E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jordan Stead / Reuters
Same-sex couples take their vows during a group wedding Dec. 9 at the First Baptist Church in Seattle.
Same-sex couples in Washington state rushed giddily to the courthouse earlier this month after Washington became one of three states where voters approved laws giving them the legal right to marry.
Those newlyweds will probably be less excited the first time they get to file their tax returns together.
The gap between state laws that recognize same-sex marriage, and federal laws that don’t, makes tax season complicated at best, and costly at worst, for same-sex spouses.
“It’s certainly a big headache for people. I’ve literally seen them reduced to tears,” said M.V. Lee Badgett, research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear cases related to same-sex marriage could clarify the confusion if the court ends up striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, a national law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
That could clear the way for the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in the states where it is legal: Washington, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.
The recognition would mean that same-sex couples could file a joint tax return and be eligible for tax breaks and other government benefits, such as spousal Social Security benefits, that heterosexual spouses currently have.
But a decision on those Supreme Court cases is not expected until June. And as it stands now, filing taxes is a lot more complicated for same-sex couples because they are considered married by their state government and not married by the federal government.
“It’s very laborious,” said Judi O’Kelley, deputy director of development for Lambda Legal, which does advocacy work and provides legal guidance for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.
To file state and federal income tax returns, experts say same-sex couples must first fill out a mock federal tax form as a married couple, which they use as the basis to file their state tax returns. Then, they must go back and file a second set of federal tax returns as if they are both single, because the federal government does not recognize their union.
In community-property states such as Washington and California, there is one more hurdle for the individual returns. Couples have to essentially split their wages down the middle, said Marci Flanery, a CPA who practices in Seattle. So, if one spouse makes $100,000 and another spouse make $20,000, each return would end up showing income of $60,000.
That’s because even though the marriage isn’t recognized, their assets are considered shared property.
There are other tax issues to consider. Same-sex partners who get health benefits from their spouse’s employer are taxed on those benefits, while heterosexual married couples are not.
Couples also have to figure out how to allocate deductions, and many worry about the tax implications should one same-sex spouse give the other money, or leave the other an inheritance.
“There are lots of rules in the Internal Revenue Code that depend on marriage,” said Patricia Cain, a professor of law at Santa Clara University and an expert on these issues.
Experts say that many same-sex couples probably don’t realize the tax implications when they get married, and may file incorrectly because they don’t know the rules.
Still, some are clearly thinking about money in addition to love as they prepare to get married.
O’Kelley said about 500 people showed up for a forum on legal issues related to same-sex marriage, held in Washington state just days before those unions became legal.
Flanery said she’s had a steady stream of potential accounting clients coming in to talk about the tax implications of a potential same-sex union, and especially the income-sharing provision.
“I don’t see that they’re not getting married because of this, but they do want to know about it,” she said.
The tax issues may be a headache, but they aren’t always a financial burden. For couples who both earn a higher salary, the current system can be a good financial deal.
That’s because high-earning couples are sometimes subject to a so-called marriage penalty in which their joint filing status puts them at a higher tax rate than if they were filing individually. By splitting their income, they can each enjoy a lower tax rate.
Nevertheless, even some advocates who benefit financially from the current situation say they’d be willing to pay more taxes to have the federal government recognize their marriage, and to be eligible for other federal safeguards.
“I don’t want to pay it, that’s true, but we’re not going to get divorced over it,” said Cain.
Related:
Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
Leave a Comment:
Here is my question, does anyone straight or gay actually understand the tax code? What s shame we have to pay someone to do our taxes.
They need to add a huge tax on them to pay for the hassle of trying keep their perversions from corrupting our children....and all the therapy if they do.
Amazed-
Are you really saying you would be gay if you had known someone gay when you were growing up? Sexual orientation is not contagious; if it was, gay kids would be straight since their parents were.
amazedandalarmed
I hear ya... I mean, heterosexuals with a 53% divorce rate? Yeah, all the therapy costs involved for helping children get through the heterosexual perversions and corruption of children?
End the IRS and institute the FAIR tax instead.
yes......... the dumber you are the more you pay. The homosexual element should not pay anymore than anyone else.
Personally, if I was gay and married to a POtSS, I'd file as married and let the IRS try to catch me.
Take me to court you pigs.
Oh freakin' Boo @!$%#'n Hoo,
Welcome to the life of middle class America where the majority pay for the 'Boo freaking hoo how dare they regulate my lifestyle' Middle class.
