Know Your Rights - Social Security & the LGBTQ Community
Three events are coming up for the Know Your Rights Initiative, an important education program for same-sex married couples regarding access to enhanced Social Security benefits.
Marriage Equality USA is co-sponsoring three Town Halls in Northern California in April 2015 and we want to make sure you have the opportunity to get these events on your calendars.
LGBTQ elders and their families will be provided with extensive education regarding benefits available to many same-sex couples since the historic 2013 United States Supreme Court Windsor decision, through the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation’s Know Your Rights Initiative funded by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation (Cal Wellness).
Please click the links below for detailed flyers:
Oakland Town Hall
When: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015
Time: 6:00–6:30pm: Complimentary reception with light refreshments
6:30–8:00pm: Panel discussion
Where: First Congregational Church of Oakland, 2501 Harrison Street, Oakland, CA 94612
San Jose Town Hall
When: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015
Time: 6:30–7:00pm: Complimentary reception with light refreshments
7:00–8:30pm: Panel discussion
Where: Roosevelt Community Center, 901 E. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95116
Sacramento Town Hall
When: Thursday, April 9th, 2015
Time: 6:30–7:00pm: Complimentary reception with light refreshments
7:00–8:30pm: Panel discussion
Where: Pioneer United Church of Christ, 2700 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
Know Your Rights Initiative on Facebook
Or, if you prefer not to leave the comfort of your home, a free webinar is available:
Free Know Your Rights Webinar
When: Thursday, April 9th, 2015
Time: 7:00pm PDT
Where: Online, register now!
Guest Post: New Federal Benefits For Same Sex Married Couples
US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US government will now recognize same sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages in all federal matters. That means they will be treated just the same in bankruptcy court proceedings, visitation privileges for inmates of federal prisons and in federal survivor benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Same sex married couples will now be able to jointly file for bankruptcy. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. And, if they do file for bankruptcy and were married in a state which allows same sex marriage, such as California, their bankruptcy will be valid all across the nation, even in states that do not recognize same sex marriage.
Also, from now on, people in same sex marriages will have to right to refuse to testify against their spouses in civil and criminal cases heard in federal court, even when the court proceedings occur in states that do not recognize same sex marriage. And the same sex spouses of all law enforcement officers and firefighters will be entitled to benefits in the event of death or severe injury in the line of duty.
Federal prison inmates, who are married to people of the same sex, will have the same rights as inmates who are in heterosexual marriages. For example, their spouses will be allowed to visit them in prison, federal prisoners will be allowed to take escorted trips to attend the funerals of their spouses or to deal with crises being faced by their spouses, to engage in correspondence with their spouses, and to obtain compassionate release, or reduction of their sentence, to care for a disabled spouse who is not in prison.
The Attorney General’s order also covers some lesser known programs such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Program . During the cold war era with the Soviet Union, the United the United States carried out numerous atomic bomb tests. In order to do these tests people mined uranium and others processed that uranium to prepare it for use in that program. Some of them got sick and died from exposure to the uranium.
Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to provide monetary compensation to those who got sick from the radiation. The act also provides compensation to the spouses of people who died from that radiation. Now those spousal benefits will be available to the same sex spouses of those who died.
Attorney General Holder also stated that same sex spouses would be eligible for spousal compensation from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
It is important to note that the US Attorney General has little or no authority over state courts and programs. It is possible, for example, that a state court in Georgia might compel the same sex spouse of a defendant to testify against his or her spouse in state court, even if they married in a state where same sex marriages are recognized.
None-the-less, Attorney General Holder’s announcement is another major step in the march to full and equal rights for LGBT people.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
The Lay of the Land Post-Windsor and -Perry
By Kinna Crocker
With marriage equality now coming to Illinois and Hawaii, nearly 40% of the country lives in a marriage equality state. But just how federal and state governments will navigate the still-unsettled reality (and consequences) of marriage equality remains an open question. The Supreme Court’s decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry vastly expanded the rights of the LGBT community by mandating same gender married couples have access to the over 1,000 federal rights and benefits (Windsor) associated with marriage. In Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman, violates basic due process and equal protection rights. As a result of the Court’s decision invalidating this definition, the federal government must treat same gender married couples the same as opposite gender married couples for purposes of access to federal benefits. In Perry, the Court held the sponsors of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional ban on same gender marriage, did not have standing to appeal favorable lower court rulings on behalf of the state of California, effectively allowing same gender marriages to resume in California. In August, the Supreme Court denied Proposition 8 sponsors a final petition for review.
