: Same Sex Marriage: Some Choices Limited

Gerry Clinchy
07-10-2011, 05:36 AM
NY Times

I really find this kind of fascinating ... always the unintended consequences of legislation.

Some employers were providing health insurance to same sex domestic partners, but now that the law permits these people to marry, the companies are requiring that they marry to continue to receive benefits.

That doesn't seem unreasonable ... if heterosexual couples must be married to receive such benefits, then if same-sex couples are now "equal", then the rules should be the same?

But now some of these same-sex couples don't want to marry! If they want to adopt a child from an organization that will not consider a same-sex couple ... it's better for them not to marry to enhance adoption possibilities.

When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/adoptions/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) to same-sex couples.

At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

Interesting, too

Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage.

How does IRS supercede the U.S. Constitution? If marital status/requirements belong to the states, then shouldn't the IRS have to recognize the state law?

So, does the IRS do the same to heterosexual domestic partners? Does the IRS discriminate in that regard? While the employers may treat both groups (same-sex & heterosexual domestic partners) equally, the Fed govt does not? If DADT has been found unconstitutional, how can the IRS' position be considered OK?

07-14-2011, 12:19 PM
I agree.

If a man and a woman that live together cannot have benefits then two of the same sex should not be able to.

That's discrimination against heterosexuality.