Feds will recognize Utah gay marriages, even if Utah won’t

Uncle Sam will recognize the over 1,300 marriages of gay couples performed in Utah over the past two weeks, even though the state of Utah now refuses to recognize them.


Becca wrote the other day about how, in spite of the fact that over 1,300 gay couples were legally married in Utah in the two weeks following a federal court essentially legalizing gay marriage in the state, the state of Utah, in cahoots with the Mormons, is now refusing to recognize those marriages, pending an appeal.


The problem for the state of Utah is that the marriages were legally performed.  And even the US Supreme Court, which put an end to additional marriages, said nothing about vitiating the marriages that already took place.


But leave it to Utah and the Mormons, and their Republican overlords, to do everything they can to kill love and bash a few thousands gays.


To it credit, the Obama administration has just announced, in a video by Attorney General Eric Holder (that oddly can’t be embedded) that it will continue to recognize the marriages of gay couples that have already taken place, enabling those couples to receive over 1,110 federal benefits that accrue to married couples.

These are the relatively small things that the administration can do, that end up making a big difference.  It’s good evidence of why it matters who controls the White House.  It’s also proof that on a lot of issues there are lots of things an administration can do to help, even when its legislative hands are tied.

Good job.

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

65 Responses to “Feds will recognize Utah gay marriages, even if Utah won’t”

  1. BeccaM says:

    I see that — thanks for the research. And yes, anecdotally, I can confirm it works for that, too, and way the hell better (with fewer negative side effects) than Ambien or any of the other commonly prescribed sleep aids.

    Personally, I’m waiting to see what New Mexico’s official position is with respect to what’s going on in Colorado… It’s been many years since I’ve used MJ, but judging from what I hear about current-day potency, I’d imagine I could make a quarter ounce last a very long time.

  2. BeccaM says:

    Could be. Certainly there’s more than enough evidence now to dismiss the specious claim there is no legitimate medical use for it. So I’d agree way more research is warranted.

    Or, once it’s legal, people will go back to using it as a folk remedy as they used to. Or more to the point, using it openly, without fear of prosecution.

    Me, I’m not willing to take the chance to break the law, even though I know from person experience that as you say, it works in both symptomatic and prophylactic treatment. But I can guarantee that as soon as it was legal, I know what I’d be using.

  3. HolyMoly says:

    Maybe this is the wrong application, but wouldn’t ex post facto apply here? Since it was legal for gays to marry when they did, how can anyone nullify them, even if the law was reversed? The ones who made it through the window of opportunity should remain legally married. I think the Supreme Court will uphold the law in the end, but in the meantime, I don’t see how Utah can put them on hold.

  4. FLL says:

    Becca’s reply below makes sense. Obama would actually get more GayTM money for the midterms if he signed the ENDA executive order now than if he “held it hostage” until after the midterms.

  5. docsterx says:

    See the above post I did for Monoceros. There is information on MJ and sleep/insomnia.

  6. docsterx says:

    See reply to Becca (above).

    There are multiple cmpds in cannabis that are psychologically active and have different effects. When smoked, one of the cmpds released is cannabidiol (CBD). That seems to affect the sleep pathway to cause sleep. However another cmpd produced seems to promote wakefulness. The Cleveland Clinic has used CBD, rarely, as a sleeping medication, It is available in pill form. Admittedly, this is an “off label” use for CBD.

    J Neurosci Res. 2011 Aug;89(8):1143-9. doi: 10.1002/jnr.22666. Epub 2011 May 6.

    Biochemical modulation of the sleep-wake cycle: endogenous sleep-inducing factors.

    Arias-Carrión O, Huitrón-Reséndiz S, Arankowsky-Sandoval G, Murillo-Rodríguez E.

    Author information


    Regulation of the sleep-wake cycle involves diverse brain circuits and molecules. Further complexity has been introduced by the recognition of sleep-promoting factors that accumulate in the brain naturally or during prolonged waking. The variety of sleep-inducing
    molecules includes peptides, cytokines, and lipids. With regard to the
    lipids, current evidence indicates the existence of endogenous lipids,
    called endocannabinoids, that mimic the pharmacological actions of the
    psychoactive ingredient of marijuana and that are likely to be essential factors in sleep promotion. This Mini-Review presents current knowledge concerning the role of endogenous compounds with sleep-promoting properties.

    Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

    PMID:21557294 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Drug Test Anal. 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1002/dta.1529. [Epub ahead of print]

    Therapeutic potential of cannabinoid medicines.

