Nan Eklund wrote:

- quote -

My understanding is that for most of recorded history,
marriage was primarily a business transaction among the
wealthy and ruling class, having nothing to do with love.
The lower classes didn't get married. The current concept of
marriage is fairly new. What's wrong with the definition
evolving?

Stu

================================================== ==========
Moderator:
Marriage was not a sacrament until the last days of the
final days on the Council of Trent in the late 1500's.
Many nobles had multiple wives - a principal wife whose
children inherited and morganic wives whose child did not
inherit.
================================================== ==========

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Yes, it really exists -- just ask some of the reently
married couples. Whether it's *recognized* by the state or
IRS is a whole different ballgame!

--
Jan Zobel EA, author of 'Minding Her Own Business:
The Self-Employed Woman's Guide To Taxes and Recordkeeping'

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

There is a whole range of reactions to same sex marriages
which may have nothing at all to do with prejudice. We may
believe that the marriage is not legal or not recognized in
our state. We may or may not believe it is a moral issue and
- thinking about some of my clients who are in legal
opposite sex marriages - their morality is not the issue.

Therefore, using "marriage" to describe the relationship two
people have achieved simply describes the fact that some of
us don't think it qualifies for filing married jointly.

The relationship may very well be a wonderful one, worthy of
respect. But using a term which has meant one thing for
most of recorded history to cover a totally different set of
facts is confusing. Therefore the quotation marks. I think
they are meant to clarify and avoid a lengthy description of
the relationship.

Nan EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I'm really not interested in the sex life of anyone, unless
it is my own and what's left in my imagination!!!= There
is no reason for us to be personal in these matters. We'll
be dealing with the law, whether we like it or not.
Personalities, ideologies, or opinions related to life
styles are not related to the subject matter. We're going
to run into many problems that have to do with tax law. The
laws relating to race, color, creed, legal (interpersonal)
partnerships, etc. would be off topic. (IMVHO)

"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService[at]aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html

Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jan Zobel EA wrote:

- quote -

Then how would you talk about a marriage that is valid for
state purposes but not recognized for federal purposes?
Does it really exist? The answer will be determined by whom
you ask: The IRS or the States. So why not quote it to
indicate that it doesn't have its full force of meaning in
all contexts?

Do you call someone who is legally married under state law
but separate from his/her OPPOSITE-SEX spouse for the last 6
months and has a dependent child as married for federal
income tax purposes? The IRC doesn't (section 7703(b)).

..... So if a marriage doesn't count, why isn't it a "marriage?" ;-)

Blame this on your "Congresscritter" (or should I REMOVE
those quotes?). :-)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

'Thick hide' has nothing to do with it. Most people of conscience are
repelled by comments that are overtly sexist, racist, or homophobic
and, in fact, Dick has made it clear that he won't tolerate same in
this newsgroup. What I was pointing out in my post is that some recent
comments on the subject of same sex marriage have been (perhaps not
intentionally) on the verge of homophobic just by the way they were
written/punctuated. Because of all the current confusion about this,
I believe that the subject of same-sex marriage will be one that comes
up frequently here so I requested that a bit more attention be paid to
how we phrase things. Based on the private e-mails I've received from
members of this newsgroup, I know that I'm not alone in feeling this
way.

Jan Zobel EA
San Francisco and Oakland, CA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jan Zobel EA wrote:

- quote -

I frequently use "quotes" to distinguish words that are
"jargon" or that have a "special meaning" in a tax context,
and I plan to continue doing so. If this offends anyone,
then ~excuse me~ !! <g
MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jan Zobel EA wrote:

- quote -

Well, up nawth in Noo Yawk and Masstaxachusetts, "they" use
the word "guys" indiscriminately, male or female. However
I usually use it just to denote males. Although .. there
ARE girls who are construction workers, also. So .. yes,
"guys" fits.

- quote -

I'm leaving the above paragraph in my reply, cause I really
can't think of anything diplomatically to say about it.
Except that any subscriber to any newsgroup should have a
thick hide at times.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jan Zobel EA wrote:

- quote -

Thank you! I've been trying to come up with a tactful way
of saying exactly that.

Phoebe

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

While not wanting to take away from the worry about
potential tax complexity issues of same sex marriages,
domestic partnerships, etc., I do want to point out
something that's happening in some of the posts on this
topic. I believe that words (and how we use them) has an
effect on our beliefs and on others who "hear" our words.
These excerpts from recent posts show what I'm referring to:

'And if both the "guys" were construction workers with
separate jobs all over the country!'

'A couple "married" in Massachusetts has already filed in
Florida to require that state to recognize the marriage.'

Putting a word in quotation marks, to me at least, means
that we're using that word but it isn't really the
right/true word. In the example above, gay men (which is
presumably who the poster is referring to) ARE guys. And the
MARRIAGES of same-sex couples in the state of Massachusetts
are as valid as any other marriages.

In discussing the same-sex marriage issue (which is bound to
come up quite a bit in this group in the next months/years,
I would like us to avoid alienating regular and occasional
posters to this site by being aware that how we phrase
things *does* make a difference.

Jan Zobel EA
San Francisco and Oakland, CA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->