U.S. Military Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

In addition to defending America, the U.S. military historically has been in the forefront of leading societal change be it racial integration, increased opportunities for women and now the embrace of same sex marriage.  Recent announcements by the Pentagon will have the Christofascists howling because they will allow same sex married couples to receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples even if they are stationed in anti-gay states like Virginia.  Like big business, the military recognizes that across the board benefits for same sex couples is a plus for recruitment and retention.   A piece in Slate looks at soon to be implemented policies that will help solidify the acceptance of gay marriage over time.  Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins and other hate merchants will be surrounded by sheets of flying spittle.  Here are article highlights:

Today, the Pentagon has announced that it will grant the exact rights and benefits to married same-sex couples that it does to married straight couples, including housing and healthcare, a vast expansion of its previously announced plans to extend only meager perks to gay couples. Even more surprisingly, the military will offer a 10-day leave to gay couples stationed in a non-marriage state to travel to the 13 states plus Washington, D.C., to be legally wed.

Make no mistake: This is huge news, the biggest military-related LGBT victory since the repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell. Arguably, by the letter of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA, the Pentagon is compelled to provide benefits to already-married same-sex spouses. But the marriage furlough is another matter altogether. To allow gay couples to leave the homophobic states in which they are stationed to gain equal rights—to encourage it, actually, by tethering it to a holiday—is a bold endorsement of marriage equality by the military.

And that endorsement will have broad repercussions throughout society. The DADT repeal has already improved the military by fostering better peer bonding and leadership among both gay and straight troops. But what’s less frequently discussed is its effect on society overall. Gay rights group targeted DADT because the military stood as the last bastion of entrenched, mainstream homophobia. Once gays could serve openly in the military, they believed, the noxious stereotype of gay people as hyper-sexed wimps would fall, as would many soldiers’ knee-jerk homophobia.
There’s no way to prove a direct causation between DADT repeal and the astounding spike in support for gay rights. But the successful drive to allow openly gay service members is indubitably a crucial pillar of the broader edifice the gay rights coalition has been building. Today’s policy announcement proves that no American institution is too reactionary to adjust to the changing climate of equality—that, in fact, such institutions can learn to take a leading role in the fight. And those decisions will reverberate throughout every tier of society for years to come.

Make no mistake, this new policy is a huge defeat for the Christofascists.

Read More

Pro-Gay States Luring Discriminated Couples to Relocate

Numerous posts on this blog have tracked research that underscores that a thriving gay community is one of the hallmarks of cities and localities that attract the so-called creative class.  Similar research has led to the formulation of a "gay index" which shows that a large population of gays correlates with high tech businesses.  States like Virginia and North Carolina go out of their way to make life intolerable for gays and have written anti-gay discrimination into their laws.  Now, as Bloomberg reports, gay friendly states are seeking to lure gays to relocate from their hostile home states and to bring their talents and assets to those gay friendly states.  Here are articles from Bloomberg:

Hans Bernhard and Mitch Null say they may leave North Carolina -- taking their daughter, their jobs as a veterinarian and an information technology business operations manager at Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) and the tax revenue from their properties.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the couple is considering moving to Maryland, where they could have a recognized marriage and guaranteed access to the related federal benefits. Bernhard could also become a lawful father to the couple’s 1-year-old daughter, Eva, since North Carolina law prevents residents from adopting a child if they aren’t married to the legal parent.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia, making up 34 percent of gross domestic product, have legalized same-sex marriage, including Minnesota and Rhode Island, where laws took effect Aug. 1.

Bernhard and Null’s dilemma illustrates the economic benefits and consequences of a state’s same-sex marriage policy. Following the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling, gay rights proponents and some economic development officials say states with gay-friendly laws can leverage them for financial gain, while those with prohibitive policies will miss out. 