    Robson PJ.

    Author information


    was extensively used as a medicine throughout the developed world in
    the nineteenth century but went into decline early in the twentieth
    century ahead of its emergence as the most widely used illicit
    recreational drug later that century. Recent advances in cannabinoid
    pharmacology alongside the discovery of the endocannabinoid system (ECS)
    have re-ignited interest in cannabis-based
    medicines. The ECS has emerged as an important physiological system and
    plausible target for new medicines. Its receptors and endogenous
    ligands play a vital modulatory role in diverse functions including
    immune response, food intake, cognition, emotion, perception,
    behavioural reinforcement, motor co-ordination, body temperature, wake/sleep
    cycle, bone formation and resorption, and various aspects of hormonal
    control. In disease it may act as part of the physiological response or
    as a component of the underlying pathology. In the forefront of clinical
    research are the cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and
    cannabidiol, and their contrasting pharmacology will be briefly
    outlined. The therapeutic potential and possible risks of drugs that
    inhibit the ECS will also be considered. This paper will then go on to
    review clinical research exploring the potential of cannabinoid
    medicines in the following indications: symptomatic relief in multiple
    sclerosis, chronic neuropathic pain, intractable nausea and vomiting,
    loss of appetite and weight in the context of cancer or AIDS, psychosis,
    epilepsy, addiction, and metabolic disorders. Copyright © 2013 John
    Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


    cannabidiol, cannabinoids, endocannabinoid system, medicinal cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol

    PMID:24006213 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

  7. docsterx says:

    Migraines and MJ: Limited research on MJ because it’s a Schedule I drug. I believe that, trying to do research on a Schedule I drug requires lots of additional paperwork. Plus, if you get good results, would practically take an Act of Congress to get laws approving it for sale. But:

    Headache. 2013 Mar;53(3):447-58. doi: 10.1111/head.12025. Epub 2012 Dec 20.
    Cannabinoids and hallucinogens for headache.
    McGeeney BE.
    Author information

    Hallucinogens and most cannabinoids are classified under schedule 1 of the Federal Controlled Substances Act 1970, along with heroin and ecstacy. Hence they cannot be prescribed by physicians, and by implication, have no accepted medical use with a high abuse potential. Despite their legal status, hallucinogens and cannabinoids are used by patients for relief of headache, helped by the growing number of American states that have legalized medical marijuana. Cannabinoids in particular have a long history of use in the abortive and prophylactic treatment of migraine before prohibition and are still used by patients as a migraine abortive in particular. Most practitioners are unaware of the prominence cannabis or “marijuana” once held in medical practice. Hallucinogens are being increasingly used by cluster headache patients outside of physician recommendation mainly to abort a cluster period and maintain quiescence for which there is considerable anecdotal success. The legal status of cannabinoids and hallucinogens has for a long time severely inhibited medical research, and there are still no blinded studies on headache subjects, from which we could assess true efficacy.
    © 2012 American Headache Society.
    [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Pain. 1998 May;76(1-2):3-8.
    Cannabis for migraine treatment: the once and future prescription? An historical and scientific review.
    Russo E.
    Author information

    Cannabis, or Marijuana, has been used for centuries for both symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine. It was highly esteemed as a headache remedy by the most prominent physicians of the age between 1874 and 1942, remaining part of the Western pharmacopoeia for this indication even into the mid-twentieth century. Current ethnobotanical and anecdotal references continue to refer to its efficacy for this malady, while biochemical studies of THC and anandamide have provided a scientific basis for such treatment. The author believes that controlled clinical trials of Cannabis in acute migraine treatment are warranted.
    [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Perhaps as MJ control gets loosened up, they’ll be more of an impetus for research.

  8. The_Fixer says:

    Remember that Obama suddenly got “DADT Repeal Religion” right after high-profile gay Democratic supporters with money shut off the GayTM. I remember John writing articles calling for the shutoff of the GayTM for a few weeks prior to the heat of the last presidential campaign. Lo and Behold, after a few weeks of the Dem fundraisers getting doors shut in their faces, Obama “evolved” and decided to support the gays. I don’t think that was a coincidence, not by a long shot.

    So yes, there may be an ulterior motive here. As we all know, politics is fueled by money. If a Democratic strategist came up with the idea to turn that whole GayTM situation around, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

  9. bkmn says:

    Once again the GOP, the Utah GOP in this case, prove their claim of being fiscally conservative FALSE. Declaring by fiat that the marriages are not valid will bring a ton of lawsuits. Their green AG won’t know what hit him and the gov.

