6/21/2013 10:33 PM
That was directed to bad_luck, who insists that the federal government should not be defining marriage.
6/21/2013 10:55 PM
Even so, I would have to say that it would be easier for the Federal Government to simply recognize any marriage performed in any state than have to sift through and eliminate SSMs, which is what is currently happening under DOMA.
6/22/2013 12:47 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 10:32:00 PM (view original):
How can a federal agency, let's take the IRS for example, function effectively if something that is a factor in determining income tax liability like marriage, is left to the states to decide?

Does it make sense that the IRS should be expected to have to work off of potentially 50 different definitions of marriage, based on whatever state a particular 1040 form was filed from?

It's appropriate for the federal government to define marriage at the federal level.  Which it has, with DOMA.
I'm starting to get the feeling that you aren't just playing dumb and you legitimately think the Feds do (or should) have the power to regulate marriage. They don't.

The IRS will just follow state law, like they do now. It's not unprecedented. I work in insurance. There is no federal regulation of insurance. Each state has its own laws and the IRS (taxes are a huge deal in insurance) handles it just fine. And that's way more complicated than, "married: Yes/No."
6/22/2013 12:52 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****!  Your level of stupidity attains new heights by the hour.

1)  Are you trying to say that marriage can be defined one way for federal benefits, and a different way for other things?  Does that make sense to you?

2)  DOMA is not unconstitutional unless and until it is declared so by SCOTUS.  As far as I know, you are not SCOTUS so you cannot declare laws unconstitutional.


1) yes and yes.
2) but I have a brain. I can read the law and the analysis and the rulings of the lower courts and draw a likely conclusion.
6/22/2013 6:50 AM
Please explain  to me how and why a law that has been deemed unconstitutional is currently still on the books and in effect.
6/22/2013 10:29 AM
Appeals. Every lower court has ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Those decisions have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
6/22/2013 4:12 PM
DOMA is currently the law of the land today . . . true or false?
6/22/2013 4:26 PM
True
6/22/2013 4:47 PM
Who has final say on whether a law is unconstitutional?
6/22/2013 4:52 PM
SCOTUS.
6/22/2013 5:08 PM
And to date, has SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional?
6/22/2013 5:20 PM
Nope. That likely happens this week. What's your point?
6/22/2013 6:58 PM
DOMA is not unconstitutional.
6/22/2013 7:21 PM
In my opinion it is. In the opinion of a handful of federal judges it is also. In a few days SCOTUS will find the same thing and then the law will go away. Just because a law is still on the books doesn't mean that it's constitutional.
6/22/2013 10:34 PM (edited)
Unless and until it is deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS who, as you point out, has the final say in constitutionality, it is considered constitutional and it is enforced.

I'm amused by your absolute certainty in how SCOTUS will be ruled unconstitutional.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.