The Supreme Court ruling will force some states to examine whether it’s worth losing out on talent and businesses that are attracted to areas that allow same-sex marriages, said Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto Rotman School of Management. Acceptance of gay communities signals cultural openness and attracts highly educated people and innovators, Florida wrote in his 2002 book “The Rise of the Creative Class.” 

Welcoming all people is necessary for states that want to “flourish economically and be an engine for innovation,” Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook Inc. and a native of Hickory, North Carolina, said in an e-mail. Hughes, now the editor-in-chief and publisher of the New Republic magazine, wrote an open letter to the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011 opposing the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 

“Entrepreneurs are very careful when deciding where to start a company,” said Hughes, who now lives in Shokan, New York, with his husband Sean Eldridge. “Building a business in a state that denies basic rights to LGBT couples is difficult to justify to potential employees -- straight or gay.”

It all is actually common sense.  Not that common sense means much to lunatics like Cuccinelli and the hate merchants at The Family Foundation.

Read More

The IRS's Gay-Marriage Tax Problem

One of the questions that I keep getting asked by many LGBT couples as an estate planning attorney and an attorney with many LGBT clients is what is the status of their marriage vis-a-vis federal rights post Windsor.  On many issues, the answer continues to be, 9I0 that things are still up in the air and that federal agencies are working through the issue and that hopefully answers will be forthcoming soon, and/or (ii) it depends on where you live and whether or not your home state recognizes gay marriage.  One such area is with respect to taxes and whether or not couples can or should file joint returns with the IRS.  A piece in Business Week gives a good current overview of this uncertain issue.  Here are highlights:

During the runup to the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, one number kept recurring: The government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages meant gay couples were denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that straight couples enjoy. Now that the justices have struck down DOMA, gays can look forward to equality under U.S. tax laws. That is, just as soon as the Internal Revenue Service can figure out how to make equality happen. The tax agency has promised to “move swiftly” to recognize gay unions, but for many couples it won’t be as simple as checking the “married” box on their 1040. 

Those living in Washington, D.C., or the 13 states that allow same-sex marriages can file a federal tax return next April just like other married couples. Not so for the thousands of gay couples who took their vows in one of those states but who live in one of the 37 others where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized. It’s not yet clear whose definition of marriage the IRS is supposed to follow in evaluating their taxes—the state where the couple got married, or the one in which they reside. And will the federal government recognize gay couples in civil unions who file a joint return?

To avoid confusion, a single nationwide rule makes the most sense, says Patricia Cain, a tax law professor at Santa Clara University in California. “The IRS has the power to construe the Internal Revenue Code,” she says. “So for them it’s, ‘What does the word spouse mean?’ ” President Obama has weighed in, saying it’s his “personal belief” that same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as married couples regardless of where they live. He’s asked federal agencies to research legal issues that might stand in the way. Such a ruling, though, could cause headaches for the IRS, which until now has typically followed states’ definitions of marriage, says David Herzig, a tax law professor at Valparaiso University. “You may solve this problem,” he says, “but you may open up another.”

Many gay couples might not like what marriage equality looks like on a tax form. Until now, they’ve been able to take advantage of their separate status to maximize tax savings—claiming multiple capital-loss deductions unavailable to opposite-sex married couples or multiple tax credits for adopting children. Straight married spouses with roughly equal incomes typically pay a marriage penalty under the tax code, because more of their income is subject to higher marginal tax rates. Gay couples would get hit with the same penalty. And unless the IRS exempts them from paying back taxes, some same-sex married couples could owe penalties for underwithholding during the time they’ve been married, even though the federal government didn’t recognize their unions until now. 

On the other hand, gay couples with unequal incomes would get the same marriage bonus as straight couples and could seek a refund for the extra taxes they paid in recent years. Typically the IRS allows taxpayers three years to redo their tax returns. “One of the biggest issues is what to do retroactively,” says Elda Di Re, a partner at Ernst & Young in New York. “One would think that the IRS will allow there to be filing refunds—but not mandate filing to pay additional tax.”