Although Windsor invalidated Section 3 of DOMA, it left Section 2 in place, which allows states to refuse to recognize same gender marriages performed in other states. Marriages are not judgments or orders, and are therefore not entitled to equality under constitutional principles of full faith and credit among the states. If a same gender couple legally marries in a “marriage equality state” and moves or travels to a “non-equality state” (a state that does not recognize same gender marriage), the marriage has no legal meaning and ceases to exist as a matter of law in the non-equality state. This lack of uniformity in marriage equality among the states creates many questions regarding the availability of federal benefits for same gender married couples. By statute, certain federal benefits are available only if the couple is validly married under the laws of the state in which they reside, the so-called “place of residence” rule. Other federal benefits are available if the couple is considered to be validly married where the marriage license was obtained, the so-called “place of celebration” rule. The “place of celebration” rule is more expansive because the couple can obtain benefits regardless of the laws of the state in which they live.
Although President Obama acted swiftly in calling on federal agencies to adopt the “place of celebration” rule to provide uniformity in the treatment of benefits for same gender couples, some federal agencies have not yet declared official positions and some have implemented the “place of residence” rule. For example, the Social Security Administration indicated Social Security benefits are available to same gender married couples if they live in a state that recognizes their legal union (the “place of residence” rule). It is unclear whether Social Security benefits will be available to same gender couples who were married in a marriage equality state and now live in a non-equality state; those applications are currently being held and not processed. Until further notice from the Social Security Administration, some same gender couples are waiting anxiously to learn whether they are entitled to benefits.
Alternatively, some federal agencies clearly provide certain benefits to same gender married couples regardless of where they reside, endorsing the “place of celebration” rule. The Department of Defense, for instance, announced its plan to extend spousal and family benefits to same gender spouses of uniformed service members. Because some service members live in or are stationed in non-equality states, the Department of Defense is allowing military personnel ten days of non-chargeable leave for the purpose of traveling to a jurisdiction where same gender marriage is available in order to marry. Although six states have withheld issuing spousal cards to same gender spouses of national guard troops, the others (whether equality states or not) have begun issuing them.
The Treasury Department recognizes marriages of same gender couples, regardless of where the couple lives. This adoption of the “place of celebration” rule provides for uniform treatment of all same gender married couples with respect to the filing of federal tax returns. These same gender couples can use the status of "married" on their federal returns and all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, and gift and estate taxes, will apply to same gender married couples. The policy explicitly does not apply to couples who are registered as domestic partners or who are in civil unions. Although the “place of celebration” rule provides uniformity in federal filing status for same gender married couples, it highlights the conflict present in non-equality states. Couples living in non-equality states must use the single filing status for state tax returns and the married filing status for federal tax returns. Since the information on federal and state returns is interconnected, these couples expend more in accountant fees in order to file tax returns correctly.
The Supreme Court decisions also greatly affect the practice of family law. For example, a bizarre phenomenon now occurs where same gender couples legally married in marriage equality states, but living in non-equality states, are unable to divorce in their state of residence. This unusual circumstance has been dubbed “wedlocked” and is clearly causing problems for many couples. For example, a same gender couple married in California cannot obtain a divorce in Alaska without some creative legal maneuvering. Some Alaska attorneys are requesting annulments of these marriages, since neither marriage nor divorce is available to same gender couples, despite the fact that the elements of annulment are not satisfied. An annulment is objectionable to many same gender couples because, in effect, they are agreeing and representing to the court they were never married. Further, any federal spousal benefits to which those spouses may have been entitled after divorce are lost. For some couples, the state of domicile can resolve property division issues through property laws (although the applicability of community property laws becomes an issue) and custody disputes through laws applicable to unmarried parents. However, these couples are forced to maintain their marital status for federal purposes. The lack of uniformity among the states causes confusion and the potential for married couples to be stuck in their legal relationships with no apparent recourse.
