Printable View
The IRS requires that same sex couples, even in states where it's legal, to file their federal income tax as "single".
The IRS does not recognize them as married.
Look right under the heading marital Status
IRS Filing Status
<font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ February 04, 2005 01:52 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font></font>
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 04, 2005 01:53 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do your comments have to do with the article that started the thread?Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
The IRS requires that same sex couples, even in states where it's legal, to file their federal income tax as "single".
The IRS does not recognize them as married.
Look right under the heading marital Status
IRS Filing Status
<font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ February 04, 2005 01:52 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font></font>
<font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ February 04, 2005 01:53 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font></font>
These Facts, not just comments. refer to you mentioning the test of the gay wedding ban.
Merely letting you, and anyone else who didnt know that even if a same sex couple was married in a state where it is legal they are not married as far as the IRS (Federal Government) is concerned. (and it was that way before Bush even took office for his first term)
Just an FYI!
Sorry that you didnt know that.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 04, 2005 10:12 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
Ohio's gay wedding ban tested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By M.R. Kropko
Associated Press
CLEVELAND -- Darnell Forte is accused of slapping a woman he lived with.
To try to get a domestic violence charged overturned, his lawyer has raised a wider issue, claiming a conflict between Ohio's new constitutional amendment defining marriage and the state's domestic violence law.
Opponents of the amendment banning gay marriage, among the nation's broadest, feared the measure would be used to try to curtail all sorts of rights for unmarried people, and they say the domestic violence case in Cleveland is one such attempt.
"What's at stake goes beyond the issue of gay marriage, it's whether or not a state constitutional amendment can strip Ohio people of basic protections," said Heather Sawyer, senior counsel in Chicago for Lambda Legal, a national gay rights organization.
The case is being watched nationally because of the precedent that could be set if the domestic violence charges are thrown out. Forte's lawyer argues his client cannot be charged with the felony because domestic violence charges should be reserved for married couples under the state's law defining marriage, which won 62 percent of the vote in November.
A ruling expected Feb. 18 in the Forte case would be the first for the issue that is the subject of at least 11 similar motions in the Cleveland area.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, a statewide coalition of service providers for domestic violence victims, say the domestic violence law helps victims get quick protective orders that may not be possible if a person is charged with assault.
The domestic violence law "is not creating a marriage. It is creating safety and justice for victims of domestic violence," said Nancy Neylon, executive director of the Domestic Violence Network.
The ACLU filed a brief against Forte's charges being overturned.
Forte's lawyer, assistant public defender David Magee, claims in the motion filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court that applying the domestic violence law to unmarried people conflicts with the marriage amendment's wording.
The amendment prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals." Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law is not limited to married people.
At least one similar legal issue arose in Utah, which has a new marriage amendment similar to Ohio's.
The Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake City in January denied a motion attempting to drop domestic violence charges in a case involving an unmarried couple based Utah's marriage definition.
John Martin, appeals supervisor in the Cuyahoga public defender's office, said the motions seeking to overturn the domestic violence charges are a specific defense strategy, not an attempt to diminish Ohio's constitutional amendment.
But Licking County Domestic Relations Judge Russell Steiner said the potential conflict between the amendment and the statute has already caught the attention of judges across the state.
"I think it will make its way up to a (state) court of appeals, but whether or not it gets to the (Ohio) Supreme Court is hard to say. It has to start at the trial court level, so what is happening in Cuyahoga County appears to be a first step in that regard," Steiner said.
Christi Goodman, an attorney at the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures, said she is skeptical other states would take note of the case unless it reaches the Ohio Supreme Court.
However, the Cuyahoga case has potential to alert defense lawyers outside of Ohio to look for a similar strategy, said Alexandria Ruden, a family law expert with the Cleveland Legal Aid Society. Ruden helped write Ohio's domestic violence statute.
The motion "seems to me to be a terrible stretch of the law," she said. "The claim is that you cannot as an unmarried individual have a protection order, because that is what married people are allowed to have."
Phil Burress, president of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, a public policy organization that was a major proponent of Ohio's gay marriage ban, said the amendment only defines marriage and was never intended to change the state's domestic violence law.
