Does this make any sense at all?
The IRS is going to treat same-sex marriages in the same way it treats heterosexual marriage. Okay. I understand that. HOWEVER, if a state only recognizes a "civil union", the IRS will NOT treat that couple as "married". THAT I do NOT understand.Though the ruling will cover all legal same-sex marriages entered into in the states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory, or a foreign country, it will not apply to “domestic partnerships, civil unions, or similar formal relationships recognized under state law,” the Treasury Department’s statement says.
If a heterosexual couple has only a "civil union" in front of a justice of the peace, are they not married for IRS tax purposes? If a same-sex couple are atheists, and are quite happy to have a "civil union" without the use of the word "marriage", why would they be treated differently?
Will this cause a migration of same-sex couples from states that offer civil unions to states that offer "marriage"? That would be an interesting unintended consequence.
I wonder if Lois Lerner came up with this rule that seems to fly in the face of "equality"?