Why would the IRS do anything other than use the state in which the immigrants reside? Isn’t that what they do now?
BTW, the 10-year-old wife would be from glorious nation of Kazakhstan.
None of which answers my very simple question: WTF is the federal government supposed to do when some federal agency has to determine whether a couple is married, but there is no relevant State to pass the buck to?
Or, in other words, so long as the federal government treats married and unmarried people in different ways for various purposes, there are going to be instances where it alone has to decide whether they’re married, and it is going to have to have some sort of rules or laws to follow in those circumstances. Whether you like it or not, this can’t all be done at a state level because sometimes there is no relevant state to decide the issue.
I’d be pretty surprised if the INS recognized a Massachusetts-recognized gay marriage from Quebec. I have no idea how they actually operate. There isn’t really a whole lot of variation between states on other issues - even states that don’t allow cousins to marry generally recognize the marriages of cousins wed in places that do, etc.
I did answer the question. The answer is that the federal government can set whatever rules they want for federal tax purposes. Almost every issue touches the federal government in the same way and they can do what they need to for their purposes only.
Actually, as I think about this more, does the IRS recognize SSM even for US citizens from MA? Doesn’t the DOMA take care of that for federal agencies like the IRS? So, the couple moving from MA to VA wouldn’t see any change in the federal IRS filing status. Jean-Paul et Marc-Luc, moving from Quebec to Boston, would see the marriage recognized at the state level, but not at the federal level-- the same as John and Mark, US citizens living in Boston.
True. I doubt there is any marriage that is recognized in one state that wouldn’t be recognized in another, except for SSM.
INS, John. As in, sponsoring a spouse for immigration, etc.
My only point has been that the feds have to have some rules they follow when there are no state rules to apply. The matter can’t lie entirely in the hands of the states, since sometimes there is no relevant state.
Yes, I saw that you said INS. I was revising what I said earlier about the IRS, though. As for the INS, then I still don’t see why DOMA would not apply. They are not immigrating to MA, they are immigrating to the US.
Well, I don’t disagree with that. But the feds can have rules that apply to federal issues, and they needn’t apply at the state level. In fact, the IRS code is a perfect example. There is a federal code and a state code, and sometimes they agree with each other, but sometimes they don’t. There are many deductions I can make at the federal level, but that I can’t make at the state level-- and vice versa.
As for Gorsnak’s couple-immigrating issue, while they are immigrating into the United States, they are thereupon taking up residence in one of the States or else D.C. For the vast majority of purposes, the instant question is whether their marriage will be recognized by the State. It is state laws that govern the vast majority of issues that a married couple deals with in their everyday lives. Yes, there may be INS issues in them coming in as a married couple – but for the sake of resolving this question, may we ignore the issue of surmounting an INS hurdle and presume that they each independently qualify for immigration and are passed on those grounds? In that case, as noted above, the laws of the State govern: it may recognize their marriage or decline to do so. And only in dealings with the IRS will there be any question of whether the Feds. agree with the state.
Excursus: I know that there are laws in place for D.C., Federal reservations and territories, etc., that are the equivalent of State law but applicable only to those circumstances. E.g., if you are stopped for speeding on the grounds of Camp LeJeune or Fort Leavenworth, the M.P. will not charge you according to the North Carolina General Statutes or whatever the relevant Kansas state law is called, but according to a provision in Title Umpteen of the U.S.C. I presume there are standards for a young couple who grew up in Georgetown or just off New Hampshire Avenue to contract a legal marriage, and those standards would govern what the immigrant couple settling in D.C. is recognized (or not) as.
I’ll be contrarian & say we should have national standards, the gay marriage snit notwithstanding. Of course, some people will think the laws too liberal, & others think them too restrictive, but that happens now. It’s not too much to ask that if we are one country, we have one set of laws.
IANAL, but the gay couple wouldn’t be recognized at all, the Saudi guy would need to pick which wife he wanted to immigrate with, and the Eritrean & Romanian couples would be allowed in. Same-sex marriage is legal in only one state and unrecognized be the federal government. Polygyny is legal nowhere and unrecognized by the federal government. However cousin marriage is legal in several states. And some states (in theory) do allow children as 10 to get married. California is one.
Too much to ask of whom? It is, indeed, too much to ask of most people. So, should we have only one set of laws for everything even if most people don’t want that? And if so, how would you go about implementing that policy?
Is it too much to ask that we have a democracy?
Everything? Do you just plan on cherry-picking some fluff issues to become national or do we need to sit everyone down and come up with unified gambling, wildlife management, building code, zoning, firearms, and public decency laws to suit everywhere and everyone?
Once you get past a superficial fluff cherry-picking of things to consolidate, it is going to be pretty hard to make any laws that do well for Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, and New Jersey in nearly equal measure. For every law that people think are hot issues, they are ten of them that really are important but buried so deep that they don’t catch the public eye much like zoning or land use management.
Again, the answer is why?
Okay, but it’s state law either encouraged or mandated by federal law and is representative of the federal government’s efforts thus far at creating uniformity of domestic law on a national level. Congress made a portion of federal funding contingent on the passage of UIFSA, and as a result all fifty states and the District of Columbia have done so. Congress also passed the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act with the stated intent of “impos[ing] on states a federal duty, under enumerated standards derived generally from the UCCJA, to give full faith and credit to the custody decrees of other states,” and as a result all fifty states and D.C. have passed the UCCJA as well.
I stopped believing in state’s rights over two issues: gun regulation & education. I suppose I would like to accept local control until it proves problematic. But due to the absolutely counter-productive effect of local control on those two issues, I now have the opposite general bias: I reject local control unless there is a good reason for it.
Land use & water use rules will vary according to geographic realities; that’s fine, even necessary. Gun laws simply cannot be allowed to vary as widely as they can without walling off our cities & inspecting people’s baggage as they enter. Public education is stifled in this country by the local funding system. In some cases, we need local variation; in others, it creates a dangerous social climate.
But family law doesn’t clearly fit either category. Marriage, divorce, & inheritance can vary, & it’s quirky, but rarely destructive. On the other hand, they could be standardized, & be no worse.
However, due to the mobility of society, the identification of Americans with America as sovereign, & the need for reliable & predictable laws, my bias is toward standardization. It didn’t use to be, but I think in the little difference it makes, variation on laws of this kind, within a sovereign country, without overriding cultural/traditional reasons, is slightly worse for those who get blindsided by variations in the rules.