<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Nadler&#8217;s DOMA Repeal Bill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/</link>
	<description>Same dork, new year!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:38:37 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Are You Off Message If You&#8217;re Saying Exactly What You Mean to Say?</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/#comment-2975</link>
		<dc:creator>Are You Off Message If You&#8217;re Saying Exactly What You Mean to Say?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=2778#comment-2975</guid>
		<description>[...] anyone responded, with analysis, as to how Frank &#8212; and I &#8212; are wrong about how problematic the &#8220;certainty provision&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] anyone responded, with analysis, as to how Frank &#8212; and I &#8212; are wrong about how problematic the &#8220;certainty provision&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank: Nadler DOMA Repeal Certainty Provision Is &#8216;Political Problem&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/#comment-2817</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank: Nadler DOMA Repeal Certainty Provision Is &#8216;Political Problem&#8217;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=2778#comment-2817</guid>
		<description>[...] repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  Frank&#8217;s reasoning, in large part, precisely tracks the concerns with the bill I discussed back in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  Frank&#8217;s reasoning, in large part, precisely tracks the concerns with the bill I discussed back in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/#comment-1550</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=2778#comment-1550</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Under the Nadler proposal, if passed, there likely would be at least some same-sex couples who are Ohio residents filing joint federal income taxes.  Ohio state taxes ordinarily reference federal filings, but the state obviously would have to make some changes in its procedures to address this new situation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

It isn&#039;t necessarily true that Ohio would have to make changes to their state filing procedures.  I&#039;m a Vermont resident in a civil union, and our Vermont state taxes are based on the federal tax return.  Vermont did not make any changes to how the process works, and instead, expect residents to complete a federal return as if they were federally recognized as a couple, and use that (bogus) return for state filings.  The non-joint federal return is what is actually filed with the feds.  With that said, I have thought it was a less-than-equal system—we are expected to complete the federal return twice, which adds accounting costs for same-sex couples.  Additionally, I&#039;ve never been comfortable submitting a &quot;let&#039;s pretend&quot; federal return to Vermont (again, the federal return is non-joint, and Vermont requires this make believe federal return).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Under the Nadler proposal, if passed, there likely would be at least some same-sex couples who are Ohio residents filing joint federal income taxes.  Ohio state taxes ordinarily reference federal filings, but the state obviously would have to make some changes in its procedures to address this new situation.</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn&#8217;t necessarily true that Ohio would have to make changes to their state filing procedures.  I&#8217;m a Vermont resident in a civil union, and our Vermont state taxes are based on the federal tax return.  Vermont did not make any changes to how the process works, and instead, expect residents to complete a federal return as if they were federally recognized as a couple, and use that (bogus) return for state filings.  The non-joint federal return is what is actually filed with the feds.  With that said, I have thought it was a less-than-equal system—we are expected to complete the federal return twice, which adds accounting costs for same-sex couples.  Additionally, I&#8217;ve never been comfortable submitting a &#8220;let&#8217;s pretend&#8221; federal return to Vermont (again, the federal return is non-joint, and Vermont requires this make believe federal return).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/#comment-1547</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=2778#comment-1547</guid>
		<description>As a legislative maneuver, it will allow middle-road types to vote to strip the certainty provision and then vote for the remaining repeal of DOMA. That may not be anyone&#039;s strategy at present, but it&#039;s one way to think about how we get to a bill that can be passed by both houses. And I expect we&#039;re a long way from that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a legislative maneuver, it will allow middle-road types to vote to strip the certainty provision and then vote for the remaining repeal of DOMA. That may not be anyone&#8217;s strategy at present, but it&#8217;s one way to think about how we get to a bill that can be passed by both houses. And I expect we&#8217;re a long way from that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Bilerico Project</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/07/27/on-nadlers-doma-repeal-bill/#comment-1545</link>
		<dc:creator>The Bilerico Project</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=2778#comment-1545</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Federal civil unions?...&lt;/strong&gt;

There&#039;s a great interview for those interested in DOMA repeal up right now on the Bay Area Reporter with Rep. Jerry Nadler. Talk of federal civil unions hasn&#039;t really picked up all that much steam among either LGBT&#039;s or Congress, but Californians wh...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Federal civil unions?&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>There&#8217;s a great interview for those interested in DOMA repeal up right now on the Bay Area Reporter with Rep. Jerry Nadler. Talk of federal civil unions hasn&#8217;t really picked up all that much steam among either LGBT&#8217;s or Congress, but Californians wh&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