If courts agree to drop domestic violence charges, Burress said his organization would lobby Ohio lawmakers to change the domestic violence statute.
"We would fix the law and make sure the penalty for domestic violence is the same against everyone. It's a crime. Physical abuse is illegal, period. I don't see how you can beat up someone living with you and get away with it," Burress said.
Gay rights groups campaigned against the marriage amendment, saying it could unintentionally harm unmarried people's rights or benefits in other areas such as inheritances, hospital visitation and property ownership.
The groups have said they hope the domestic violence case may lead to the entire amendment being challenged in court.
? Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
? Ohio's bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples in addition to gay marriages.
Note from Sarcazmo: Phil Burress is an ass.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">craig,Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
These Facts, not just comments. refer to you mentioning the test of the gay wedding ban.
Merely letting you, and anyone else who didnt know that even if a same sex couple was married in a state where it is legal they are not married as far as the IRS (Federal Government) is concerned. (and it was that way before Bush even took office for his first term)
Just an FYI!
Sorry that you didnt know that.
<font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ February 04, 2005 10:12 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font></font>
If you want to start a new topic, then why don't you start your own thread, as opposed to creating a separate idea that has nothing to do with the context of the original post? Besides, I'm fairly sure everyone here was aware of the status of gay marriages before you interjected. I'm betting this was new news only to you.
It seems very odd to me that someone who hides behind their tag and never gives their real name like you would continue to try to call a person who is not afraid to do so by the wrong name.
You are a loser in every sense of the word.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">craig,Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
It seems very odd to me that someone who hides behind their tag and never gives their real name like you would continue to try to call a person who is not afraid to do so by the wrong name.
You are a loser in every sense of the word.
Why would I divulge my name to an avowed ecoterrorist such as you? You have threatened my organic garden and my entire organic way of life. It would not be in my best interest to reveal my true identity.
I would...but then I'd have to kill you.
Why dont you just call me by my name instead of the Craig crap?
You just make me look better and yourself look like even more of a moron when you do that. (if that's possible)
GL is right about you.
You are a waste of time. and I shall waste no more on you and your petty attempts to be funny.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 07, 2005 02:26 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
Oh, and Domestic Violence is usually defined by one of these two like definitions.
1) Violence between adult intimate partners
2) Violence or physical abuse directed tword your spouse or domestic partner.
Here, you can read more about it and find yourself a therapist at the same time.
Domestic Violence
I see this as a shot across the bow so to speak. I don't think it will go very far in the legal system. Where I see a major challenge to the statute is when a couple, especially a heterosexual one, who are not married but in a LTR, has a partner die or become incapacitated. Then the shit will really hit the fan.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with everything you said. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems this first challenge is somewhat of a stretch, but it is a sign of things to come.Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper69:
I see this as a shot across the bow so to speak. I don't think it will go very far in the legal system. Where I see a major challenge to the statute is when a couple, especially a heterosexual one, who are not married but in a LTR, has a partner die or become incapacitated. Then the shit will really hit the fan.
The law will have to be rewritten to include only homosexual relationships in order for it to work.
Well, I never fault a defense atty for doing anything they can for their client. And that's the atty's thinking here- the client. Not overturning some law, not worrying about what Phil Burress or the ACLU or anyone else thinks. The client, plain and simple. And if it works, good for the client.
Now that said...
I don't spend enough time with Ohio's domestic violence law to speak with authority as to its inner workings. I can tell you, in Indiana, if you had a gay couple living together, and one hit the other, the charge filed would depend on the extent of the injury (we basically have four categories- no injury, injury, serious bodily injury, great bodily harm; the first two are misdemeanors, the last two are felonies). The charge wouldn't be brought under the domestic abuse statute, but it wouldn't matter because the level of crime would be the same if there were serious bodily injury.
And as for protective orders, you could always come in and ask for one or make it a condition of the defendant's bond that he stay away from the victim.
There may be some victim compensation that would be part of a domestic situation, but otherwise, in Indiana, it wouldn't matter much if the prosecutor charged properly.
Now, based on my cursory reading of the Ohio law, I do think it is a stretch. If you live with someone, and you beat them, you're in trouble and I don't think avoiding protective orders should be your main concern.