Time to pay your fair share for 'freedom of choice'.
Whoops, didn't count on that, did you?
It is a choice period.If you say they are born that way,then so is a molseter,rapest etc.
i think, the attractions are not a choice, but acting on homosexuality is much less damaging if at all compared to acting on the urge to rape/engage in incest/molest a child.
Pay baby pay their is a God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The god of grammar knows the sin of using "their" or "they're" in place of "there".
Um, for those of you "celebrating" that gays will now pay taxes, they have been all along. The only difference is that they continue to have additional confusion and hurdles thrown at them because some straight people were and are afraid that gays might one day be considered - GASP! - normal and the same as them.
"Amazedandalarmed", what about all the perversions by the heterosexual community - you know, little things like kidnapping girls and sexually abusing and killing them, sexual slavery, rape of adults and children, murder, spousal abuse, etc.? More heterosexuals commit these crimes and are imprisoned on the taxpayer dime - the ones that are caught, that is - than gays. Given the hard road to fair existence gay people must travel, I'd say the ones that want to marry have more of a sense of spiritual love than a lot of heterosexual marriages borne out of superficiality, the "surprise" pregnancy or just because 'Well, that's what I'm supposed to do to be normal and accepted, is marry somebody and have kids...right?' and thereby just living a numb existence with someone they truly don't love - and then are adulterous a major sin.
Time for us who can still recognize it to stand up and call a perversion a perversion. So here it is. I will not look the other way any more. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PERVERSION!!!! Please don't expect me to even remotely acknowledge your life style as legitimate. And if makes me part of the so-called ignorant crowd, bring it on.
Something tells me you were the poster child for the ignorant crowd long before this issue came up. Can you even type without drooling on the keyboard?
Thanx. Call me "ignorant" all day. But I'm not stupid. Maybe it takes someone who is not so highly educated to speak up. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PERVERSION!!!
Hey Ithinkobamasucks - the difference between gays and rapists/molesters (get the spelling right first of all) - is gays don't hurt anybody. Therefore it's not none of your business. Rapists and molesters hurt people. Get it?
Hey Nukeman - at least you admit to being an ignoramus. Just never thought I'd see anyone who's actually proud of it.
@Common Sense-2004266
I am starting to think you might lack common sense... First of all the horrible perversions you mentioned have been committed by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. By just generalizing that heterosexuals perform heinous acts is like calling the pot calling the kettle black. As well you must consider per capita, which I am sure you didn't, when it comes to those cases, since there are an abundant more heterosexuals out there than homosexuals. Although I don't agree with the unfair system proposed on homosexuals, I ALSO don't agree with your name "common sense" as you seem to display none of it.
This article appears to be POORLY researched in the case of Washington State. There is no state income tax, there is no state tax return...There is no "EXTRA" work for same sex couples. They currently file single returns at the federal level...like they have for say...the last 10-20 years when the hypothetical couple first entered into a relationship. Sorry, this is really dumb and poor journalism.
HK, this article discussed more than Washington State couples so the discussion of State tax was appropriate. In addition, you are incorrect about the taxation of Washington State domestic partners and same-sex married couples. Domestic partners in community property states are required by the IRS to file their returns splitting their community property income and file additional disclosures to explain the split. Since opposite-sex married couples are allowed to file joint returns they do not have to go through these extra steps.
Agreed. The article is neither "dumb" nor "poor" journalism. It is an excellent explanation regarding this particular situation. I am a preparer who handles these returns and would suggest that the homophobes, anti-"gay marriage" crowd, and the generally uninformed, shut their pie holes before proudly displaying their ignorance.
One thing the majority of Americans can agree upon - married couples, straight or gay, should PAY THE SAME TAXES AS SINGLES. Just combine their numbers and file away. Eliminate all those tax breaks the majority of Americans (singles) do not benefit from. WHY do we reward people for simply getting married with tax breaks. Impose the same tax rates for "couples" as singles and we will have a simpler, fairer tax code for ALL Americans.
They think they're paying more now?? Just wait till they decide to divorce.
Guess that grass on the other side isn't so green after all.
Not a Socialist, why do you feel that gays just wanted "to be on the other side" for the sake of being on the other side? Do you honestly believe that people go into marriage planning for a divorce? Maybe that's the way hets think, but I certainly don't plan to have a failed marriage. We haven't even had the rights bestowed upon us in Maine yet and I'm already tired of hearing "Well, you're getting what you asked for." Yes, I am. And I'm thrilled about it. So why do people like you have to continue to diminish what's supposed to be an exciting time for celebration?
