filing as single people--no doubt about it.
But that's because our incomes will be combined, putting us into a higher tax bracket, and we won't be able to double-up on the deductions (itemized on one, standard on the other) anymore.
Remember back a few years ago, I think it was early in the Baby Bush years, when the Republicans were all patting themselves on the back and whoo-hooing over how they went and "fixed" the marriage penalty in the U.S. tax code?? They lied. They partially reduced the taxes that married couples pays, but they didn't come anywhere near getting rid of the marriage penalty. It's still there today and it's easy to see. Just look at the tax tables and add up what two single people will pay versus a married couple making their combined income. Virtually all married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they were filing separately.
The only way a married couple pays less taxes is if one person's income is zero (as in a stay-at-home parent) or their income is very, very low compared to their spouse's (as in a stay-at-home parent with a very part-time job). Both those scenarios are high on the Republican list of priorities--punish those pesky women that insist on going out into the work place and reward the ones that stay home. Like God intended.
I only have a vague memory of that issue during the Bush years, partly because I didn't envision it being a problem I would have to worry about in my lifetime. But then along came the surge of Marriage Equality, and now I have to consider it. Time and events are catching up to me faster than I ever imagined.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#14 Nov 25, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have a vague memory of that issue during the Bush years, partly because I didn't envision it being a problem I would have to worry about in my lifetime. But then along came the surge of Marriage Equality, and now I have to consider it. Time and events are catching up to me faster than I ever imagined.
Oddly enough, I have *always* known that marriage equality was coming in my lifetime. I'm 49 and my husband is 61, so we're not exactly young, but we've both lived through some huge changes in both the gay community and the culture we all live in. I just always knew that someday I'd be able to get legally married.

In fact, I was *seriously* pissed when, back in the early '90s, "Gay, Inc." decided to drop all their efforts toward marriage equality in favor of equal rights in the military. I knew full well that we'd have marriage equality YEARS before they'd allow us to serve openly in the military. And I was close to right about that. Marriage equality started being reality back in 2003 and DADT didn't go away fully until 2011? 2012? I've already forgotten.

It was then that I realized that "Gay, Inc." was more interested in fundraising and paying their own salaries and recommending "a more long-term approach to equal rights" than they were in actually working toward equality. Why work yourself out of a job, right? At least that's how it looked to me. And P-Flag, AMFAR, and AFER have benefited greatly from it as that's where all my donations have gone since.

But, back to marriage, for us, the additional taxes we have to pay as a married couple pale in comparison to the Social Security Benefits and the other protections we get as a legally married couple. Even if we don't actually get all the benefits yet (such as Social Security Benefits since we live in a non-equality state), being legally married leaves the door open for us to sue to GET equality, should we ever suffer a loss before of the hate-based laws. That's important.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#15 Nov 26, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But, back to marriage, for us, the additional taxes we have to pay as a married couple pale in comparison to the Social Security Benefits and the other protections we get as a legally married couple. Even if we don't actually get all the benefits yet (such as Social Security Benefits since we live in a non-equality state), being legally married leaves the door open for us to sue to GET equality, should we ever suffer a loss before of the hate-based laws. That's important.
I clipped out the first part, not because I disagree, quite the contrary. I clipped it for space, since the last part is what I am responding to.

That is the exact same reason my spouse and I will marry next year, probably in Iowa, on our anniversary (no sense having two anniversaries). In case anything happens to me, which is the more likely scenario, since I am older and in poorer health than he, he will have the opportunity to claim our marriage, unlike the spouse of the Missouri state trooper. We have all the usual protections of will, trust, POA, etc., but this would add a much more important factor.

Just an added comment on the first part of your post. I admit that I was short-sighted about the rapid movement of Marriage Equality, but am indeed happy it moved with such rapidity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Pat Quinn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMare 50,603
Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, som... 3 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 24
Donald Trump: Even African-Americans Can't List... 9 hr Zew 2
Kadner: Rita serious about state-owned casino (Mar '14) Mon Vote for Your Wallet 65
Barack Obama votes Monday in Illinois Mon bottlecap 1
Endorsement: Conroy for a second term in House ... Oct 16 rikard markz 1
Rauner, Quinn clash on Obamacare expansion ahea... Oct 10 rahm Jizzbucket e... 13

Pat Quinn People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE