Under current federal law a spouse who has reached age 62 can claim a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings. That spouse could get a higher monthly payment if he or she waits to age 65 before claiming the benefit. Once the spouse submits the claim, he or she will start receiving monthly checks from Social Security.

There is a way that some same sex married couples can manage their Social Security to maximize their total household Social Security income.

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.

Here is how a same sex married couple might be able to maximize their Social Security income. Federal law allows someone (let’s call him Tom) to claim a Social Security benefit based on the earnings of his or her spouse. Let’s call him George. If George had much higher income than Tom, Tom’s Social Security check might be higher if he claimed as the spouse George instead of claiming the monthly amount due based on his own earnings.

The problem is that, in order for Tom to claim Social Security as George’s spouse, George must  also claim his Social Security benefit. The problem with that is that locks in the amount that George can receive in each month from Social Security.

George could claim Social Security as early as when he reaches age 62. But that means he would be locked in to a relatively low Social Security monthly check. If he waited until he was 70 years old his monthly check would be higher. In fact each year beyond 62 that he continues working, and not claiming Social Security, (up until age 70) the amount of Social Security dollars he would qualify for goes up by 8%.

Then too, George’s salary, between his 62nd and 70th birthdays are likely to be the highest he earned during his work life. That salary increase would increase the amount he qualifies for in Social Security monthly checks.

It would be a shame for George to have to sacrifice that extra Social Security income just so Tom can claim Social Security based on George’s work history. But actually George does not have to make that sacrifice.

Under current law George can file for Social Security benefits, but then immediately suspend receipt of those benefits until some future date. By doing this, Tom can claim a spousal benefit and George can let his or her own retirement benefit grow at 8 percent per year. In this way some same sex couples can significantly increase the amount of monthly benefits they receive from Social Security.

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. 

Because Proposition 8 was overturned by the US Supreme Court, if you are in a same sex marriage, you may qualify to take paid time off from work if your husband or wife is seriously ill.

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.

Now that same sex couples can marry in California, they may qualify for paid family leave under California law. They may also qualify for family leave under federal law. However the federal law does not provide income during the period of the leave.

Here is how the state law works.

California law allows people who work for most private employers to take up to 6 weeks (per 12 month period) of paid time off of work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new born child. People may also take paid time off to bond with a newly adopted child or with a child who is new to the home as a foster child.

In addition, self employed workers can qualify for the benefit if they have enrolled in the State Disability Income Elective Coverage Program.

Since same sex couples are now allowed to marry in California, workers can now qualify for paid time off to care for a seriously ill same sex spouse.

This paid time off program is a part of the California Disability Insurance (SDI) program, and those who qualify for SDI generally qualify for paid family leave as well.

Generally employees of the state of California do not qualify for this benefit. However they do qualify if their union has successfully bargained for the right to the coverage.

There is a federal family leave law that does require employers to re-hire workers who have taken time off under that law to care for a sick family member. However, that federal law does not provide any income during the leave period. Also, to qualify for the federal program, the worker must be employed by a company that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of where the person seeking leave time works.

By contrast, the California Paid Family Leave Program provides income during the leave time, but employers are not required to take the worker back.

The weekly benefit amount (provided by the California Paid Family Leave Program) is approximately 55 percent of the earnings shown in the highest quarter of the employee’s base period. But the total will not exceed $266 per week. The payments come from the state. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the leave period.

Sometimes workers can take adequate care of their spouse, or other family member while working part time. In that case they can get paid part time by their employer and get a partial payment from the California Paid Family Leave Program as well.

Employers can require their workers to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation time before leaving on paid family leave. However, they can’t require workers to use accrued sick leave before starting paid family leave.

A medical certificate from a doctor is required when the time off is requested in order to care for a seriously ill family member. That certificate must include a diagnosis of the family member’s illness, the beginning date and probable duration of the illness, along with a statement that care by the person seeking time off is appropriate.

If the request is for bonding the time off requested must be within one year of the arrival of the child.

Workers can apply on line for California paid family leave.

Or they can order a paper copy of form DE 2501F by calling 1-877-238-4373. Hearing impaired people can order the form by Teletypewriter (TTY) 1-800-445-1312. The form also is available to be downloaded.

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. 

