Jimmy Carter disappoints on the issue of Texas and gay marriage

[MADem]

12. No, I am not missing the point.

Unless you can find a way to get married in a state without a state-issued marriage license, I am not missing the point. And that's the point Carter was making.

I did not claim you were a right winger--please READ before you make such spurious accusations in the future. I was talking about the source--the very right wing source from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION--of this story. Start with post 4. Shame on you--what a nasty accusation, you owe me an apology.

It does seem you are unclear on the legalities of marriage as it relates to the US and foreign countries. This link will help you. With the exception of social security benefits, which is an issue that needs resolution and likely will resolve soon, married is married.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/issues-affecting-same-sex-couples-faq-32292-2.html

Does the federal government recognize same-sex marriage?
Yes. The federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages.
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor cleared the way for same-sex married couples to receive federal benefits. In Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limited marriage to a union between a man and a woman. You can read more about that decision here.
As a result, legally married same-sex couples will qualify (for the most part) for federal benefits - regardless of where they live. However, the rules for eligibility do vary among federal agencies.
Married is Married - Even in Non-recognition States
Many federal agencies, such as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Office of Personnel & Management, look to the place of celebration (where the marriage was performed) to determine whether same-sex married couples are eligible for benefits. If you're in a valid marriage, you will qualify for immigration status and federal employee benefits (if either of you works for the federal government), even if you live in a non-recognition state.
It wasn't clear how the IRS would approach this issue until August 2013, when the U.S. Department of Treasury ruled that all same-sex couples that are legally married in any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be recognized as married under all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor.
The Treasury Department further clarified that federal recognition for tax purposes applies whether a same-sex married couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage (such as California) or a non-recognition jurisdiction (such as Texas). But the decision does not apply to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions....

You can be angry about whatever you'd like--I really don't have any desire to restrict your ability to find pique in anything, so why accuse me of not "allowing" that, either? Just don't focus your ire AT me for pointing out facts.

Argue with facts, not emotions--and don't misstate my views or what I say. I will point it out if you do.


I did address the aspect of the federal government "leaning" on states to influence their laws (if you bothered to read what I wrote and I am more and more convinced that you did not do that) and that would cover the "interracial" aspect you are using as an example. That said, a state that just didn't give a shit could continue to refuse to accommodate "Loving v. VA" couples and face consequences, if they so desired. Many states held out for a while against "DRIVE 55" and the federal 18 year old drinking age, too-but eventually they saw the benefits of compliance and came to their OWN decision to get in line.

Bottom line is this--marriage licenses ARE (even if you do not like it) issued by STATES. States make the decision as to who might get married within their borders. That is all Carter was saying. He wasn't saying that TX had the "right" to "discriminate." He said the decision is in their hands. That's a distinction and a difference, and -- as we've seen with other states -- one that might well be accomplished on a continuum.

I also understand that this is the LGBT group and I am not saying anything that is 'anti' LGBT. The fact that you are trying to silence my comments with that "warning" is disturbing in the extreme. I'm speaking factually, here, not 'advocating.'

FWIW, I am very much pro-equality and believe that anyone of legal age who wants to marry should be free to do so. That said, the intereraction between state and federal government is complex. One is not "the boss" of the other and that is where people tend to get confused.

And using a HERITAGE FOUNDATION source to trash one of our more liberal presidents, one who had to really dig deep to get past his ingrained religious biases, is what is troublesome, here--Carter is being misrepresented, and I find that unfair.