Marriage's Financial Pros and Cons

The article explicitly states that federal benefits do not apply to gay couples... why are you confused?

of @ Jul 08, 2008 13:11:37 PM

Very Misleading

I find this article very misleading for the average reader who knows very little about gay marriage. The federal Defense of Marriage Act has pretty much guaranteed, for now, that most of the "benefits" listed in this article, cannot apply to gay couples who are legally married in their states. For example, while health benefits may be covered in a state, the federal government imposes greater taxes on the individual who carries their spouse on their benefit plan (because the marriage is not recognized, and therefore, the benefits are considered "additional income'). Another example: straight married couples were considered jointly for the Economic Stimulous Checks, whereas, gay married couples were considered seperately - depending on personal income, this may have resulted in a $600 check rather than a $1200 check, even though the family expenses and incomes in both examples were the same. Then there is the inability to receive SSN benefits, military retirement benefits (which includes pay, healthcare, and burial), and many of the things already mentioned above. If an article is going to use gay marriage as it's lead in the the financial benefits of marriage, then it should at least give a proper perspective on the overwhelming inequities currently in place, depending on one's status, and not lead readers to believe that gay marriage now makes everything equal.

Anita Bowden of MA @ Jul 05, 2008 12:04:01 PM

VA Guaranteed Home Loans

Other twists:

In 1976 we bought our first home. With military service, he got a VA guaranteed home loan for the full purchase price SO LONG AS I WAS NOT LISTED ON THE PROPERTY TITLE as a second, unmarried man. A married couple doesn't have to deal with this.

Now married in California and in our second, paid off home, tax advisers are perplexed about how we will eventually account for the profit from the first home, the community property title and profit for our current home and other joint titled property we held the past 33 years.

Four sets of law, for state and federal governments and gay and straight married couples, make income and estate taxes impossible to plan.

Leslie of CA @ Jul 04, 2008 10:32:16 AM

Social Security (point #7), Income tax (#1 and2)

I thought SOcial Security is a Federal program and therefore doesn't affect current samesex marriages (which are recognized legally only at the state level, not the Federal level). Ditto with Federal income tax; some of the tax points in #1 and 2 are appropriate for state taxes; HOWEVER, s-s couples stillhave to file separate (not joint) Federal returns, so that's a bit of extra work too.

It boggles my mind why we would want to have this patchwork across the country -- let's just make everybody EQUAL (like the Constitution says we are anyway). Here in Massachusetts I see s-s married couples all around (at work, church, in the supermarket), there was some anxiety at first, then an adjustment period, but now it's just no-big-deal... except for the couples who now can enjoy equality.

Cantabridgian David of MA @ Jul 04, 2008 04:13:09 AM

Geeez, some people should read more

The federal government won't recognize same-sex couples, but it can pay benefits to their children. That's the result of a U.S. Department of Justice opinion released June 9. According to the opinion, federal law does not prohibit the Social Security Administration from paying insurance benefits to the nonbiological child of a partner in a Vermont civil union. The decision is notable because the Defense of Marriage Act bars the government from extending federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

The opinion was written by Steven Engel, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. OLC, which provides legal guidance to the executive branch, was responding to a request from Thomas Crawley, the acting general counsel of the Social Security Administration. Crawley asked whether the Defense of Marriage Act would bar the payment of Social Security child insurance benefits to the son of the Vermont couple.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422343319

KurtzL of TX @ Jul 04, 2008 02:04:18 AM

Social Security

Social Security survivor benefits for children are different and separate from Social Security survivor benefits for spouses. If a gay partner adopts (is ABLE to adopt -- that depends on the laws of the state in which the couple resides) the children of his/her partner, they are then entitled to receive Social Security survivor benefits should either parent die while the child is still dependent. It is possible that demonstrating a dependency relationship even absent an adoption MIGHT result in a successful claim for a surviving child of a de facto parent (although I have not heard of such a thing actually happening for a surviving minor child of a non-adoptive gay parent).

But I would challenge anyone to present a case in which a same-gender spouse has been found eligible to receive Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of his or her partner. I simply do not believe it has happened, nor will it happen until DOMA is overturned and gay marriages are recognized by the federal government on an even footing with straight marriages.

And the people who are hurt most by this are the surviving children of gay couples in which one parent dies. A straight wife whose husband dies prematurely will have assistance from Social Security in continuing to raise their children, both in the survivor benefits to which the children are entitled, and the survivor benefits paid out to the surviving spouse. A surviving gay spouse will not receive those spousal benefits, and the children of the couple will necessarily be disadvantaged by this situation.

These children are being punished by the federal government because of the gender and sexual orientation of their parents. If that is not blatant injustice, I don't know what is.

Lorian Dunlop of CA @ Jul 03, 2008 22:21:30 PM

Why pay equal taxes when you have unequal rights?

Why in the world would any gay person pay federal taxes when they are denied the federal benefits of marriage?

If only enough gay people were FED UP ENOUGH to stage civil disobedience as previous generations did, like the 4 courageous men who sat at that lunch counter at Woolsworth on February 1st, 1960. Simply REFUSE to be discriminated against, and speak with our wallets.

John Bisceglia of @ Jul 03, 2008 18:42:25 PM

not all cut and dried....

Actually, there was a recent federal case involving Social Security benefits and a same-sex couple. I think it had to do with benefits to a child. Anyway, the Social Security system is set up so that the marriage is evaluated by the state and is not subject to DOMA, so benefits (whatever type they were) were awarded.

So it's not necessarily so that all Federal benefits are unavailable. Presumably, everything will have to be litigated.

Rob of CA @ Jul 03, 2008 14:24:42 PM