Never before has the legal case for nationwide marriage equality seemed stronger than at the recent Federal Court of Appeal’s argument in the Indiana and Wisconsin marriage cases. For nearly two hours, the Seventh Circuit panel of three judges, appointed by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, tore gaping holes in every argument the states’ attorneys defending Indiana and Wisconsin’s marriage bans offered.

The states’ attorneys sometimes appeared at a loss for words or flustered, and the Wisconsin attorney even tried, unsuccessfully, to evade answering one of the Court’s questions by suggesting his time was up when it wasn’t. One judge referred to various arguments the states made as “feeble,” “absurd,” “ridiculous,” and “pathetic.” The states’ attorneys came up with nothing credible to defend the bans. When the Court asked Wisconsin’s attorney how ending the exclusion of LGBT couples from marriage would harm anyone else, he responded: “…[w]e don’t know.”

Perhaps the most important aspect of the argument was the respect all three judges evidenced for the dignity of LGBT Americans and their children. For decades, opponents of equality have slandered LGBT Americans by falsely accusing them of being harmful to children—be it Anita Bryant’s 1970s “Save the Children” campaigns, or the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign. Last year, the United States Supreme Court, in its decision striking down DOMA, held the opposite: anti-LGBT laws, in fact, harm children of LGBT parents.

The Supreme Court stated that DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples…mak[ing] it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives…” The Seventh Circuit went further, with one judge referring to many of the harms that the states’ marriage bans have inflicted on children of LGBT parents as “harrowing” and noting America’s history of “savage” discrimination against lesbian and gay people based on “hate.”

Indiana and Michigan’s attorneys argued that their states could continue to bar same-sex couples from marriage because they claimed the purpose of marriage was to encourage unmarried heterosexuals who engage in sexual activity in which the woman became pregnant to stay together. The Court asked why the states did not criminalize heterosexual “fornication” outside of marriage instead, and it noted that the states’ current laws actually penalize LGBT couples who carefully plan their families.

One judge presented data showing that, in fact, from 1990-2009, years in which the same-sex marriage bans were in place, the proportion of out-of-marriage births increased 68% in Indiana and 53% in Wisconsin, with the out-of marriage birth rate for some demographic profiles over 90%. Noting that the states’ purported policy of banning same-sex marriage to prevent out-of-marriage births was “pretty unsuccessful,” the judge named the states’ argument for what it was, an ”artificial rationale” to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.

On Monday, September 8, the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco hears oral arguments in the Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii cases.  Stay tuned.

John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, together for nearly three decades, were plaintiffs in the California case for equal marriage rights decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008. 

Watching the President sign off on an Executive Order banning federal contractors from discriminating against the LGBTQ community last week, I was struck by how far our community has come. Just a few weeks prior, I was honored to represent MEUSA, our volunteers and members at the White House Pride Reception hosted by the President and the First Lady.Captivated by the historical immensity of the White House, I heard the President speak from the heart and joke with guests. I watched as he welcomed hundreds of LGBT activists. While meeting both the President and the First Lady was an honor, the power in that moment was in reminding me how far our own grassroots, volunteer-driven organization has come in changing the conversation around marriage equality in almost 20 years of work.

When Marriage Equality USA (then Marriage Equality New York) first began in 1996 after the enactment of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), few in our community (LGBTQ or political) would even dare to dream about, much less utter the phrase, "marriage equality." It took years of hard work, grassroots organizing, education and pushing against the establishment to make friends, lawmakers and the public understand that marriage mattered. MEUSA's unique history has allowed us to participate in both grassroots organizing as well as bringing the voices of so many grassroots organizers to more traditional halls of power. Now, as state after state embraces the goal for which so many of us have toiled for so long, we remember that our success stands in honor of those who have been with us from day one — especially those who toiled without ever having felt the joy of full marriage equality in their lifetimes.

For all those whose hard work and dedication to MEUSA made that collective White House moment possible, I humbly say, thank you.

In part two of MEUSA’s three-part interview with Edie Windsor, Edie recounts the struggles of gay life before Stonewall and her persistence pursuing her eventual wife, Thea Spyer.

Part one, for those who missed it or who wish to view it again, follows:

Twice in our lives, we’ve quit our jobs and travelled around the world for a year with whatever we could carry on our backs. So we love this year’s parade theme: Color Our World with Pride. After San Francisco Pride, we will be headed to Okinawa, Japan, to participate in the Pink Dot Okinawa pride events and speak at the very first Okinawa marriage equality rally, to be held in the center of the island’s largest city. 

