Married same-sex couples in Massachusetts live in a state that recognizes their unions. But in the eyes of the US government, they're still bachelors, or bachelorettes.
Mary Ritchie and her spouse Kathleen Bush have been legally married for five years. They have two children and Mary is a state police trooper. But there's one thing that makes this typical family different: when they file tax returns this year, they cannot check "married filing jointly." Mary and Kathleen say this detail has cost them almost $15,000 in taxes.
Now Mary and Kathleen are joining a dozen other couples to sue the federal government, challenging part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The part in question prevents the federal government from awarding Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of their marriage status in home states.
The couples aren't just arguing fairness. They say DOMA violates the state's right to regulate marriage.
Do you think they should win?
Episode
Vic Matiﾏ
Diane von Furstenberg
I just don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. How is the commitment of marriage between a straight couple any different from the commitment of marriage between a couple of the same sex? Why should gay couples who enter into marriage not be afforded the same benefits as straight couples who do the same?
1Well call me a little bias but yes. That's jacked up.
2Eventually, they will win. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
3If government would recognize all unions as civil unions, and leave "marriage" for the church, this wouldn't be a problem...
4Well put Dave.
5Ahhh, yeah. The church. Because where would a same sex couple feel more welcome?
6What?
7Did I stutter?
8I'm pretty sure you missed the point.
9Fuzzles, I think you missed the point. I think UnDave was saying that 'marriage' is a religious concept that should be left to religious institutions, and that the government shouldn't have any business deciding who gets 'married'. Instead, the government should issue 'civil unions' (which lack the religious connotation) so that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can have the same rights.
10I don't think UnDave was suggesting we allow the church to decide who gets to be married and reap all the benefits.
11I think Fuzzles was too subtle.
12Perhaps she was too subtle. I'm not sure what her point was. If marriage was solely a religious term with no weight or power outside of the religious community, why would it matter if gays felt welcome in a church? It would have no bearing on their freedoms or rights.
13"If government would recognize all unions as civil unions, and leave "marriage" for the church, this wouldn't be a problem..."
I had to take my temperature because I never thought that UnDave and I would agree on any point with respect to this issue. But I agree 100%.
I believe in freedom of religion as much as I agree in freedom to marry the person you're in love with. If a church doesn't want too marry me hey that's fine I'll just go to one that will. There's plenty of gay friendly churches out there that will marry my partner and I in a minute. It's the government recognition that's the problem not the churches recognition.
14No Mich. The state should force churches to marry gay people. And then we should pray for their matrimony in public schools.
15"It's the government recognition that's the problem not the churches recognition. "
Exactly, Hypno.
16Couldn't have said it better myself unDave. Churches are well within their rights to refuse to marry people (I know a rabbi who will not marry a couple unless they are both Jewish and priests who requires that they both be Catholic), but the government should recognize all committed unions regardless of the religious or sexual orientation of the people involved.
17"I had to take my temperature because I never thought that UnDave and I would agree on any point with respect to this issue. But I agree 100%."
You don't need to have your temp taken, you just need to realize that you just became a little more conservative...
18In all fairness to the government though even if they did that although it would be the perfect remedy to the situation they would still be raked over the coals by the defence of marriage people. But again marriage is a personal and church issue I don't think government should be involved in approving/dissapproving marriage between two people who love each other.
19UnDave the only thing that is conservative about me is my hair cut...lol
20As much as I love to see everyone agreeing, I have to point out that civil unions are a liberal idea. Perhaps it is the other way around, Mr. D. Perhaps you are become just a liiiiiiiittle bit more liberal. Just a little.
" 'marriage' is a religious concept that should be left to religious institutions, and that the government shouldn't have any business deciding who gets 'married'. Instead, the government should issue 'civil unions' (which lack the religious connotation) so that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can have the same rights."
I agree, and well said.
21I'm not exactly sure where Fuzzles is going, but I agree with UnDave. Whatever the name is as long as it is fair and equal and everyone uses it as far as the government is concerned.
22"I just don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. How is the commitment of marriage between a straight couple any different from the commitment of marriage between a couple of the same sex?"
Marriage benefits were started as a way of government sponsored social engineering. I don't agree with it personally, but the idea is that the traditional family structure is good for society. As such, the government makes it beneficial to adopt that structure. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general I agree that the traditional family structure is the cornerstone of a good society.
Are gay couples as beneficial to society? I don't think that should be the benchmark as to whether they should get their piece of social engineering too. The government needs to get out of our business.
23"and priests who requires that they both be Catholic"
kpelli73, I don't want to say I don't believe you, but if a priest held such a position, and it was brought to the bishop of his diocese attention, that priest would probably be suspended, and sent back to the seminary, for additional training on church doctrine. Such a position is contrary to church doctrine. My parents got married by a priest in a catholic church close to 75 years ago, and at a time the church was VERY conservative and traditional, and in a country that was probably the most conservative Catholic priests in the world. Ireland would not give up the Latin mass, it took a few years, and a direct order from Pope John XXIII, to the Bishops of Ireland to put the mass in English, or in Gaelic, in the Irish speaking part of Ireland.
24I agree with UnDave too. Sure there will still be people that wouldn't like this compromise if it were implemented, but it sounds like the best solution I've heard so far.
25The title of this piece is what kills me: "Tax Season Reminds Gay Couples That They Lack Rights". Do they really need reminding?
Anyway. I agree with Dave too. Sounds like a good solution to me.
26IMO tax season should remind us all that we pay way too much to the government for what we are getting in return.
27I am joining Hypno and having my temperate taken. I completely agree that the government needs to start recognizing civil unions and leave the church definition of marriage out of it.
28"It's the government recognition that's the problem not the churches recognition. "
Thirded.
And it's complicated! I just filed my state return in California and there was this whole special set of instructions, like, if you were married between these dates, then you can file as married, after this date and if you got married on a Tuesday when it was cloudy...
29As long as they get the same rights call it whatever you want.
30"Couldn't have said it better myself unDave. Churches are well within their rights to refuse to marry people (I know a rabbi who will not marry a couple unless they are both Jewish and priests who requires that they both be Catholic), but the government should recognize all committed unions regardless of the religious or sexual orientation of the people involved."
31Well said!
The tax laws are definitely slanted towards married, straight couples with children. Very antiquated in a time where "family" has become more flexible.
And don't even get me started on tax deductions for people with children...
It's not just a good solution... it's the ONLY solution that will work.
32I'm glad that I can still make a young lady's heart go aflutter.
33Remember humility Padewan.
34Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.