Another potential mess: what to do about payroll taxes workers paid on employer-provided health insurance for their same-sex spouses, which isn’t taxable for married couples. The IRS could allow refunds, and then businesses would have to figure out how to distribute them to employees and ex-employees. Some companies pay married gay employees extra to cover their health-care tax burdens; they would have to decide whether to seek reimbursements from workers who get income tax refunds. And the IRS has to figure out whether or how to tax alimony payments from gay marriages that end in divorce, and money inherited from the retirement account of a same-sex spouse.

All these decisions will be made with a skeptical—and sometimes hostile—Congress ready to call foul. The IRS is already under scrutiny for its clumsy probes of political groups, and its efforts to formalize gay marriage in the tax code are likely to provoke congressional hearings and lawsuits. “No matter what they do,” says Herzig, “it’s such a volatile issue they’ll end up getting a challenge.”

Read More

NYT: The Future of Gay Marriage

With George Zimmerman literally getting away with murder of a young black and the United States Supreme Court's cowardice in its narrow ruling in the Proposition 8 case last month, one thing is clear about America: some citizens are deemed lesser in their rights and humanity than others and America's laws reinforce this inequality and at best second class  citizenship.   In a main page editorial, the New York Times laments the situation and slams New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his cowardice in pandering to Christofascists on the issue of marriage equality in New Jersey.  Here are excerpts:

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is standing by his 2012 veto of a measure to allow gay couples to marry and is refusing to free Republican legislators to follow their conscience on an override vote. Mr. Christie is imposing a large ideological tax on thousands of couples and their families whose interests he is supposed to protect. He is depriving them of federal benefits, which their tax payments help underwrite.

The Defense of Marriage Act ruling struck a blow against injustice, but it also accentuated the unfairness to same-sex couples who would like to get married but live in states that do not permit it and therefore cannot take the same advantage of more than 1,000 federal benefits available to other couples (unless they get married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal). By disposing of the California case on narrow procedural grounds, the Supreme Court avoided the necessary reckoning about the fundamental violation of equal protection created by state laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. It perpetuated a mean and irrational patchwork in which duly wed couples may not be considered married when they cross state borders.  

Eliminating that unfair system will require a multipronged effort — to add more states to the list of 13 that permit same-sex marriage and to challenge remaining state laws that violate the standards of equal protection as the Defense of Marriage Act did. Last Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that allows marriage only between a man and a woman and rejects other states’ marriage equality laws.

These suits aim to build on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, including his insight that the federal government’s refusal to recognize some marriages denied married same-sex couples a “status of immense import” and deprived children of “the integrity and closeness of their own family.” The same can be said of denying gay couples the right to marry in the first place, . . . . .

House Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on private lawyers’ fees to defend the Defense of Marriage Act’s indefensible discrimination when the Obama administration decided it would no longer do so.

Even now, though, there is a serious risk that legally married individuals will lose out on valuable Social Security and veterans’ benefits because language in the applicable statutes seems to determine whether couples are married based on where they live rather than where their marriage was celebrated.  

The Times gets it right.  These bans on gay marriage do not "protect marriage."  They have one purpose and only one purpose: to harm sames sex couples and punish them for failing to conform to Christofascist religious dogma.  Once again, religion proves itself to be a vicious evil.  Shame on Chris Christie.

Read More

Post DOMA Legal Rights and Federal Benefits of Married Same Sex Couples

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor many questions remain as to what federal rights will now be available to married same sex couples.  It will be a matter of time before the availability of many federal benefits becomes clarified.  Federal employees will benefit under new rulings of the Office of Personnel Management regardless of whether or not they live in an anti-gay state like Virginia.  The impact on benefits under Social Security and other programs/benefits remains unclear.  One thing that is clear is that couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships will not receive federal benefits.  Here is a summary via a Washington Post story:

FEDERAL BENEFITS:
The Obama administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by making health, vision and dental benefits available to all same-sex spouses and children of legally married federal employees. In a memo on Wednesday, OPM said those guidelines will apply to all federal workers, regardless of whether they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage — Virginia, Ohio and Mississippi, for example.