In Japan, we will also continue our collaboration with Japanese LGBT activists in Tokyo and Osaka. Recently, Akie Abe, the Japanese First Lady, rode in the Tokyo Pride Parade accompanied by a fabulous drag queen, and proclaimed: “I want to help build a society where anyone can lead happy, contented lives without facing discrimination.”

Across two oceans, Luxembourg Pride will celebrate the tiny country’s giant news that earlier this month it became the 19th country with marriage equality. The fact that Luxembourg’s openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Battel will implement the law makes the landslide 56-4 vote in the Chamber of Deputies all the sweeter. And as soccer fans around the globe follow the World Cup this summer, we take pride that the host country Brazil, a nation of 200 million people, boasts marriage equality. Indeed, last December the Rio de Janeiro Superior Court of Justice conducted the world’s largest LGBT wedding ever, in which 130 couples tied the knot.

However, in other parts of the world, LGBT people are marching for their basic human rights and freedom. In India, Mumbai’s Pride Parade this February drew a record crowd gathering to protest the Indian Supreme Court’s upholding “Section 377,” a British colonial era law that criminalized sexual activity of LGBT people. The Indian Supreme Court’s decision has galvanized many Indian LGBT people and allies to stand up and fight back. In a rare move, the Indian Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the case.

Sadly, there will be no pride parades this summer in many parts of the globe where LGBT people are struggling simply to survive. In nine countries, LGBT sexual activity is punishable by death. One image that remains emblazoned on our minds is a 2010 photograph of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who were arrested and sentenced to 14 years in prison in the East African nation of Malawi for being gay and announcing their engagement to be married. The photo shows Steven and Tiwonge—alone and handcuffed together in the back of pick-up truck—being hauled off to jail, surrounded by a mocking and jeering crowd. We will hold their image in our minds as we ride down Market Street, celebrating the one-year anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s overturning DOMA and Prop 8, this past year’s historic string of marriage equality victories, and the wonderful degree of freedom we have attained in San Francisco.

We must create global collaboration and community to truly color the world with rainbow pride. Perhaps no country speaks better of the potential of such collaboration than South Africa. In 2006, South Africa became the fifth country in the world to gain marriage equality—before every other state in the United States except Massachusetts—thanks to specific sexual orientation protection in their constitution. Two years ago, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg praised the South African Constitution—a true product of international collaboration—as “a fundamental instrument of government that embrace(s) basic human rights,” and calling it “a great piece of work that was done.” This year’s Pride celebrations remind us that we have much more great work to do together.

By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis

This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, June 26, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/color-our-world-with-rainbow-pride/ A photo of Gaffney and Lewis also served as the cover for that issue.

At the age of 81, Edie Windsor did something that would give pause to most of us who are decades younger — she took on the federal government over its refusal, for estate tax purposes, to recognize her marriage to (and 40+ year relationship with) Thea Spyer. Against the wishes and advice of most of the major LGBTQ organizations, but with the encouragement of MEUSA and a few of its members, she charged straight ahead. "They don’t know what they’re talking about,” Windsor recalls thinking of the chorus of voices concerned about the preparedness of the US Supreme Court to strike down the discriminatory statute known by the misnomer the “Defense of Marriage Act.”  "There is no wrong time for justice. if you’re gonna go for it, go for it,” says Windsor. To hear more of her story, watch her interview with former MEUSA president Cathy Marino-Thomas. What follows is the first part of a multi-part interview.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may have met its demise last June but same-sex binational couples living abroad are still waiting for the federal government to recognize their marriages and allow them to return to America. Melanie Servetas and Claudia Amaral, a married, same-sex, binational couple living in exile in Amaral’s home country of Brazil, are one of the tens of thousands of couples who have found themselves caught in the backlog of cases waiting to be approved for an American green card.

Servetas and Amaral began their relationship in 2009 after meeting through an online dating service. Servetas held a high level position as a Senior Vice President with Wells Fargo in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Amaral was a successful IT business owner in Brazil. Within the next few months, the couple quickly found out about America’s unjust immigration laws and sought out options seeking a way they could be united. “After about six months, I decided to come here to Rio for a visit,” Servetas said. “After my trip here, I decided there was no way we could go on with our lives living apart.” Servetas gave up her American home and job and re-located to Brazil, intending to bring Amaral back to the U.S. with her should that ever become possible. In Rio de Janeiro, on June 26, 2013, the couple followed the news as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA, the federal law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriages. As soon as the ruling was public, the couple rushed to marry. They rejoiced at the thought of returning together to the United States. “Unbelievable joy that we could finally come home, sadness that we were still in Brazil, disbelief that we still have such a long way to go for equality and proud to be even a small part of a fight like this for equality” explained Melanie Servetas regarding her initial emotions after the repeal of DOMA.

