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.

Policy & Legal Updates

September 30 - October 6, 2013

---

NATIONAL 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 Source

---

STATE 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 Source

---

STATE 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 Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

[caption id="attachment_424" align="alignleft" width="300"] Brian Silva, PA Rep. Brian Sims, Bob Sullivan (MEUSA Philly Local Organizer) at the rally after Rep. Sims spoke of the need for marriage equality in PA[/caption] Saturday afternoon, Marriage Equality USA (MEUSA) and a number of civil rights organizations rallied at Logan Circle in Philadelphia to invigorate the late-blooming advocacy efforts for LGBT rights in Pennsylvania. Apart from raising awareness of LGBT issues, the rally marked the inaugural event for MEUSA’s newly formed Philadelphia Regional Organizing Committee (Philly–ROC) — the first local organization in the Liberty City that focuses on marriage equality issues. With Pennsylvania lagging far behind its neighboring states on LGBT rights issues — being the only Northeastern state without any form of same-sex marriage or civil union recognition — the expansion by MEUSA of the new organization is a welcome addition to LGBT advocacy groups in the Keystone State. Its strategic location in the state would certainly boost marriage equality efforts across the eastern region, with Marriage Equality for Pennsylvania (ME4PA) at present mainly having a larger presence in the western part of the state. “Because Bill and I were married in Vermont in 2009, and have moved back home to Philadelphia since, it's important for us to work for the continuity among the states; this way when we go from state to state, we don't have to figure out if we're married or not. Now that we have an established Philly–ROC, we can bring the national agenda to our hometown, where American personal liberty were first created. The community of Philadelphia is embarassed about the current state of Pennsylvania, particularly that our neighbors have already come on board, and now it's our time,” said Bob Sullivan, local organizer for Philly–ROC. The crowd was particularly energized to have two state representatives who amid busy schedules attended and spoke at the event: Rep. Mark Cohen, a long-time ally for the LGBT community, and Rep. Brian Sims, the first openly-gay representative in Pennsylvania. Rep. Brian Sims was honored with Equality Award by ME4PA for his outspoken advocacy on LGBT equality issues, including introducing marriage equality legislation with Rep. Steve McCarter following the Supreme Court’s rulings in June, and a legislation banning anti-gay conversion therapy for minors with Rep. Gerald Mullery. Coinciding with college campus day, the festive event attracted a lively student crowd, who among the hundreds of attendees signed up as new members for the various organizations. With New Jersey’s judge ruling on allowing same-sex marriage just announced the day before, the crowd was optimistic about the possibility of joining the ranks of their suburban neighbor in the fight for equality. “I could not be more proud of our grassroots leaders who have worked so hard to launch Philly–ROC,” said MEUSA Executive Director Brian Silva. “We know we cannot do it alone and I am looking forward to supporting our partners in Pennsylvania.” [caption id="attachment_425" align="alignright" width="300"] Brian Silva, Robert Sargent (GetEqual) and Janice Rael (Delaware Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State or DVAU)[/caption] The event was co-sponsored by MEUSA, ME4PA, the Delaware Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (DVAU), and The Summit Coalition of LGBT Activists and Allies. It drew a long list of speakers from local to national organizations such as the Human Resource Campaign (HRC) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Among the speakers were Brian Silva (Executive director of MEUSA), David Moore (President and founder of ME4PA), Bob Sullivan (local organizer for Philly–ROC), Tom Hall (organizer for the rally), Janice Rael (local leader for DVAU), and John Hanger (Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate). For more information or to get involved with Philly–ROC, visit http://www.marriageequality.org/philly.

By MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis and MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney An edited version of this article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, October 3, 2013: http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=18035 The latest California public opinion poll shows record support for marriage equality — 64% of likely voters and 61% percent of all adults. This news made us realize how wonderful it is when dreams really do come true, and when political goals that once seemed impossible are actually achieved. When the U.S. Supreme Court rulings ended Prop 8 and Section 3 of DOMA this summer, we wrote a press release for Marriage Equality USA saying that there would now be “more love and more marriage” than ever before. Yet we didn’t anticipate fully just how it would feel, landing somewhere over the rainbow — where instead of rallying for marriage equality in front of City Hall, we were getting invited to weddings inside City Hall. And for the first time we started having a whole new relationship to these weddings – in addition to getting wedding invitations, we started being invited to officiate. There truly is no better reward for a marriage equality activist! “By the power vested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you lawfully married spouses for life.” Those words have always held great meaning for us, not just because of the emotions we associate with weddings, but because they represent the first time we felt our government treating us as equal human beings, worthy of the full dignity and respect of the law. To be able now to say those words as officiants for couples saying “I do” is an amazing experience. No two couples are alike, and no two weddings are alike. We remember how the thousands of couples and families who lined up all day and even overnight in the rain outside San Francisco City Hall in February 2004 represented one of the most diverse gatherings of our community we had ever seen. And the couples we have been lucky enough to marry have been young and old, rich and poor, sick and healthy – just like the words in the wedding vows they recite. And now, without the deadline pressure couples felt in 2004 and again in 2008, couples are planning their happily ever afters with the greatest of love, care and creativity. One couple designed their own avatars. Another couple planned a fairytale honeymoon  literally — at Disneyland. Yet another couple had feminist wedding cake toppers – “Sisterhood is Powerful” and “Viva La Revolucion.” And another had no money for rings, but still shared a very personal moment of commitment and equality. And so on — the creativity is endless, and the only constant is the joy — and tears of joy — in the eyes of couples who may have been together for 5 years or 50 years, but weren’t sure they would live to see the day when they could finally hear wedding bells ring out for them. As we perform marriages for dear friends and total strangers alike, it’s hard to imagine a political cause with a “happier” ending than the movement for equal marriage rights in California. But much remains to be done as we work to achieve marriage equality nationwide, to attain full equality in all aspects of our lives, and to stop homophobia and transphobia in all their manifestations. We were reminded of the work ahead when we recently performed a same-sex couple’s “confidential” marriage ceremony, a legal marriage with no traceable public record of the names of the couple. The couple needed the confidential marriage because they had very real fears for their safety in their community if it became known they were married. But the love and affection they felt for each other, their joy at marrying, and their sense of dignity at being treated equally under the law was palpable as their eyes locked on each other as they said “I do.” The substantive legal benefits of marriage were also very important to this couple with very limited income and financial resources. The world is changing right before our eyes — one wedding at a time. The movement for full equality has been filled with an enormous array of emotions and will undoubtedly involve many more successes and challenges. As we move forward, experiencing and sharing the joy of success inspires us as a diverse community to reach even greater heights. As we celebrate with the newlyweds in San Francisco City Hall, there’s truly no place on earth we’d rather be.

[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.

[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. According to LexisNexis, approximately 55 percent of American adults do not have a will or other estate plan (such as a trust) in place. Among minorities, the numbers are higher: 68 percent of Black adults and 74 percent of Hispanic adults do not have one. For same sex couples who are not married, or in registered domestic partnerships, this can be very dangerous. 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. If someone in California dies without a will or a trust, his or estate is distributed according to California’s Law of Intestate Succession, as found in Sections 6400-6414 of the California Probate Code. A lesbian or gay couple could have been living together for decades, but, if one of them dies and has left no will or other estate plan, and if they were not married or registered domestic partners, then the law considers them legal strangers. The survivor has no right to inherit any part of the deceased’s estate. If the deceased had owned their home the survivor wouldn’t even have a place to live. Even if they were married or registered domestic partners, without a will or trust, the survivor might have to share the estate with other family members of the deceased. It would not matter that the couple may have agreed that each of them wanted their soul mate to have everything when one of them died. Here are the details. First we need to understand some concepts. These are the concepts of “community property, ” “quasi-community property” and separate property. Under California law all earnings of married couples, during their marriage, are community property. They each own all of it. The same is true of registered domestic partners. Any property bought with those earnings is also community property. Earnings that were earned prior to their marriage are separate property. For example, suppose John retired before they married and he is getting a pension from his former employer. His monthly retirement check is his separate property. He earned that pension prior to their marriage, Property bought by one of them, prior to their marriage is separate property, and remains so during their marriage. If John kept his pension money separate (say in a separate bank account for himself) property bought with that money would be his separate property. Otherwise, property bought during their marriage, with community property earnings is also community property. Quasi-Community Property is property acquired by a married person or couple in a non-community property state that would have been community property if it had been acquired in a community property state. California is a community property state. So, if a couple here bought a vacation home in Oregon, it would be considered quasi-community property in California. Under California’s law of intestate succession, if a lesbian or gay couple never married or registered as domestic partners, and one of them dies without a will or other estate planning tool (such as a trust), the survivor gets none of the deceased person’s estate. Even if they were married, but one died without a will, California law treats the three types of property in different ways. The surviving spouse gets the half of the deceased’s part of their community property. Again, with quasi-community property, the survivor gets the half of the decedent’s share of their quasi-community property. But with separate property of the deceased, the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner gets all of it only if the deceased left no children, parents, brothers, sisters or children of those brothers and sisters. Depending on which of those relatives survives the deceased spouse, the surviving spouse could inherit as little as one third of the separate property of the deceased. So it is very important for even married couples, or registered domestic partners, to have either a will or some other estate planning tool so that there estate will go where they want it to go. One final point. Property that is passed to survivors through a will must go through probate court. That court process can take a long time and it can be expensive. Property passed through a trust does not go through probate. So, depending on the size of the estate, it might be preferable to use a trust rather than a will. Setting up trusts can be expensive too. So some say using this estate planning tool is only advisable if the estate is worth $100,000 or more.