The first paragraphs of the article are specific to Washington State. I agree with the parent. With that being said, there ARE additionals hassles in Washington for married same sex couples since spousal benefits such as insurance are considered taxable income by the feds. That can add an extra $1000+ to the federal tax bill that a heterosexual couple would not face.
Not a Socialist - you talk as if you think gays are actually envious of straight people. Your name is appropos - "NOT". Gays are entitled to the same rights as straights whether you like it or not. When you get married, you risk getting divorced. So is that your excuse for not allowing gays to get married....since...of course....straights are such marriage experts.
You wanna play, you gotta pay! Then again, live and let live.
We want the benefits, not the costs.
No we want the same benefit as you all seem to want to hoard for yourselves. Jerk.
Same goes for straight couples. For instance, the straight "christian" couple that raised a violent sociopath in Minnesota, who then went on a crime spree in Iowa, murdering two women in cold blood for no reason. Those straight "christian" parents received all sorts of tax benefits while raising their little demon, don;t the tax payers have a right to take all that money back since we now have to spend even more prosecuting him, incarcerating him etc?
Sounds like you're the one who wants special rights and privileges.
"We want the benefits, not the costs"
Spoken like true human. Don't we all.
aka..
Only trouble is most people don't get the press to be front and center to plea their case.
HK, this article discussed more than Washington State couples so the discussion of State tax was appropriate. In addition, you are incorrect about the taxation of Washington State domestic partners and same-sex married couples. Domestic partners in community property states are required by the IRS to file their returns splitting their community property income and file additional disclosures to explain the split. Since opposite-sex married couples are allowed to file joint returns they do not have to go through these extra steps.
Here is what needs to happen: SSM couples need to ignore the Federal rules and file jointly. What are they going to do? Put all 150,000 married couples in jail? It's called passive resistance and it is something the GLBT community needs to start practicing more. The "religious right" has said they are not going to abide by any laws that recognize our unions, so we need to stop abiding by laws that do NOT recognize our unions.
Larry Gist, are you married in the Navy ? More tax complications .
"What are they going to do?"
Don't mess with the IRS. Wait for the rule change. The IRS is not your friend!
Yeah, try it, Larry, please, mess with the IRS and see who comes out ahead.
Great. They will be suing over that now.
Ummmm......they already are since they're currently denied their civil right of equal protection of the law.
Just an FYI, DOMA will be history in 6 months and bigots will just have to find another thing to whine about.
I can see people lining up to file adjusted returns and getting refunds.
Isn't providing tax breaks and government perks for all "non-single adults" discriminatory against all "single working adults" regardless of their sexual orientation?
Yes, it is.
The tax code is full of discrimination- homeowners get to deduct mortgage interest, donors get charitable deductions, the list goes on and on. And then there's different tax rates on the same level of income. Hedge fund owners pay less than ordinary taxpayers, while certain professionals pay a higher rate.
And if your lobbyist is really good, you pay nothing at all.
Helps if you belong to a certain religion which I can't mention due to politeness constraints--just call them 'The Door Knockers"......
Jehovas witnesses?
You want everyone to be equal? Fine. Great. Since I'm single, with no kids, and not gay, I don't get any of the tax benefits that "married" people do. I think that I should get some benefits. Why should only the "married" and the parents get all of these breaks? They simply chose a different route in life than I did, so why am I punished for it? It's a choice to get "married". It's a choice to have kids.
Isn't providing tax breaks and government perks for all "non-single adults" discriminatory against all "single working adults" regardless of their sexual orientation?
and it's a choice to be gay.
its not a choice to be gay....why would any gay want people like you treating them with such hate and discrimintation. so you must have chose to be straight if sexual orientaion is a choice....dumbass!
Really, Ozdaddy? When did you choose to be straight?
It's a choice to get married, just like religion is a choice.
@djb - Definitely a perversion.
Since the Feds don't actually recognize gay marriage and Washington doesn't have state income tax, I don't see what added complexity or additional taxes these newlyweds will have to pay. Now those other states, they're on their own.
You clearly aren't a tax preparer. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such a comment. It isn't as cut and dried as you think. The Feds don't have to recognize "gay marriage" in order to make things complicated. There are very few of us tax preparers who are even up to doing these particular returns. The requirements for their handling is NOT the same as for regular ("straight") married filing joint returns. People may not want to hear this, but like it or not, these gay couples will likely pay more taxes than straight couples will.