One year ago I described the 2012 election as the turning point in the struggle for marriage equality, as three states won or protected the freedom to marry at the ballot box and another fought back a constitutional ban. But if 2012 marked a watershed, 2013 was the deluge over that divide, with a record number of states recognizing equal marriage, and more than half of those doing so legislatively.  In one year, the number of marriage equality states effectively doubled. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribal councils – representing over 38% of the population – now recognize the freedom to marry (with decisions in Utah and Oklahoma, representing an additional 2%, currently stayed pending appeal).

The transition from 2013 to 2014 also marks a decade of equality, as the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court equal marriage decision went into effect in May 2004. 2004 also saw the celebration and tragic voiding of four thousand marriages in San Francisco, in some ways teeing off the long painful fight for marriage equality in California that resulted in In re Marriage Cases, Prop 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and, finally, the restoration of the freedom to marry. As critical as 2004 was in the movement, though, it’s important to remember that the struggle for legal recognition of our relationships began more than three decades earlier.

There are potential drawbacks to both the seemingly rapid rate of success we’ve seen recently, and the long hard work needed to make such successes possible. A sense that the tide is unstoppable risks making us complacent, while the long hard work necessary risks burning us out, especially once our own state has won equality.

For many of us, for example, the sense of euphoria we felt in 2013 as marriage equality was restored to California largely erased the pain of the five years while the Prop 8 case made its way through the courts, or at least seemed to offer a chance to try to catch our breath.

Still, over half of us live in states with statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly denying marriage to same-sex couples. And those of us who may legally marry at home shouldn’t have to fear becoming legal strangers to our spouses as we cross state borders. The work goes on, as long as even one of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers still is denied the freedom to marry the person they love.

Though Marriage Equality USA has its roots and largest membership bases in states where marriage equality is now law, the organization is proud to be a strong and active player in the fight to win the freedom to marry for all Americans. Thanks to our NEAT (National Equality Action Team) coalition, MEUSA has played a key role in winning marriage equality in states like Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. This year we’ll be supporting efforts in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon, among others. Please help us help them win the same freedom and happiness we now have.

By MEUSA Social Media Manager Thom Watson 

When Jeff and I married this past September, we expected that we would recognize a difference in our lives and in our relationship after tying the knot.

There are tangible differences, of course, as with our health insurance coverage and taxation. The differences most often have been subtler, but they clearly exist. Marriage matters.

Even in silly little ways we notice it. We delight in referring to each other as “husband,” and it feels more truly descriptive and honest to do so now. And, though we’d been living together a decade before our marriage, and had a registered domestic partnership for nearly half that time, we recently began only half-jokingly commemorating “our firsts,” though they were firsts only in a qualified sense: our first Thanksgiving “as a married couple,” our first Christmas “as husbands,” our first New Year “as legal spouses.”

What I don’t think we fully expected, though, was just how much our marriage meant to other people, and how it would change the way even our friends and families relate to and about us. Those changes run the gamut from trivial to significant. A great many of our friends, for example, have congratulated us on our first Christmas as a married couple.

More subtly, friends and family members who treated us with respect before we were married, who saw us as a committed couple even without a license, nevertheless seem to see and speak of us differently now. Our mothers provide perhaps the most poignant examples. Early in December, Jeff introduced me at a party to an old friend of his mother’s as his husband. Jeff’s mom jumped right in and said, “Yes, I now have two sons.” Our Christmas card from her reflected the same sentiment, as she had used a pen to change the card’s pre-printed “My Son” to read “My Sons.” Similarly, my mother addressed Jeff’s Christmas card this year to “My Son-in-Law.”

Friends and family who rarely, if ever, intruded into the particulars of our relationship now ask when or if we’re planning to have kids; yep, just like opposite-sex couples, that’s now the expectation for what follows marriage. My mother told my nephew’s new fiancées that they have Jeff as an example of how to survive marrying into my loud, overwhelming, overly protective family, and how to deal with one’s in-laws.

Marriages matter, not just for spouses, but for their families and indeed for the larger society in which they live and move. When we marry, our families, friends, and neighbors more clearly understand – and, what’s most troubling to our opponents, increasingly respect and embrace – that families, communities, and societies benefit, and are strengthened, when marriage makes possible the time-honored and express relationship not just with your daughter and son-in-law, but with your son and son-in-law, too.

Mothers-in-law may be fodder for comedians, but understanding that Jeff’s mom is my honest-to-goodness mother-in-law – and that she believes it, too – is about as serious as it gets.