By MEUSA Social Media Director Thom Watson One week from today, I expect my life paradoxically to stay pretty much exactly the same, yet at the same time to change utterly, in ways I’m not sure I truly understand or even can fully imagine. I expect my life to change, though, because people whose opinions in such matters I trust, people who already have undertaken the step I’m about to take, keep telling me it will. Next Thursday, you see, I’m getting married. On the one hand, my life will stay pretty much exactly the same. After all, back in June Jeff and I celebrated the ten-year anniversary of our first date. As of this month we’ve already been living together for a decade, nearly half of those years within the formal legal status of a California registered domestic partnership. We’ve already been paying joint state taxes; Jeff covers me on his employer’s health insurance plan; we share finances, the care and feeding of two cats, each other’s joys and sorrows, a warped sense of humor, and our bed. Obviously, marriage won’t change any of that. To be sure, we expect our day-to-day life the day after we say “I do” to go on largely just as it did the day prior. Nonetheless, I also expect next Thursday’s civil ceremony, the promises we will make, and the words and status that will be pronounced to and conferred upon us “by the power vested… by the state,” to be transformative. As Marriage Equality USA (MEUSA) noted in its amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court this past winter, “Same-sex couples who have been able to marry have experienced great joy and have found that marriage profoundly deepens their love and commitment to each other.” In a conversation with Chris Geidner, Edie Windsor, the winsome octogenarian plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that resulted in the eradication of DOMA Section 3, the federal law that before this summer had prohibited the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex couples’ legally valid marriages, put it this way: “I ask all gay couples who have lived together a long time and got married, ‘Was it different the next morning?’ And everybody says yes, and they don’t know how to explain it. Marriage itself, you know, it’s a magic word, everybody knows what it means, it means love and commitment and trust… but there’s this extra thing when it was always denied to you. But it’s profound. Whatever loving was there, it becomes really profound loving.” Our friend and fellow MEUSA love warriors Ellen Pontac and Shelly Bailes, who have been together for nearly 40 years, married in 2004 (though that marriage heartbreakingly was made “null and void” by the California Supreme Court) and again, finally, in 2008. Ellen agrees with Edie’s sentiment, describing the personal, social, and political transformative power of marriage like this: “Being married changes not only the fact that you can say, ‘I’d like to introduce you to my wife,’ but it changes the way you feel inside, and the way the world perceives you. We have both a domestic partnership and a marriage. Getting married has actually made us realize how inadequate being a domestic partner is. Now that we are married, we never refer to ourselves as domestic partners or even conceive of ourselves as such – we only refer to ourselves as married.” Jeff and I are incredibly grateful that we now have the right to enter into a legal civil marriage here at home in California, and to have that marriage recognized by both our state and federal governments. We’re excitedly and nervously expectant about making our vows to one another at San Francisco’s City Hall, a location with particular sentimental significance for California’s marriage equality advocacy movement and for us, personally, and about experiencing these profound changes in our relationship as we express our love and commitment in a formalized way that is a very old and shared tradition, yet simultaneously a very new and completely unique experience for each couple who takes that step. At the same time, we’re also aware that many of our friends, brothers, and sisters across the country still are denied this same opportunity, just as we were until this past June, and even in the midst of our celebration and joy we remain mindful of the hard work that remains to be done to bring the freedom to marry to everyone in this country, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, and whether one lives in a red state or a blue one. Emma Lazarus famously wrote, in words and sentiment later echoed by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that “Until we are all free, we are none of us free.” That’s why I volunteer for a group that advocates for the freedom to marry, and why I will continue to do so even now that my own freedom to marry in California has been secured, and even after I have exercised that freedom for myself. It’s why Jeff and I, in lieu of a traditional wedding gift registry, have set up an equality registry to benefit MEUSA and to help fund the ongoing fight to win marriage equality across the nation. It’s the hard work of organizations like MEUSA, AFER, Freedom to Marry, GetEQUAL, and so many others, that trained, encouraged, and enabled Jeff and me – and thousands like us – to be our own fierce advocates for our equality and to fight for our freedom, and that have played such critical roles in making it possible for us finally to marry next week. It reminds me a little of that famous television commercial catchphrase of the late 1980s, “I’m not just the president of the Hair Club for Men, I’m also a client.” In that vein, I’m not just a Marriage Equality USA volunteer, I’m also a client. And I can endorse it not just in principle, but because it has worked so well for me personally.