Due to DOMA restrictions, American citizens in same-sex binational relationships were previously denied the right to sponsor their foreign-born partners for the purpose of immigration. Once DOMA was repealed, immigration opportunities became available to all same-sex binational couples. However, even during this time of celebration, the process of applying for a green card as a same-sex couple caused Servetas and Amaral to feel nervous and unsure of the future.

Despite the DOMA ruling and the resulting change in U.S. immigration law, hardships remain for the couple. Shortly after marrying, the couple submitted Amaral’s green card application with the assistance of their attorney, Regina Jefferies. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) initial approval process can take up to seven months. Once approved, the application gets transferred to the Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) for further review.

“We are still waiting for USCIS to notify the National Visa Center that their petition has been approved,” Jefferies said. “Once the petition gets transferred to the NVC, they request additional information. They do some pre-processing for the consulate. Once that information is there, it takes them another 30 business days to review. The NVC will complete their initial processing and forward the entire file out to the consulate in Rio.” 

The procedure for applying for a green card for those couples who have been forced to live abroad in order to be together is an exhaustive and lengthy process. “We’ve been stuck, on hold in the process for almost 60 days now. USCIS has sent our approved petition to the NVC but the NVC has not officially confirmed they have received it for the next steps,” said Servetas.

After already enduring significant emotional and financial suffering, the waiting has made the situation almost unbearable. But Servetas and Amaral are committed to following through with the legal process so that they can return to America, despite the extreme burdens the system has placed on them. “The very long delays to process applications for people who have already suffered discrimination and hardships totally frustrate us,” said Servetas. “It seems wrong that our Consular processing is taking so much longer than that of people who were able to apply to the USCIS because they didn’t have to leave the US in order to stay together. I can’t believe we are still so many months away from even having our consular interview.”

Time is of the essence for the couple as critical family matters have arisen in America. The need for the couple to return to the United States in the near future has become even more pressing. “I am very worried because my family in the U.S. urgently needs our assistance to care for an ill family member and we haven’t been able to get a response on our request to expedite,” said Servetas.

Couples like Servetas and Amaral are running out of time and money as the United States continues infighting over immigration reform. The need for comprehensive immigration reform seems clearer than ever with so many couples finding themselves locked into a system bound by massive red tape and bureaucracy.

“The government has ‘safe traveler’ global entry programs -- certainly something similar could be applied in order to let us come into the U.S. We’d be able to begin to work at putting our lives back together while we wait out the approval process,” said Servetas. “Also, those cases being handled abroad through the consulates should be allowed to bypass the USCIS portion and apply directly to the consular post for approval. Handing these files back and forth, where they end up just sitting without review for months on end, seems punitive to a population like us who have already suffered discrimination. Just allow consular processing to be a direct procedure with the State Department.”

What couples like Servetas and Amaral have already endured in their attempts to be together should be considered astonishing. In America, we continue to fight for equality. But many injustices continue as the plight of those who have had to choose between love and country are forced to pay the penalty of previous discriminatory laws. By no means do Servetas and Amaral minimize the struggle that same-sex binational couples who reside in America face. They only want to let people know that for those who have been exiled by love, trying to come home is proving to be just as difficult as leaving was. Servetas and Amaral are still waiting to move forward with their application process and are committed to continue the fight against America’s broken immigration system.

By Gina Caprio 

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.

[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. For a long time, when a US citizen married a foreign national of the opposite sex (such as a citizen of England), the foreign national could emigrate to this nation on the basis of that marriage. However, until Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court, the same was not true when a US citizen married a foreign national of the same sex. Now same sex married international couples have the same immigration rights as do heterosexual couples. A foreign national, married to a US citizen of the same sex, now has the right to emigrate to this country. 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. There are two processes by which the foreign national can gain legal residency in this country. 1. If the foreign national is already in this country legally – In this case, the U.S. citizen may file an immigration petition (I-130) and the alien spouse may file an application to adjust his or her status to permanent resident (I-485) at the same time. The I-130 petition must be filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The USCIS is part of the US Department of Homeland Security. 2. If the foreign national is in another country – In this case, the U.S. citizen needs to file an immigration petition (I-130) and request that the USCIS notify a U.S. Consulate in the country where his or her spouse lives. Once the immigration petition is approved, the National Visa Center of the U.S. State Department sends a “Packet 3″ to the U.S. citizen. After the necessary forms are completed, the alien spouse goes to the U.S. Consulate abroad to apply for an immigrant visa. On the day that the alien spouse enters the United States on an immigrant visa, he or she becomes a U.S. permanent resident. People entering this process need to be patient. Recent reports indicate that it takes an average of 13 months for approval of an I-130 request where the foreign national is legally in the US. (Option 1. above) Option 2. Above will probably take longer. However, when the alien spouse is living abroad, that spouse can apply for a K-3 visa. This visa allows the alien spouse to live in this country while the alien’s application for permanent residency in this country is being processed. People with a K – 3 visa are also allowed to work in this country while awaiting approval of permanent residency.