By MEUSA Social Media Director Thom Watson 

[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. In a curious twist of fate, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may have contributed to a future US Supreme Court decision overturning all state laws that ban same sex marriage. Make no mistake, Justice Scalia is no supporter of same sex marriage. However in his dissent from one of the same sex marriage victories at the Supreme Court last June he said "The view that this court (meaning the US Supreme Court) will take of state prohibition of same sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. Neither of the decisions announced last June dealt directly with the question of whether or not state laws banning same sex marriage violate the US constitution. But Justice Scalia says that, since the majority of the Supreme Court supported same sex marriage in the two cases decided in June, they are likely to rule that any bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional, when and if such a question is brought before them. Recently a federal judge (Robert Shelby) in Utah quoted Justice Scalia’s statement and used it as a basis for overturning Utah’s ban on the recognition of same sex marriage in that state. In essence the judge was saying, if Justice Scalia thinks the majority of the court would overturn bans on same sex marriage, then he (Judge Shelby) aught to overturn Utah’s ban on such marriages. Usually, in such cases, the federal judge will stay his own decision. In other words he would not let his or her decision go into effect until all appeals of the decision have been decided. But, apparently, Judge Shelby thought his decision would not be overturned, so he refused to stay the decision. Those who oppose same sex marriage went to an appeals court asking it to stay Judge Shelby’s decision. But the appeals court also refused to do that. So many same sex couples continue to get married in Utah. This creates a sticky situation for the US Supreme Court. They may be forced to take up this case and decide whether or not all laws banning same sex marriage violate the US Constitution. Many authorities believe the Supreme Court Justices would like to hold off making that decision for at least a few years. It has been reported for example, that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has wished that the Roe v Wade decision, allowing abortion under certain circumstances, would have been delayed a few years. Justice Ginsberg definitely supports a woman’s right to choose. But she reportedly believes that the public had not come around to supporting that right at the time of the Roe v Wade decision. She apparently thinks that, if more education had occurred before the Roe v Wade decision, and more people were accepting of a woman’s right to choose, then the decision might not have created the fire storm that continues to this day. More and more people are accepting the concept of same sex marriage. Thus, the Supreme Court Justices may be hoping to put off a final decision on the issue until most people in the country can accept the concept. But the Utah court decision deals directly with the question, and the State of Utah has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Thus, the court may not be able to avoid dealing with it soon.

After Prop 8 passed five years ago this month, Jeff and I were devastated. We just wanted the same freedom enjoyed by our friends and neighbors to marry whom we love, but we were denied that opportunity.

Thanks to the tireless and hard work of Marriage Equality USA and its many coalition partners to secure the freedom to marry in California – as in Illinois, Hawai’i, and the other states where MEUSA has worked so hard in pursuit of this important civil right – Jeff and I finally were able to realize our dream.

Just a few weeks ago, Jeff and I were incredibly fortunate to be able to marry at San Francisco City Hall, the site of so many marriage equality battles and triumphs over the past few years. We wed under the beautiful dome of the rotunda, witnessed by our friends and family, and officiated by MEUSA's John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney.

My husband – I love saying that word – and I have been so grateful to the efforts of Marriage Equality USA in helping make our civil marriage a legal reality that we wanted to give something back to the marriage equality advocacy movement.

In lieu of a traditional wedding registry for toasters, dishware, or linens we don't really need, we created an Equality Registry, a personalized website created by MEUSA where friends and family can quickly and easily make fully tax-deductible gifts to support the important work of this organization.

For a grassroots volunteer organization like MEUSA, even a few dollars go a long way toward efforts to secure marriage equality in the more than 30 states that still prohibit loving same-sex couples from marrying. Jeff and I have been amazed and humbled at the generosity of our friends and family, who to date have donated over $2,600 to MEUSA.

For those of you who now have the opportunity to legally wed, Jeff and I hope you’ll consider setting up an Equality Registry to benefit MEUSA and its critical work in your home state and across the country.

And Equality Registries aren’t just for weddings; some people use them to mark anniversaries, birthdays, or on the occasion of an adoption or a birth, for example.

It just takes a few minutes to set up your own Equality Registry, via an online form at the MEUSA website.

By MEUSA Social Media Director Thom Watson 

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.

[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. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.

[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. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.