[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. Stephanie Fairyington had an article on Martin Duberman in the September/October issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review. Duberman is one of the major players in the LGBT rights movement. As the article notes, “he has been a formidable intellectual and activist on behalf of the disenfranchised in every corner of society”. Fairyington says that “Duberman is deeply disappointed in the contemporary GLBT movement, noting that, for the past 20 years, the focus has been on marriage equality and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She added that “his view is that the goal of assimilating runs counter to the Spirit of Stone Wall and Gay Liberation which sought to affirm, rather than minimize, the differences between mainstream and queer culture”. I would respectfully disagree. The drive to end Don’t Ask Don’t tell can be viewed as seeking the right to jobs and economic security. Over the past few years civilian employment has been very hard to find. For many, employment in the armed services has been an available fall back position, a way to put food on the table. Until the overturn of Don’t Ask, Don’t tell this alternative had not been available to LGBT people unless they denied who they really were. The cultures of People of Color are different than what has been the dominant White culture of this nation. And those differences add value to society. But this doesn’t mean they should be denied the right to jobs in the military or to Marry. People like Duberman say there is an essential difference in the relationships that LGBT people form compared to those in straight relationships. They often add that the institution of marriage is corrupt or sexist and LGBT people should not seek to copy it. With respect, I believe the factors that help relationships succeed or fail are basically the same whether the relationship is straight or LGBT. For example, in both situations, good negotiating skills help people successfully negotiate their differences. But that’s beside the point. Economic security is a valid reason for seeking marriage equality. Edith Windsor, who sued to overturn DOMA, had been charged over $600,000 in federal estate taxes when her wife died. That tax was due because the federal government did not recognize her marriage. Once DOMA was overturned she got that money back. That will do a lot to provide her with economic security in her old age. Married people can also qualify for spousal Medicare and Social Security benefits, VA benefits and many other federal benefits that are not available to unmarried couples, or even registered domestic partners. These benefits can do much to provide economic security and peace of mind to married couples. It is worth pursuing marriage equality.

[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 federal government requires that all same sex married couples either file joint federal income tax returns or file as married filing separately. This includes same-sex married couples. However, in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a ruling that affects the filing of federal income tax returns by registered domestic partners, as well. The key wording in that ruling is as follows: “For tax years beginning after December 31, 2006, A California registered domestic partner must report one-half of the community income, whether received in the form of compensation from personal services or income from property, on his or her federal income tax returns.” 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. The ruling says the income of California domestic partners must be split evenly because California is a so called “Community Property” state. Under California law income earned while a couple is in a registered domestic partnership is community property. All that income is owned by both of them regardless of who earned it. There is at least one exception to the requirement of splitting the household income on the federal tax return. That exception has to do with when the income was earned, or when the property was purchased. If, for example, one of the partners retired before entering the partnership, and that person is receiving a pension, then that pension income is separate property and does not need to be divided and half shown on each federal tax returns. Similarly, if one of the partners bought a rental property, prior to entering the domestic partnership, the rental income from that property is not community property. The income from that property should be reported only on the federal income tax return of the person who bought it prior to the domestic partnership. Sadly, the IRS staff does not seem to be informed of the ruling. Once we heard of the ruling Larry and I started dividing our community income in half and each reported half of it on our federal returns. Each year the IRS responded with a letter saying I had under reported my bank account interest income and so I owed more taxes than I had paid. However, the issue was that our joint savings accounts had only my Social Security number attached to them. Each year I cleared up the problem by sending them a copy of the IRS ruling, plus a copy of our registration as domestic partners. You can see, and download, a copy of the IRS ruling by clicking on the following link and then scrolling down to and clicking n the link at the bottom of the web based copy of this article.  Here is the link to get you started. IRS Ruling These are complicated matters. Anyone wanting to act on this information should definitely consult an expert on income taxes before taking that action.