In Maryland, state employees can put their same-sex partner on their health insurance for coverage, under certain guidelines. But what they don't always realize is that the amount of insurance paid by the employer for the partner is included in the employee's income as "imputed income". That means that if the state pays, for example, $5,000 as their portion of the partner's insurance, the employee has to claim that $5,000 as income on their taxes.
If you got married without considering any of these issues beforehand - you aren't ready to be married.
It's annoying to see these people giddily jump in to say I do thinking they'll spend the rest of their life on some cloud - only to start complaining about everything afterwards. PLAN BETTER! Don't make major financial or contractual leaps (marriage is both) without thinking first!
Since 50% of all marriages end in divorce I would suggest that straight people shut up regarding the planning that "these people" needed to do. Not a lot of planning Straighty does very well is there? Besides, there's no reason why gay couples should assume/presume that they should have to do anything different on a tax return from what straight people do. In Washington, the tax preparer will have to go through an additional process to construct the federal returns as appropriate for "these people". In California, we have to construct three tax returns and an allocation sheet. "These people" are stuck paying more taxes and a near unbearable cost for prep fees because Straighty thinks he/she is better at being married than "these people". "These people" for the most part are probably covering the asses of the 47% of the population who are under the impression that they pay taxes, but in reality don't.
Because this all brand-new, we have no idea what the 'batting average' of same sex marrieds will be. We'll all see, once the honeymoons are over, won't we??
Agree, to many people jump into life changing events with little thought...and it usually cost the rest of us money down the road...wish everyone was a bright as you and I:))))
More Same Sex legislation.
Another Mass shooting in PA.
Go Figure.
Sounds like your silly sharia laws are to blame for the former, and your imaginary friend is to blame for the latter.
Forcing same sex couples to pay HIGHER TAX RATES will prevent further mass shootings?
more stupid and hate filled comments from you.....I would so love to be there when you have to explain to God why you hated so many during your life that he gave you! your a real POS! please dry up and blow away!
Oh Walter, really....turn off the computer. It's time for your nap.
Careful what you ask for...now they have something else to complain about.
Sham marriages shouldn't be recognized at all by anyone.
Marriage should not be a legal institution what so ever but since it is....all should be equal.
Don't hold your breath on changing the Federal income tax law to satisfy such a small group of taxpayers. Congress and the President can't even agree on avoiding the reinstatement of the Clinton-era income tax law for 2013 and enacting an AMT patch for 2012.
No need to change the IRS code since the Jim Crow law of DOMA will be gone in 6 months.
I don't know, but I think the Supreme Court will rule that there's no reason Gay/Lesbian marriages shouldn't be legal. Traditionalists will disagree, but there you have it (about time as far as I'm concerned). It'll take a host of legal challenges to get this straight (that's a pun, get it?). But it'll take time to sort it all out and as far as the federal government can ever get something straight (it's even funnier the second time), they'll get this...wait for it...straight.
sadly, you may very well be correct.
The constitution is "blind", with no context if you really look at it. There is only one law explicitly laid out in the US constitution: treason.
Any other law made outside of the constitution could (as has before) been seen as unconstitutional based on the moral wind of the time.
If a law banned same-sex marriage was found unconstitutional, there is no basis for any other law defining marriage to be on solid constitional grounds either. How can marriage between blood siblings be against the law? Or polygamy for that matter? The modernist "it's about me" generations (starting with baby boomers) base their logic on "it doesn't affect anyone else, so therefore you HAVE to let me do it."
Funny, they dont' like it when you say pornography harms no one (including any children in front of the camera)...yet that is scorned and outlawed. Yet, lewd sex acts outside of the societal morality set between people of same sex is "okay"?
bullsh*t.
There is no such thing as a homosexual. Only people who engage in homosexual acts.
There is no such thing as a heterosexual. Only people who engage in heterosexual acts.
I can't find a Constitutional basis for ANY form of marriage. Wouldn't it be great is SCOTUS not only ruled DOMA un-Constitutional, but also ruled ALL laws and regulations that mention marriage un-Constitutional and therefore null and void. Then there would be no reason for the homosexuals to demand equal treatment, since no one is getting preference.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
DYFR.
@Erin - Can you cite me an article in the Constitution or a SCOTUS ruling?
Start with Loving v Virginia.