In California, the Perry decision grants legal marriage rights to same gender couples in the state. Same gender couples who were married in another state or country do not have to remarry in California to avail themselves of California spousal benefits and protections. Proposition 8 is deemed to be unconstitutional so all marriages validly performed in any marriage equality state or country, are recognized as valid marriages in California.
Although parentage presumptions will apply equally to same and opposite gender married couples in California, post-Perry, it remains advisable for a non-biological parent to adopt the children of the marriage or domestic partnership. If LGBT families intend to travel across state lines, or decide to move to a non-equality state, there is no guarantee that parentage would be recognized based solely on the couple’s marital status as defined by a marriage equality state. As compared to a marriage license, a formal adoption order is a stronger legal document to possess should parentage be challenged in a non-equality state or in a state that refuses to recognize any and all rights flowing from a same gender relationship.
As the law changes and government agencies provide guidance with respect to rights and responsibilities of individuals in same gender marriages, domestic partnerships and civil unions, it is important for LGBT families to continue to educate themselves. The uncertainty over when we will achieve marriage equality in all 50-states only makes this more imperative.
Edited and reprinted with permission from the Bar Journal of the Sonoma County Bar Association.
Guest Post: Is There a Time Threshold for Social Security Survivor Benefits?
[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"]
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Recently someone said she had heard that widows and widowers could only get Social Security survivor benefits if they have been married at least 10 years at the time of the death of their spouse. Same sex couples have only recently been allowed to marry. So, if there is a 10 year threshold, same sex couples would need to wait a long time before qualifying for Social Security survivor benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
In fact, a couple must have been married for a minimum of only 9 months before the death of one of them for the widow or widower to qualify for Social Security survivor benefits based on the Social Security account of the deceased spouse. According to a representative of the Social Security Administration, that threshold period can be reduced. For example, if the spouse died in a tragic accident the 9 month rule might be reduced.
People can also get certain Social Security spousal benefits when both of them are alive. To qualify for these benefits, the couple must have been married for a year prior to applying for the benefits.
In the case of divorce, the former spouse of the deceased might also qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. However, in order for the divorced former spouse to qualify, the marriage must have lasted at least 10 years.
As regards widows and widowers who were married to the deceased at the time of death, how much the survivor receives depends on several factors.
The more earnings the deceased had prior to death, the higher the monthly payment the survivor may qualify for.
The longer the deceased has been working, and paying Social Security taxes, the higher the amount the survivor will receive. However this factor does not increase the benefit beyond 10 years of working history of the deceased. The deceased’s having worked 11 years does not increase the benefit any more than 10 years of work does.
Survivors get the full monthly payment if the worker worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years. However, if the deceased died young and had not yet worked 10 years, the widow or widower might still qualify for some portion of the full monthly payment.
The age of the survivor, when he or she starts drawing the Social Security benefit, affects how large the monthly payments are. If he or she waits until full retirement age the survivor will get the full benefit. Full retirement age varies from age 66 to 67, depending on the date of birth of the survivor.
However, in return for accepting reduced monthly payments, the survivor can start monthly payments as young as age 60. Also, if the survivor is caring for a child of the deceased, who is under age 16, the surviving spouse can start monthly payments at any age. In this case, the surviving spouse would get the full monthly payment. The amount would not be reduced because of the young age of the surviving spouse.
You may read a brochure from the Social Security Administration, with more details on this issue, by directing your browser to the following address: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf
Note: This article was corrected from an earlier version that misstated the amount of time a couple must be married before being eligible for social security spousal benefits.
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Recently someone said she had heard that widows and widowers could only get Social Security survivor benefits if they have been married at least 10 years at the time of the death of their spouse. Same sex couples have only recently been allowed to marry. So, if there is a 10 year threshold, same sex couples would need to wait a long time before qualifying for Social Security survivor benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
In fact, a couple must have been married for a minimum of only 9 months before the death of one of them for the widow or widower to qualify for Social Security survivor benefits based on the Social Security account of the deceased spouse. According to a representative of the Social Security Administration, that threshold period can be reduced. For example, if the spouse died in a tragic accident the 9 month rule might be reduced.
People can also get certain Social Security spousal benefits when both of them are alive. To qualify for these benefits, the couple must have been married for a year prior to applying for the benefits.