    And by the way, why do budget deficits almost always go up when we have Republicans in charge?

  10. Stev84 says:

    There are a lot of factors that produce worse outcomes for children. Poverty for example.

    But no one is trying to ban poor people from procreating (at least not anymore. Goodbye eugenics). That line of thinking only works if the best gay parents are worse than the worst straight ones.

  11. Whitewitch says:

    It is like I always say, nothing worse than a reformed Whore or Ex-smoker…both will drive you insane and nag you to stop, repent, whatever.

  12. Whitewitch says:

    As I posted somewhere…if it becomes legal I shall indulge as I do with good wine and a fine whiskey – rare – but for pleasure.

  13. BeccaM says:

    Oh yeah… insomnia. I went through a terrible bout of that a couple years ago and it continues to cause me trouble from time to time.

  14. Monoceros Forth says:

    Yeah, I don’t think it’s in the Washington state list of qualifying conditions either, unless it falls under the category of “intractable pain”. The chief reason why I’d like legal marijuana, insomnia, definitely isn’t covered.

  15. Monoceros Forth says:

    There’s a simple explanation for why the procreation argument is trotted out now — and not just in New Mexico, but in every single case being argued by the homophobes….The courts won’t let them argue that being gay is inherently an immoral condition.

    You’re right of course. They have to come up with something they can take to court that isn’t just a right-wing preacher’s sermon.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t hard work being done right now to cook up new Regnerus-type studies that the bigots can use to support legal arguments, since the “responsible procreation” canard has been shot down. I predict a fresh attempt to define same-sex attraction as a pathology that leads to behavior inimical to the public health (drinking, drugs, VD, all that stuff) and hence deserves to be controlled by the state.

  16. Norman Dostal says:

    great stuff-the GOP had better watch out-this issue will kill them this Fall. Americans are getting really tired of the hate and waste of money fighting it!

  17. BeccaM says:

    There’s a simple explanation for why the procreation argument is trotted out now — and not just in New Mexico, but in every single case being argued by the homophobes.

    The courts won’t let them argue that being gay is inherently an immoral condition. Blatant appeals to religion won’t work, and the shine has come off the whole “tradition” proposition, although they do still try for that one.

    It all goes back to Regnerus and Marks and this other phony study I’ve been hearing about lately, all of which claim — without evidence to back it up — that gays and lesbians are lousy parents who raise f*cked up kids. The shadow behind every single procreation argument is this position, unsupported by rational or rigorous science of any kind. Merely the assertion that withholding marriage rights from gays and lesbians will result in ‘responsible procreation’ — which is nothing but code for, “We don’t want THOSE types raising children.”

    But maybe you do have a point there. Could be that the whole “lifestyle choice” canard is so deeply burned into their narrow little brains they think that if it’s horrible — upon pain of imprisonment — to be LGBT, we’ll all simply choose to be straight and fully gender conformant.

    However, y’know, all we have to do is go back to John’s posts about Liberace, Paul Lynde, and Charles Nelson Reilly to realize that even in the days when it was illegal to be openly gay, LGBTs still existed anyway. The only difference is the denial was more pervasive, as was the “lifestyle choice” of wearing massive blinders.

  18. FLL says:

    Thanks for your kindness.

  19. Badgerite says:

    Yeah. Apparently Scalia was right. Texas vs Lawrence WAS the turning point. I think eventually the Russian will come to see how damaging their current attitude is to their own society but it may take a while.

  20. Houndentenor says:

    I only pointed out that I didn’t because I’m sick of people like David Brooks arguing for illegality after admitting they did it in college. Too bad he didn’t get caught and serve a mandatory sentence. Of course he’s white so that was unlikely.

  21. Monoceros Forth says:

    The children of gay and lesbian parents aren’t suddenly going to get “a mother AND a father” and be raised in some fictitious Ozzie & Harriet scenario….Oppressing gay people will never result in more ‘nuclear’ families or in healthier, better adjusted kids.

    That’s one reason I thought the strange argument in the New Mexico case that the state had an obligation to encourage “responsible procreation” was so hilarious. How is restricting marriage to opposite-couples supposed to do this? It conjures up images of gay guys shaking their heads in regret and saying to their partners, “Welp, we can’t get wed. Guess we’d better break up and find nice girls to marry and procreate responsibly with.”

