Posts

Showing posts with the label Ken Cuccinelli

Ken Cuccinelli protects marriage in Virginia, says gays ‘married’ out-of-state file taxes as single

Image
RICHMOND, VA , December 5, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – Homosexual couples who “marry” outside of Virginia will still be treated as singles by state tax officials, state officials say. The decision was made after state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ’s office pointed out that the ruling did not apply to individual states. As a result, homosexual couples living in Virginia who choose to ‘marry’ out-of-state will face inconvenience and a higher bill come tax time. The Virginia Department of Taxation issued a  bulletin  last month explaining the differences between federal and state tax laws and providing “married” homosexual couples with instructions on how to file their state taxes. The bulletin explains that while the state had historically defaulted to the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition of marriage for tax calculation purposes, it can no longer do so because Virginia’s constitution was amended in 2007 to specifically block the state government from o

Perversion of democracy: gay ‘marriage’ and the law

Image
Image via Wikipedia For two years now, I’ve warned that the drive for so-called “gay marriage” was the greatest threat to religious liberty we’ve ever faced. But I think I may have underestimated the threat, because now I fear the democratic process and the rule of law are endangered as well. It was bad enough when the President and the Attorney General declared the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and would not defend the law of the land in court. Never mind that the DOMA was signed by President Clinton in 1996 after the Senate passed it 85-15 and the House by a margin of 342 to 66! But after the House of Representatives hired the law firm of King and Spalding to represent DOMA in court (since the executive branch wouldn’t), something not-so-funny happened. Gay-rights groups threatened King and Spalding and its commercial clients with boycotts. In an ethically questionable action, at least under the canon of legal ethics, King and Spalding caved and told the House