In the case of divorce, the former spouse of the deceased might also qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. However, in order for the divorced former spouse to qualify, the marriage must have lasted at least 10 years.
As regards widows and widowers who were married to the deceased at the time of death, how much the survivor receives depends on several factors.
The more earnings the deceased had prior to death, the higher the monthly payment the survivor may qualify for.
The longer the deceased has been working, and paying Social Security taxes, the higher the amount the survivor will receive. However this factor does not increase the benefit beyond 10 years of working history of the deceased. The deceased’s having worked 11 years does not increase the benefit any more than 10 years of work does.
Survivors get the full monthly payment if the worker worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years. However, if the deceased died young and had not yet worked 10 years, the widow or widower might still qualify for some portion of the full monthly payment.
The age of the survivor, when he or she starts drawing the Social Security benefit, affects how large the monthly payments are. If he or she waits until full retirement age the survivor will get the full benefit. Full retirement age varies from age 66 to 67, depending on the date of birth of the survivor.
However, in return for accepting reduced monthly payments, the survivor can start monthly payments as young as age 60. Also, if the survivor is caring for a child of the deceased, who is under age 16, the surviving spouse can start monthly payments at any age. In this case, the surviving spouse would get the full monthly payment. The amount would not be reduced because of the young age of the surviving spouse.
You may read a brochure from the Social Security Administration, with more details on this issue, by directing your browser to the following address: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf
Note: This article was corrected from an earlier version that misstated the amount of time a couple must be married before being eligible for social security spousal benefits.
Guest Post: Marriage Equality and Veteran Spousal Benefits
[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"]
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
The spouses and children of veterans (or active service members in some circumstances) qualify for certain education and housing benefits. And, now that DOMA has been overturned, the same sex spouses of veterans qualify for those benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Under current law, veterans qualify for a number of benefits which relate to getting a college education or other training for work. Under certain circumstances, those benefits may be transferred to, and used by, their spouses and children.
The benefits are as follows:
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
The spouses and children of veterans (or active service members in some circumstances) qualify for certain education and housing benefits. And, now that DOMA has been overturned, the same sex spouses of veterans qualify for those benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Under current law, veterans qualify for a number of benefits which relate to getting a college education or other training for work. Under certain circumstances, those benefits may be transferred to, and used by, their spouses and children.
The benefits are as follows:
- College tuition and fee payments paid to the school on the student’s behalf.
- A monthly housing allowance.
- A books and supplies stipend of up to $1,000 per year.
Policy and Legal Update - September 30-October 6, 2013
Marriage Equality USA Projects Manager Ned Flaherty closely monitors marriage equality polls, ballots, laws, and lawsuits nationwide, and keeps the MEUSA website updated with changes in these areas on a near-daily basis. Every Monday we update you via our blog with policy and legal updates covering the preceding week.
You may always find the most up-to-date information, including changes that have taken place between these weekly posts, on the Current Policy & Legal Status page on the MEUSA website.
Send questions and comments to: [email protected].
Policy & Legal Updates
September 30 - October 6, 2013NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
-
On 27 September 2013, Public Religion Research Institute surveyed 1,563 Hispanic Americans from a representative sample of U.S. adults regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 55% favor it, 43% do not, with 2% unaccounted for. Also, regarding candidate preferences, likely Hispanic voters prefer Democrats 58%, Republicans 28%, and others 12%, with 2% unaccounted for. • Survey Details
-
On 4 October 2013, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,776 American adults on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that among registered voters, 57% support it, 36% do not, and 6% do not know or give no answer. Among Roman Catholics (where no clergy support same-gender civil marriage at all), 60% of churchgoers support it, 31% don't, and 9% do not know or give no answer. • Survey Details
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
-
On 30 September 2013, U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D- Washington) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), the top Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, told the U.S. Department of Defense to ensure that military spouse benefits are issued to all armed forces personnel in same-gender civil marriages, including states which have denied some benefits applications, such as IN, LA, MS, OK, SC, and TX. • MEUSA Summary • Survey Details
LAWSUITS