    Who knows. Maybe they really do believe that “lifestyle choice” argument they peddle and think that same-sex attraction really is a trivial sort of pleasure indulged on a whim, like going to a casino or smoking cigars, so maybe if a high enough “sin tax” is put on it people will do it less.

  22. BeccaM says:

    Thanks dear.

  23. BeccaM says:

    Let’s just say that if MJ was legal, you’d probably never hear me complain about migraines again.

    Unfortunately, except in California, that particular chronic ailment almost never makes it onto the medical MJ conditions lists…

  24. Whitewitch says:

    I love reading you and BeccaM’s posts – you both cause me to think of things I had not considered before…thank you. P.S. You too BeccaM

  25. BeccaM says:

    There are, and mine — NM — was one of them. However, until marriage equality was recognized here, they would have required us to create a dummy 1040 anyway. That seem to be the path preferred by the anti-equality states: Better not to use the required Federal form number than to take even the smallest step towards recognizing the legal marriages.

  26. Whitewitch says:

    Up vote Up vote….I can’t say it – but I feel with with you Judy.

  27. Whitewitch says:

    I don’t use it either (once I got old enough that going to jail was not a choice I wanted to make I stopped doing drugs)….but if it were legal – I believe I would pay it now and again…just like once in a while I enjoy good wine or expensive hooch.

  28. Whitewitch says:

    Once the republicans can tout the “income” generated they will be behind it. Why do you think they have never made tobacco illegal…guess they can tax the hell out of it – I mean really tax it and all the conservatives go – “Yeah Tax Them Sinners” (even if they are sinning right along side of us).

    Once they see the decrease in jail costs, and the increase in revenue and figure out how to sell it as “Look we can tax those crazy hippies and if they are smoking pot they aren’t voting or changing anything cause they are LAZY”…it will become the law of the land!!!

  29. Stev84 says:

    I’ve read that there are states that require the state tax returns to follow the federal one.

  30. Tube video sexe grosse bite de black porno grosse bite de black – Film
    Film vidéo xxx grosse bite de black grosse bite de black

  31. Film porno gratuit – Vidéo porno femmes gros seins

  32. Film sex materiel radio amateur hard materiel radio amateur x – Sexe xxx
    materiel radio amateur en streaming materiel radio amateur – clips materiel radio amateur hard materiel radio amateur coquin en ligne materiel radio amateur sans inscription materiel radio

  33. Vidéo porno gratuite video de sexe gratuite et video de sexe
    video de sexe gratuite

  34. Video xxx selena gomez youporn gratuite et film de cul selena gomez
    youporn pornhub selena gomez youporn

  35. Indigo says:

    I wish our politics were cleaner but they’re not, not these days. My point is that we’re already well on the way to a fully realized “security state” (police state in other words) and another dozen Edward Snowdens aren’t going to reverse that trend. So what’s the practical response?

  36. Indigo says:

    Oh, yes, I recognize that. But undoing desegregation isn’t in the deck. And I suspect thatll be increasingly obvious in the case of equal rights to marry and possibly even in the case of marihuana usage.

  37. Whitewitch says:

    No I don’t see it better mismanaged Indigo….I however, have promised myself not to vote for the Least Stinky person for President.

  38. Indigo says:

    That is quite a bit of (formerly under-the-table) money. More than I expected.

  39. Screwtape says:

    Aww, poor Utah. Did someone (you know who) buying the vote in Prop 8 come back and bite you on the ass?

    No sense fighting it now, you have already lost- and in a way, we have you to thank for it! Your religious faction’s obvious meddling in civil rights helped contribute to the demise of DOMA. I guess a stopped clock is right twice a day, huh?

  40. Houndentenor says:

    Ha ha. Catholics and fundamentalist Christians don’t like Mormons any more than they like gays and if they could they’d pass laws restricting the rights of LDS members as well.

  41. Houndentenor says:

    That’s really where the Prop 8 case fell apart. The main argument used by the anti-gay bigots is that marriage is about children, but plenty of gay couples have children. What about them? Courts aren’t tv news programs where people are allowed to lie without being challenged. That’s why they keep losing on marriage. Also, most of the “experts” aren’t willing to lie under oath for them the way they do in political campaigns.