That means same sex couples living anywhere in the U.S. will qualify for federal-employee benefits as long as they hold marriage licenses from any of the 13 states that recognize same-sex marriage, as well as from the District of Columbia, which has also legalized such unions.

SOCIAL SECURITY/VETERANS BENEFITS:
Questions remain about how the administration will treat same-sex couples and domestic partners outside the federal workforce, including with Social Security, tax and veterans’ benefits. The agencies that handle those programs have not issued guidance.

OPM has given legally married same-sex couples until Aug. 26 to apply for federal-employee benefits and two years to change their status for retirement benefits.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS:
couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

Here are excerpts from OPM's July 3, 2013 Memorandum:

[A]ll legal same sex marriages that predate the decision are being treated as new marriages; enrollees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 (i.e., until August 26, 2013) for enrollment actions.

Benefits coverage is now available to a legally married same sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of the employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Legal same sex marriages entered into following this decision will be treated in the same

manner as opposite sex marriages, regardless of an employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Coverage is available to a legally married same -sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of his or her state of residency.  This decision does not extend coverage to registered domestic partners or  individuals in civil unions.

In addition, the children of same sex marriages will be treated in the same manner as those of opposite sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same sex spouses as stepchildren.

One thing is clear:  in Virginia and many other anti-gay states, same sex couples will continue to hold an inferior level of citizenship and will have no employment non-discrimination protections and will be deemed legal strangers under state law.  There remains much work to be done.

  

Read More

The Coming Texas Gay Brain Drain

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, gays living in states with gay marriage bans will find themselves unable to receive federal benefits - Social Security in particular - that same sex couples in states with gay marriage will now enjoy.  The result?  The anti-gay states will find themselves even less competitive when it comes to attracting gay entrepreneurs and gay friendly businesses.   As I have often noted, but for family circumstances, I would leave Virginia in a heart beat.  Hopefully, with the changes wrought by the Windsor decision, more gays will begin to move to gay friendly states and big business will be motivated to take on the power of the Christofascists in states like Texas and Virginia.  A piece in The Dallas Voice looks at what may happen in Texas.  Here are highlights:

Although same-sex couples legally married in other states may receive some federal benefits if they live in Texas, they won’t receive as many federal benefits as couples living in marriage-equality states.

And because it could be anywhere from a few years to a decade or more before Texas recognizes same-sex marriages, some experts believe the talent pool for employers will shrink as LGBT Texans leave the state and others opt against relocating here.

Bob Witeck, president of the Washington, D.C.-based LGBT marketing company Witeck Communications Inc., first analyzed the concept of “gay brain drain” in 2004 when Massachusetts began allowing same-sex marriage. Now, 13 states allow same-sex marriage, covering a third of the nation’s population, and the playing field has put marriage-equality states ahead.

Places with marriage equality like New York, Washington, D.C. and California that also have a lot of talent compete with states like Texas and Illinois for employees and companies to boost state revenue. But unlike Illinois, which is in line to have marriage equality, Witeck said Texas is lagging behind strong business states because of its focus on social issues.

GOP politicians in Texas haven’t caught up to conservative business leaders — many of them also Republicans — who value the economic opportunity from LGBT equality and same-sex marriage.

“It deepens the challenges in corporate America to speak to these inequities,” he said. “It’s going to create the impression that [marriage-equality states are] forward thinkers and the others are not.”

Perry may soon find the reasons companies aren’t bringing their businesses to Texas. He signed HB 2482 in June that will create a study to determine why major companies have chosen to invest or relocate to other states after considering Texas.

Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said while a gay brain drain is possible, the full effect of the high court’s rulings may not be felt for a few years.  “I think there will be some danger of something like that happening,” Henson said. “It’s too early to tell. …What we’re more likely to see than a brain drain is a reluctance of people who want marriage equality to move here in the short term.”

For places like Dallas, Austin and Houston where companies and cities have LGBT-inclusive polices, officials and employers are concerned about losing talent and being able to recruit future talent. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said he’s concerned about LGBT people leaving the city and avoiding moving to Texas altogether.

John Cramer, CEO of AT&T’s LGBT resource group LEAGUE, said management at Dallas-based AT&T has already discussed the possibly of being able to retain and attract LGBT employees and have begun brainstorming on how to remain competitive.   “AT&T is looking into this issue and met with folks inside and outside the network to see what other companies are doing,” Cramer said.

In Virginia, the lunatic GOP slate of statewide candidates is gaining national media coverage on their extremism and anti-gay vitriol.  Even if Ken Cuccinelli doesn't want to accept reality, he and his Christofascist supporters are dimming Virginia's economic future.

Read More

Will The DOMA Decision Have a Ripple Effect?

Justice Anthony Kennedy

One thing is clear in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court rulings on gay rights: there is still a great deal of work to be done in states like Virginia where legal recognition of gay relations is banned by the state constitution, where gays can be fired at will from their jobs and where we still face housing discrimination and all too often homophobic judges.  Thus, while yesterday gave rise to reasons to celebrate, the reality here in Virginia is that little has really changed.  LGBT Virginians remain second class - fourth class? - citizens.  Will the DOMA ruling help to set a movement for change in motion?  A piece in Politico looks at this question.  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decisions managed to do the impossible: get gay rights advocates and conservative Justice Antonin Scalia to agree.

Writing for the majority striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy was unsparing, declaring that the law’s “purpose and effect [is] to disparage and to injure” those in same-sex marriages, subjecting them to “a stigma” that “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Kennedy insisted this kind of language wasn’t meant to support marriage equality litigation in future state-by-state fights, but the justice often seen as the intellectual leader of the court’s conservative wing wasn’t convinced.

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia warned. 

Precisely, say the prospective challengers.  “Scalia’s dissent is absolutely on the money,” American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero told POLITICO. “It’s going to open the floodgates for litigation applying equal protection standards to laws discriminating against LGBT people.”

“It gives me great joy” to find agreement with Scalia, gay rights activist and Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides said. He said Kennedy’s withering condemnation of the motivations of same-sex marriage opponents and his lamentations about the impact of discrimination on the children of same-sex couples will be a major boon for the gay rights cause.  “I think the language is going to be extremely useful because it’s very powerful and it makes clear the court takes a very dim view of laws targeting gay people,” Socarides said.

However, Kennedy’s majority opinion in the DOMA case falls short of something both gay groups and the Obama Administration asked the court to do: explicitly declare that government classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to “heightened scrutiny” by the court.

Romero called the ruling “huge” and “a tipping point, but said the ACLU will be hedging its bets on the legal impact of the decision. The civil liberties groups is pressing on with litigation in some states but also mounting a significant legislative effort to legalize gay marriage in many of the 37 states where it is not legal, and in many cases, banned.

The ACLU has hired Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 campaign, to build GOP support in the states for legislation to make gay marriage legal. “There’s support for marriage equality among Republicans ranging from moderates to the Tea Party,” Romero said, offering a pitch that casts the issue as one of “limited government.”

Romero noted that the DOMA case the court decided Wednesday left intact a portion of the 1996 law that says states can’t be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He said that means marriage rights in every state remain critical even if same-sex couples have more and more places they can tie the knot.

In short, the battle continues, although there are many days I'd like to just leave Virginia and move to a place where the boyfriend and I could be fully equal.  Sadly, many gays don't have the luxury of being able to pick up and move.   Hence we remain in backward rat holes like Virginia.

Read More