By MEUSA Military/Veteran Community Liaison Ty Redhouse Our nation’s LGBT veterans and service members have witnessed much progress in the past year. From the magnificent shift to a post-DADT world to the downfall of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), attention has focused on our men and women presently serving in the Armed Forces. What many in the media overlook are those who have served and who are LGBT. Following the mainstream press, one could easily conclude there are not many of us out there. If this is the assumption, it is incorrect. In fact, there are more than one million LGBT veterans in the United States and that number keeps growing. It is those individuals who fall through the cracks when the push for equality is highlighted, particularly in the scope of marriage equality. This historic Veterans Day marks the first time we do not have “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both of which severely hindered the progress of American society. In 2011, we saw DADT pass out of the ranks of the military with little to no homage to the fearful predictions of the conservative pundits. There was no mass exodus and our nation’s military continued on in its mission. The only difference; a more open environment and more integrity because we no longer had to hide ourselves to keep our jobs. Since my honorable discharge from the USAF in 2006, I have come to understand and appreciate the meaning of Veterans Day. With each year that has passed, I have developed an enhanced comprehension of just what we, those who choose to give our lives over to defend the country, put on the line so our families and friends can rest easier. As a gay veteran, I have seen dramatic changes in the short time DADT has been off the books. My active duty brethren and sistren can now serve openly and proudly. For some that were reinstated, they thrive and serve ever more proudly than before. I felt their happiness but was left wondering what there was for the veterans, the many who either left or were drummed from the ranks under DADT or before. To date, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been less than clear regarding their application of post-DOMA federal law. This ambiguity leaves us wondering about a system that has long left us out of the loop. Recently, I went to a medical appointment with my partner at the local VA medical facility. We held hands and did what any other veteran and loved one would do. I was a silent bundle of nerves. As we walked the halls, that weird DADT-era fear came creeping back in. This fear made me realize that there is still a lot of work to be done. If that fear still resided in me after all that has happened in favor of our LGBT community, it must be so for the many who are not yet comfortable coming out to their VA providers. The presence of LGBT-friendly resources for LGBT veterans is more vital than before, especially since DADT and DOMA have been rescinded. As Marriage Equality USA’s (MEUSA) Military/Veteran Community Liaison, it has been one of my duties to ensure there is access to those resources. Here are a few:

• American Military Partners Association (AMPA): The nation’s premier resource and support network for LGBT military partners, spouses and their families. Founded by the partners of active duty servicemembers, AMPA has grown to nearly 4,000 members with thousands more supporters and is proud to be leading the effort to connect, support, honor, and serve our modern military families.
• American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER): A non-profit, non-partisan, chapter-based Veterans Service Organization of active, reserve, and veteran service members dedicated to full and equal rights and equitable treatment for all present and former members of the U.S. Armed Forces, especially the LGBT current and prior military personnel who have been historically disenfranchised by armed forces policy and discriminatory laws governing military service and benefits.
• OutServe/SLDN: A non-partisan association of actively serving LGBT military personnel offering legal services and acting as a watchdog and policy organization dedicated to bringing about full LGBT equality to America's military and ending all forms of discrimination and harassment of military personnel on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Service members, Partners, Allies for Respect and Tolerance for All (SPARTA): The mission of this organization is to advocate for and support our actively serving LGBT military members and veterans and their families while working to ensure the military provides equal opportunity for all service members regardless of race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

This Veterans Day, take a moment to thank a veteran for his or her service. Also, take a moment to think of the men and women who are abroad putting their lives at risk so we can rest easy at home. Now, take it further and think about the partners/husbands/wives of those LGBT Servicemembers out there who wait for their loved ones to return. Or the LGBT veteran who walks for the first time into the hospital hand in hand with his or her partner, a silent bundle of nerves waiting to be called out and shot down. Most importantly, thank a veteran. You could be the one person who makes his or her day.

[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.