MASSACHUSETTS • On 2 October 2013, in Shannon McLaughlin, et al. v. Chuck Hagel, et al., a Federal district court ruled in favor of 8 same-gender couples and awarded them equal pay/benefits for active/veteran military personnel, retroactively to 2011. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 1 October 2013, in Pennsylvania Health Department v. Montgomery County Court Clerk Bruce Hanes, the county appealed to the PA Supreme Court a lower court ruling that halted the issuance of same-gender civil marriage licenses after 174 licenses were issued. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 26 September 2013, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al., a couple filed a federal suit to force PA to recognize their 2005 MA marriage. The Equality Forum suit raises two new federal constitutional questions: whether states must respect laws from other states, and whether citizens can travel between states without losing rights. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 1 October 2013, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., Fairness WV and Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit for three couples challenging the state law that bans marriage equality. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW JERSEY • On 30 September 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., Lambertville, NJ mayor David DelVecchio committed to performing NJ’s first same-gender civil marriage as soon as the ruling goes into effect on 21 October 2013. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW JERSEY • On 1 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., NJ Acting Attorney General John Hoffman appealed directly to the NJ Supreme Court (bypassing the NJ appeals court), and asked for expedited review. Hoffman also asked the Superior Court to delay implementation of its ruling until after the Supreme Court review, which Lambda Legal opposes. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 30 September 2013, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell et al., the ACLU, ACLU Virginia, and Lambda Legal filed a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere. On 30 September 2013, ACLU and Lambda Legal asked for a summary judgment. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 1 October 2013, in Gregory Bourke & Michael Deleon v. Kentucky, KY Attorney General Clay Barkley asked a federal court to dismiss the case, claiming that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring this lawsuit. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 9 September 2013, 16 TX state representatives told the TX Military Forces to: (1) stop denying equal pay and benefits to all same-gender married military couples at all TX National Guard facilities, (2) stop denying membership in family readiness groups, and (3) stop denying participation in marriage enrichment retreats. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 13 September 2013, in Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas, Lambda Legal told the TX Military Forces that since 3 September 2013 it has been unlawful to deny equal federal pay and benefits to any same-gender married military couple, and the TX ban on same-gender civil marriage does not exempt TX from compliance. Chedville is an Army nurse and Iraq war veteran, and a 1st Lieutenant in the Army National Guard. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 18 July 2013, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a gay couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, joined by a lesbian couple seeking to have their 2008 CA marriage recognized in VA. On 30 September 2013, AFER (American Foundation for Equal Rights), the sole sponsor of the lawsuit which defeated CA Proposition 8, joined this lawsuit to win full federal marriage equality nationwide. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 3 October 2013, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., VA Attorney General (and candidate for governor) Ken Cucinelli filed a brief in federal court arguing that same-gender civil marriage should be banned because: (1) some religious beliefs from the 1500s also ban it; (2) some dictionaries still describe marriage as only between mixed-gender couples; and (3) some mixed-gender couples procreate. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW JERSEY • On 4 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., plaintiffs told the court that NJ has failed to prove it risks any irreparable harm if it issues licenses, and has failed to prove that it is likely to win its appeal, and therefore asked the court to not delay the implementation of its ruling. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
NEW MEXICO • On 1 October 2013, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research surveyed 502 registered NM voters regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 51% support it (35% strongly; 16% somewhat), 42% oppose it (34% strongly, 8% somewhat) and 7% do not know or refused to answer. Regarding a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, 54% oppose it (42% strongly, 12% somewhat), 38% support it (32% strongly, 6% somewhat), and 8% do not know or refused to answer. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 3 October 2013, state Representative Brian Sims (D) introduced House Bill 1686, the Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Act, to legalize same-gender civil marriage. The bill is supported by 32 lawmakers (31 Democrats, 1 Republican). • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW JERSEY • On 2 October 2013, Assemblyman Chris Brown (R) reversed his 2012 vote, and now supports marriage equality. To override the governor’s 2012 veto by mid-January 2014, only 10 more lawmakers are needed (3 Senators to reach 27 out of 40 and 7 Assemblymen to reach 54 out of 80). • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
NEVADA • On 2 October 2013, Retail Association of Nevada surveyed 500 likely NV voters regarding repeal of the constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 57% favor repeal, and 36% do not, with 7% unaccounted for. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 4 October 2013, the Oregon Business Association, which represents over 300 businesses, endorsed the Freedom-to-Marry & Religious Protection Initiative, following the Portland Business Alliance. Volunteers have collected over 90,000 signatures toward placing the issue on the November 2014 ballot. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
Guest Post: Marriage and Refunds of FICA Taxes
[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"]
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
If you are part of a same sex couple who married in California during the summer of 2008 you might qualify for a refund of part of the FICA taxes that you paid for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Your employer may also qualify for partial refunds of FICA taxes it paid during those same tax years.