  42. Alied1333 says:

    мʏ ƈʟαѕѕмαтɛ’ѕ ѕтɛք-мօтнɛʀ мαĸɛѕ $6з ɛʋɛʀʏ нօυʀ օɴ тнɛ ƈօмքυтɛʀ. ѕнɛ нαѕ вɛɛɴ օυт օғ α ʝօв ғօʀ ɛιɢнт мօɴтнѕ вυт ʟαѕт мօɴтн нɛʀ քαʏмɛɴт աαѕ $18251 ʝυѕт աօʀĸιɴɢ օɴ тнɛ ƈօмքυтɛʀ ғօʀ α ғɛա нօυʀѕ. ʋιѕιт тнιѕ ѕιтɛ ʀιɢнт нɛʀɛ fox800&#46com

  43. Houndentenor says:

    It’s how we got lotteries and casinos in most states.

    I think it’s time to admit that the laws against marijuana aren’t stopping anyone from doing it and punishing them for doing something that doesn’t hurt anyone is a big waste of taxpayer dollars. (BTW, I don’t use marijuana and don’t plan to. I just smell it often enough to know that its use is very common.)

  44. Houndentenor says:

    Immediately discredited? Yes, in most circles, but that crowd has never stopped licking their wounds of that. And don’t be fooled. When someone talks about “states rights” this is exactly what they mean and this is also the moment when Confederate flags started flying all over the South including the SC statehouse. Nixon appealed to that crowd and that’s what began the whole mess we are in now with religionists and bigots in charge of the GOP.

  45. BeccaM says:

    Actually, the tone locally has been, “Hey look at all that tax money flooding into Colorado’s state budget. Maybe we should consider it…”

  46. BeccaM says:

    Also, increasingly, it’s becoming, “Oh, our friends X and Y are finally getting married. How long have they been together? Oh right — going on five years now. Well good for them.”

    As ever, the homophobes try to distract from the fact these families already exist. Gay people aren’t going to straight-marry just because that’s the only legal option available. The children of gay and lesbian parents aren’t suddenly going to get “a mother AND a father” and be raised in some fictitious Ozzie & Harriet scenario — hell, even the Russians know the most they can accomplish is to toss the kids into gulag-orphanages. Oppressing gay people will never result in more ‘nuclear’ families or in healthier, better adjusted kids. (Then again, we already knew this.)

    Society itself, through social evolution and progress, made it acceptable (for the most part) to be openly LGBT, but also to settle down and live like everybody else. At that point, for the anti-gay bigots, it’s been like trying to plug a leaky dam when the flood waters are already all around them.

  47. Indigo says:

    Besides, they’ve got a fresh issue to block . . . recreational marihuana. No fun allowed!

  48. Badgerite says:

    That’s why they fought it so hard. The unknown is a lot scarier than the known.
    I mean, people getting married. Oh the humanity!

  49. BeccaM says:

    Interestingly, here in New Mexico, one of the local stations (KOB.com) ran a story last night noting how the Republican / Fundamentalist push (led by snake-handling State Senator Bill Sharer) to pass a state constitutional amendment doesn’t look likely to happen in the next legislative session (the next one is for 30 days starting on Jan 21).

    Even some of the marriage equality opponents in the gov’t seem to be saying, “Ah, to hell with it. It’s done, who cares?” And as I remarked back in December when the State Supreme Court ruled for same sex marriage, the general tone from the legislature seemed to be mostly relief that they wouldn’t ever have to deal with the issue.


    I think it’s far easier to whip up bigoted hysteria over something that doesn’t exist and/or hasn’t been experienced than it is when the reality is here and it’s utterly mundane. As a so-called “wedge issue,” gay rights has lost its pointy end. Sure, it’ll continue to rile up the true believers among the ignorant homophobes, but they never were the majority.

  50. Indigo says:

    But would you be comfortable with a mismanaged police state? It’s not as if we’re going to prevent what’s already happening, as far as I can see.

  51. BlueIdaho says:

    I think I have pointed this out in a previous post, but I am 100% sure that Utah will not allow their citizens to file join state tax returns. Idaho has recently ruled that since there is a state constitutional ban againist same-sex marriage all same-sex couples must file a separate tax return. In other words they will not allow joint filings until forced to do so by the courts.

  52. Whitewitch says:

    Well then I shall just have to change my mind – Not!

  53. BeccaM says:

    If they’re willing to preemptively declare the Utah marriages valid, I truly can’t see any political downside to issuing the EO and quite possibly a flood of GayTM money if they did.

  54. Indigo says:

    This is as interesting in its way as the time Eisenhower sent federal troops into Little Rock (1957) over the issue of desegregation. Most people just shrugged and said, that’s the law so there it is. And the segregationists were permanently discredited. I loved that part. I love it this time too, the anti-human rights set are overextending themselves, the war is over and for them to skirmish now just discredits their value-set all the more. They are not law-abiding citizens, they are whiners and obstructionists! What fools!