@Erin - OK. Read it. I repeat. The word "Marriage" is not found in the Constitution.
Gimmeabreakoradrink - why don't you list for us all the harmful things about "gay marriage" and voluntary polygamy and adult pornography.
And tell us how you are comparing that to sibling marriage and child porn.
I fail to see why you think these things have anything in common. I mean, is someone making you sit there and WATCH any of it?
Nukeman, your exact words were: "I can't find a Constitutional basis for ANY form of marriage." I told you that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, starting with Loving v. Virginia.
NOW you say that "the word marriage is not found in the Constitution" -- which is completely different from your previous statement. Another ruse typical of the bigot: moving the goalposts.
While there is no explicit "right to marriage" for ANYONE to be found in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, indeed, a "basic civil right" for ALL citizens under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Re-read Loving v. Virginia.
You have claimed that you're "not stupid," but you have only proven that claim to be untrue.
It seems that the 9th amendment would cover marriage.
I've always thought that one of the real reasons for not legally allowing same sex marriage was $$ , too much more being paid out by Govt.
Sounds like a very good reason to deny marriage to dumb bigots, so that normal people can save a few pennies on their taxes.
Why should someone, gay or straight, pay less taxes than a single person with the same income simply because he or she is married anyway? There should be no preferential treatment for marriage, just deductions for dependent children.
The tax system is so screwed up, it's unbelievable.
As a married couple with three children, my husband and I combined would pay LESS in taxes if we were NOT married. It is still worth it to us to be married, though.
Honestly, I think we should scrap the whole 'dependent' 'married' etc. system of deductions and just go with taxing based strictly on income. I don't think the federal (or even state) governments have any business determining what marriage is and who can be counted as married.
Ms Wheezer- check out "married, filing separately" status if you haven't already done so. Doesn't work for everyone, but worth a try.
Your argument is the precise reason you see the current gay-lesbian agenda for "equality" as being a farce.
If they want the same priveleges as those heterosexuals who are married, the political agenda would have trumpeted equal tax rates for all NON-MARRIED people in the US ("gay" or heterosexual).
Clearly the gay-lesbian agenda did not.
This was about sanctioning a lifestyle, not issues of equality.
There are several inequalities extant already between "straight" married couples and anyone who is single. Taxes are one, as well as percentages for work benefits of family, etc. Why should a single person be charged more per capita for dental or medical benefits while the married person gets a lower per capita deduction from the paycheck for even MORE people in the household? More people in the household means more costs for healthcare and bogging down "the system."
Let's get some clarity here: a single person making $50K a year is naturally going to be taxed more than a married couple making $50K a year. Do the math. Two people sharing $50K is significantly different from one person getting an entire $50K salary to him/herself.
People with kids will NATURALLY get more deductions than people who don't.
"Married Filing Separate" is not a filing status to "check out". It's a discriminatory status and ill-advised for most people, ESPECIALLY people with dependents.
People should stop giving tax advice unless they are in the tax industry because a lot of what I've seen here is people just shooting their mouths off, like Gimmeabreakoradrink....who has yet to give us his source for his numbers and who thinks that the Constitution is only clear about the subject of "treason", which pretty much indicates he's not constitutional scholar at all.
Ho ho ho ho.... Happy tax evasion you abnormal freakies. Can't wait to see you start paying support and alimony... I really hope they make a TV show about that divorce court... :-)
I'm a tax preparer and can tell you it's likely they pay more taxes than you do. By calling them "abnormal freakies" and mentioning "divorce court", that pretty much tells me you are likely part of the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes.
Ah, so you have recieved your 6 hours of in depth training on how to fill out a 1040a or EZ for some uneducated bonehead who can't read the instructions themselves from HR.... ? These people are abnormal, as the vast majority of human beings would like to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. And ya, they are a pretty freaky bunch. Now, go take a math class, and yes, they will be paying more taxes. I hate taxes, and take every little tiny single deduction available. How's that?
amen , ami.....