To qualify for those refunds you would have to have been working for wages during those years.
The same is true of same sex couples who married legally in other states or other nations where such marriages are legal, such as Canada. And it would still be true for same sex couples who married in states or nations which allow such marriages but who now live in states which do not allow same sex marriages.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
First let me explain what FICA taxes are.
FICA taxes are taxes that employees pay into the Social Security fund and the Medicare fund. The taxes in those fund accounts are used to provide you with Social Security and Medicare in your senior years. Employers also pay taxes into these funds.
In 2013, workers are paying Social Security Taxes equal to 6.2% of their total earnings. Each month that amount is withheld from the worker’s check and sent to the Social Security fund. The worker’s employer pays the same amount into that fund.
With regard to Social Security that 6.2% applies only to the first $113,700 in annual income. Any income over that amount is not taxed.
Also, in 2013, workers are paying Medicare taxes equal to 1.45% of their wages. Employers pay the same amount of Medicare taxes for each employee. This tax is charged against the total wages of each employee. There is no upper limit on the wages taxed for Medicare.
So, why might refunds be due? Before DOMA was overturned, if an employer offered health insurance to the same sex spouse of an employee, the IRS considered the value of that insurance to be taxable income paid to the employee. So, when computing the FICA taxes owed, the IRS said, for same sex married couples, the FICA taxes owed were a percentage of the wages paid plus the value of the insurance provided to the same sex spouse of the employee.
By contrast the IRS did not charge FICA taxes against the value of health insurance provided to the opposite sex spouses of employees.
Now that DOMA has been overturned FICA taxes are not charged against the value of health insurance provided to the same sex spouses of employees where the couple married in a state or nation that allows such marriages. In addition, both employers and employees may seek refunds of that part of the FICA taxes that were charged against the value of the same sex spouse’s health insurance in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Boyce Hinman[/caption]
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
If you are part of a same sex couple who married in California during the summer of 2008 you might qualify for a refund of part of the FICA taxes that you paid for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Your employer may also qualify for partial refunds of FICA taxes it paid during those same tax years.
To qualify for those refunds you would have to have been working for wages during those years.
The same is true of same sex couples who married legally in other states or other nations where such marriages are legal, such as Canada. And it would still be true for same sex couples who married in states or nations which allow such marriages but who now live in states which do not allow same sex marriages.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
First let me explain what FICA taxes are.
FICA taxes are taxes that employees pay into the Social Security fund and the Medicare fund. The taxes in those fund accounts are used to provide you with Social Security and Medicare in your senior years. Employers also pay taxes into these funds.
In 2013, workers are paying Social Security Taxes equal to 6.2% of their total earnings. Each month that amount is withheld from the worker’s check and sent to the Social Security fund. The worker’s employer pays the same amount into that fund.
With regard to Social Security that 6.2% applies only to the first $113,700 in annual income. Any income over that amount is not taxed.
Also, in 2013, workers are paying Medicare taxes equal to 1.45% of their wages. Employers pay the same amount of Medicare taxes for each employee. This tax is charged against the total wages of each employee. There is no upper limit on the wages taxed for Medicare.
So, why might refunds be due? Before DOMA was overturned, if an employer offered health insurance to the same sex spouse of an employee, the IRS considered the value of that insurance to be taxable income paid to the employee. So, when computing the FICA taxes owed, the IRS said, for same sex married couples, the FICA taxes owed were a percentage of the wages paid plus the value of the insurance provided to the same sex spouse of the employee.
By contrast the IRS did not charge FICA taxes against the value of health insurance provided to the opposite sex spouses of employees.
Now that DOMA has been overturned FICA taxes are not charged against the value of health insurance provided to the same sex spouses of employees where the couple married in a state or nation that allows such marriages. In addition, both employers and employees may seek refunds of that part of the FICA taxes that were charged against the value of the same sex spouse’s health insurance in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.