Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28309585&nid...cid=featured-2

Wow. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

[Uncle Ted]

Wow. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

Yeah, it might make taxes a little more interesting for those 1300 or so couples. They can file jointly on their fed return and not on their state return. Fortunately, gay couples don't have that problem in Texas.

[byu71]

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28309585&nid...cid=featured-2

Why wouldn't the Feds go ahead and recognize same sex couples everywhere?

[Jacob]

Yeah, it might make taxes a little more interesting for those 1300 or so couples. They can file jointly on their fed return and not on their state return. Fortunately, gay couples don't have that problem in Texas.

That sucks for them. Assuming both partners work, they will experience a marriage penalty and have to pay more taxes. A few of them will experience a slight benefit if one of the partners is the sugar daddy and the other doesn't make any money.

[Applejack]

OK, lawnerds, let's assume that the 10th circuit reverses Shelby, J. and says that Utah's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage passes constitutional muster. What happens to the couples who got married? Are those marriages still valid?

I would argue that they are, unless the 10th (or SCOTUS) explicitly declares that not only does Utah have the right to ban gay marriage, but the state never had the right to authorize gay marriages in the first place - that would be a huge leap, in my opinion. It's one thing to say a state has the right to define marriage, it's another to say that a state has no right to grant marriages, even if under court order to do so.

[All-American]

OK, lawnerds, let's assume that the 10th circuit reverses Shelby, J. and says that Utah's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage passes constitutional muster. What happens to the couples who got married? Are those marriages still valid?

I would argue that they are, unless the 10th (or SCOTUS) explicitly declares that not only does Utah have the right to ban gay marriage, but the state never had the right to authorize gay marriages in the first place - that would be a huge leap, in my opinion. It's one thing to say a state has the right to define marriage, it's another to say that a state has no right to grant marriages, even if under court order to do so.

The 10th Circuit really doesn't matter here. The issue will eventually go to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS will eventually affirm Judge Shelby's ruling (but probably on more limited equal protection grounds).

In the off chance that SCOTUS does uphold Utah's definition of marriage, though, the marriages performed under the court order probably should be invalidated. Utah law prohibited such marriages, and if that law was constitutional, then the marriages are invalid, since there was never any authority to perform them in the first place.

[All-American]

That sucks for them. Assuming both partners work, they will experience a marriage penalty and have to pay more taxes. A few of them will experience a slight benefit if one of the partners is the sugar daddy and the other doesn't make any money.

The penalties for marriage in our tax code are aggravating. The tax code is in serious need of reform.

[imanihonjin]

Yeah, it might make taxes a little more interesting for those 1300 or so couples. They can file jointly on their fed return and not on their state return. Fortunately, gay couples don't have that problem in Texas.

SSM couples who marry in a state that recognizes those marriages and who live in states that don't recognize the marriage have the same problem. This actually is causing a lot of issues with respect to how an employer should withhold as well because most states, even those who recognize same-sex marriage, arrive at taxable income by starting from your federal taxable income.

[scottie]

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/09/churc...marriage-case/

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is staying out of the Amendment 3 fight for now.

A Church spokeswoman confirmed that the Church is currently not planning on filing an amicus brief in the appeal. Amicus briefs are filed from people or groups with a special interest or strong views on a subject but not directly involved in the case.

With the LDS Church seemingly removing itself from Utah’s battle over same-sex marriage, supporters of gay marriage in Utah said this decision could be a sign that the Church is focusing on other priorities.

...

That's good, right smart law guys?

[Pheidippides]

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/09/churc...marriage-case/



That's good, right smart law guys?

I think it's good religiously. From a legal perspective, I'm unsure.

[byu71]

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/09/churc...marriage-case/



That's good, right smart law guys?

Excellent and while they are in that frame of mind maybe they could lighten up on the honor code a bit.

[Applejack]

In the off chance that SCOTUS does uphold Utah's definition of marriage, though, the marriages performed under the court order probably should be invalidated. Utah law prohibited such marriages, and if that law was constitutional, then the marriages are invalid, since there was never any authority to perform them in the first place.

Right, but clearly there was "authority to perform" them - authorized pastors solemnized the marriages, they were authorized by various state clerks, all under a direct mandate from a Federal judge. It is conceivable that a Scotus or 10thcirc reversal could also include language invalidating the marriages that already happened, it's not clear to me that all reversals will invalidate the vested rights that those individuals now have. While I think Shelby is wrong on the due process analysis in this case, it's a closer case when someone who was married sues the state for a due process violation for taking away his marriage.

[All-American]

Right, but clearly there was "authority to perform" them - authorized pastors solemnized the marriages, they were authorized by various state clerks, all under a direct mandate from a Federal judge. It is conceivable that a Scotus or 10thcirc reversal could also include language invalidating the marriages that already happened, it's not clear to me that all reversals will invalidate the vested rights that those individuals now have. While I think Shelby is wrong on the due process analysis in this case, it's a closer case when someone who was married sues the state for a due process violation for taking away his marriage.

Not under Utah law, there wasn't.

[smokymountainrain]

Excellent and while they are in that frame of mind maybe they could lighten up on the honor code a bit.

lol

[scottie]

Excellent and while they are in that frame of mind maybe they could lighten up on the honor code a bit.