Gofigureit = TROLL
Actually Gofigureit, it's people like you who causes problems for gays because you are probably one of those folks who has no ability to fill out a tax form of any kind. By the way, where do you get your information about a professional's tax training? And did you know, you don't go to HR to fill out a tax return? So my guess is, you don't fill one out at all. Your mommy and daddy probably do it for you since they probably show you your 1040EZ or 1040A, making you feel like a grown-up troll instead of the little itty bitty troll that you are. It's gay people who pay all that extra money, so your parents can keep getting those handouts to wipe your nose and wipe your ass until you turn 19, when the government will decide you are nothing but a useless piece of @!$%# and therefore entitled to nothing, because obviously, in your personal case, you are too stupid to get accepted into college. You will therefore be permanently stuck in a $7 an hour factory job, living on their couch until age 35, until at some point you decide your beer gut has grown fat enough, you run off with your cousin and live in the backwoods trailer park, perpetuating the cycle again, by giving birth to a passle of ignoramuses whose biggest joy in life will be beer guzzling, shooting pigeons and whining about all those gay folks who are being made to buy them Thunderbird through their tax dollars.
i just threw up a little bit in my mouth from looking at that picture. enjoy your new tax burden. i suppose you will be whining for special rights to not pay taxes shortly.
It is interesting how you think that equal tax treatment is a "special right."
It's interesting how you think that's what he said.
not too mention how you think any thing "equal" is a special right!
djb et al ~~~ Don't forget that some are more equal than others !!!
Gee Barry, if people who choose to engage in homosexual acts think they are afforded "special rights" to marry, I would ask why the gay-lesbian agenda didn't include all non-married citizens (those ostracized by the married heterosexual bullies of society) when it comes to equal rights and benefits? (This includes a better/fairer tax rate).
Face it, this was all about mandated legitimacy and "approval" by people who choose to live a life of homosexual pleasures.
So when did you "choose to engage in heterosexual acts"? You not only confuse behavior with orientation (like all "good" bigots do), but you cannot provide any substantiation for your bull@!$%#.
EPIC FAIL.
The gay-lesbian "agenda" (there's that mysterious agenda again) isn't arguing for special tax breaks for single gays, only for those who are married in a state which recognizes marriage equality. In other words, they're fighting for all marriages to be treated equally. I don't see any "special rights" issues there.
"The tax issues may be a headache, but they aren't always a financial burden."
It's so true because same sex couples have been fighting for their equal rights for so long. As a result, little things like those tax problems won't hurt same sex couples in the long term. Also, heterosexual couples can survive through all the tax issues for years. Why cannot same sex couples?
Besides, tax issues are just one thing. Marriage equality will legally grant same sex couples thousands of federal and state benefits. Thinking about these benefits and legal rights will make those little tax issues become nothing.
I stll think States should only issue civil union certificates to all people who wish to "marry". This entitles everyone all the protection, equally, of all laws. Get the word marriage out of the picture. Those who wish to have a "marriage license" can then go to their churches and get that with all the trimmings.
Agreed. If both parties had put their heads together to come up with something like that sooner, the debate and SCOTUS case could have been avoided altogether.
"Most" people (myself included) don't really have a vested interest in this issue - but see the lunacy of taxing people at different rates, and denying things like survivor's rights and insurance (again: really just more taxes) as patently unfair and downright silly. Do we really think that a "sodomy tax" is going to motivate people people "chose" to be straight?
There are people at both ends of the spectrum that would be opposed, but no solution is going to make everyone happy. In fact, one that leaves everyone a little unhappy is often the best.
You are confusing the civil contract that is "marriage" with the religious rite that is "holy matrimony".
It's not just same-sex couples. My son is getting married 12/31/12. Well, actually, the ceremony will begin 12/31/12 but they will not actually be married until 01/01/13. Waiting a few minutes or a few seconds will save them several thousand dollars on their taxes.
One thing the majority of Americans can agree upon - married couples, straight or gay, should PAY THE SAME TAXES AS SINGLES. Just combine their numbers and file away. Eliminate all those tax breaks the majority of Americans (singles) do not benefit from. WHY do we reward people for simply getting married with tax breaks. Impose the same tax rates for "couples" as singles and we will have a simpler, fairer tax code for ALL Americans... WHY, oh WHY DO WE EVEN CONSIDER GIVING TAX BREAKS TO ANY MARRIED COUPLES? THAT is the BIG QUESTION. Singles pay higher taxes to subsidize marrieds... can anyone justify it? NO.
Anyone who has been married can answer that Harry..marridge no matter what the sex is a pain in the ass!(no pun intended) They have to have an incentive just to get people to do it. Everyone should be taxed fairly..ofcourse they spend our money like a drunken sailor..but that's another story.
I'm a married man, but I see your point of view. It's cheaper for two people to split the bills therefore if anyone should deserve a break, it's those who live alone.