  55. BeccaM says:

    Careful there, Judy. As I learned yesterday from one commenter, such remarks hurt their fee-fees because apparently they have other reasons beside hating gay people for opposing marriage equality rights, even though the reasons are never explained.

    I think from a remark a few weeks ago, we’re supposed to go out and find a Mormon to explain to us why we’re subhuman degenerates and how we shouldn’t take it personally at all.

    I mean, we have to respect their bigoted intolerance or they’ll stop reading our posts and comments! (clutch those pearls)

    (end snark)

  56. Indigo says:

    But Hillary can be trusted to make our evolving Police State an effective instrument of government.

  57. judybrowni says:

    Ha ha, fuck you, Mormons!

  58. FLL says:

    The less charitable theory would be that Obama is trying to squeeze money out of the gay ATM during the midterm elections. My first theory above your reply is kinder. I just cannot hazard a guess.

  59. BeccaM says:

    I honestly don’t know. Campaign Obama kept promising on “Day One” to sign an EO to ban discrimination for federal contracts. Then as soon as President Obama hit the Oval Office chair, it was, “What promise? Sorry, no, it should be ENDA or nothing.”

    An order once signed would probably have received almost zero attention beyond a single news cycle, yet would have done immeasurable good for the lives of LGBT Americans. (Lots of people have no idea that practically every corporation of any reasonable size would be affected, and others would simply adopt the policies as moot in case they landed a federal contract.)

    I wish I could figure out the motivation or reason for the difference, but I can’t.

  60. Whitewitch says:

    Thanks BeccaM….you always have the answer to these weird Melodie questions.

  61. FLL says:

    The administration’s support for post-DOMA marriage rights is impressive. Why not an ENDA executive order then? Is this a midterm election ploy to embarrass Republicans since ENDA has so much public support? That unconvincing excuse has a November expiration date, in any case.

  62. BeccaM says:

    Re: State tax returns, it’s hard to say. In the past, the way it often worked when DOMA was in force was that a state that did grant marriage rights would (unfortunately) have to have couples fill out two sets of Federal forms. One actually filed with the Feds that didn’t claim marriage, and another used just for reference for the state (i.e., not filed with the Feds, but used to calculate taxes due) but with state forms declaring married status. We did that in California for a while under their Domestic Partnership rules — Federal had to file as unmarried; California, double recalculation to file as married.

    Now, I suspect this is going to go the other way around, until the state bans are finally overturned. Feds accepting the full married forms, but with couples forced to file a separate non-married tax return at the state level, using a theoretical (unfiled) non-married set of Federal 1040s.

    But I dunno. This whole issue hasn’t been tested in the courts yet.

  63. FLL says:

    On Becca’s post from yesterday, I said that I’d be very surprised if Obama and the Justice Department withhold federal benefits from same-sex married Utah couples. I’m glad they didn’t. I still think Utah Governor Gary Herbert is breaking the law. I’m sure he won’t suffer any consequences though; the Mormon-dominated Utah legislature would probably sooner convert to Druidism than impeach Governor Herbert. From your post, John:

    These are the relatively small things that the administration can do, that end up making a big difference. It’s good evidence of why it matters who controls the White House.

    It’s necessary to state the obvious every now and again.

  64. BeccaM says:

    Indeed — the turnaround in this Administration from “oh, gee, sorry, can’t do anything, our hands are tied” to “hey — you’re married, here’s your Federal recognition” has been nothing short of astonishing.

    The contrast could not be more stark, too. The Feds using the benefit of the doubt (judicially speaking) to choose to extend rights and benefits, versus Utah’s government using it to deny rights.

    Now if we could just get them to issue the damned Executive Order to ban LGBT employment non-discrimination for federal contracting companies…

  65. Whitewitch says:

    Yeah yeah yea!!!

    The Utah kids are going to be wetting themselves and maybe going back on a hunger strike. This sort of means they have to let the newly married gay folks file state returns – doesn’t it?????

    Perhaps those Utah leaders overplayed their hand…sounds like we might here a federal ruling coming down!!!

    EDITED TO ADD: You make an excellent point John re the small things an administration can do to change things. And about having the right “group” in control. Thanks for reminding me….but I still won’t vote for Hillary Clinton. ::grin::

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS