Same-Sex Couples: Creating a Level Playing Field

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Last week, the Human Rights Campaign highlighted an Associated Press article featuring the case of a same-sex couple who lost benefits when they moved from New Jersey to Idaho:

The two-story home Robert Ryan, 42, shares with his partner, Ralph Martinelli, 53, overlooks a quaint suburb west of Boise, a rural landscape of ruddy hills that doesn't seem quite as welcoming as it once did.

A 2,400-mile move west once seemed like a chance at a fresh start, but has instead delivered some hard lessons, especially about moving from a state that recognizes same-sex unions to one of the 21 states that don't.

The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan the two shared in New Jersey, where they were able to register as domestic partners. Idaho does not formally recognize same-sex couples.

Robert and Ralph's situation perfectly illustrates how access to our basic rights can be affected by geography. Unfortunately, this story is not unique. Across the country, millions of same-sex couples face significant financial burdens and legal hurdles in building a secure future for their families. As a result of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), these couples are denied, according to a 2004 report prepared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), (a pdf of the report can be found here) more than 1,138 federal benefits and protections available to married couples. Furthermore, as Robert and Ralph discovered, states have their own complex and often contradictory sets of laws in this area. This can mean that those in same-sex relationships can't take time off to care for a loved one without risking their job, they can't provide survivor benefits to their partner or children despite paying into Social Security for a lifetime, they can't get equal pay for equal contribution as a federal employee or veteran, and they can't include their spouse or children on their employer-based health plan without facing significant tax penalties. According to the Williams Institute, the average employee who receives partner benefits pays an additional $771 per year out of pocket in federal taxes based on the value of those benefits.

Without even addressing the issue of same-sex marriage, most of the hurdles faced by same-sex couples could be addressed legislatively.

That is why, in this week before Tax Day, HRC is working with our allies on Capitol Hill to highlight key pieces of legislation that we are calling the "Family Matters" legislative agenda. "Family Matters" is a comprehensive pro-family, pro-equality legislative package that seeks to secure equal treatment under federal law for GLBT individuals, same-sex couples, and their children. These bills are necessary to ensure that GLBT Americans have the same opportunity to secure a financial future for their families as other hardworking Americans. Three key components include:

* Elimination of the unequal taxation of employer-provided health insurance (S. 1556 / H.R. 1820);

* Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act (H.R. 2792); and

* Providing fair compensation and benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees (S. 2521 / H.R. 4838).

Take, for example, health benefits. While married couples are entitled to their spouse's health care benefits, same-sex couples incur a tax liability when included on their partner's plan. That's why a critical piece of legislation for GLBT families is the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Act. This bill would eliminate the unequal taxation of employer-provided health insurance. Specifically, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) excludes from income the value of insurance premiums and benefits received by employees for coverage of an employee's spouse, but does not extend this treatment to coverage of domestic partners. In addition, when calculating an employer's payroll tax liability, the value of domestic partner benefits is included in the employee's wages, thereby increasing both the employee's and the employer's payroll tax obligations. The Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act would address these inequities.

As many people know, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 grants legally married spouses up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave from work to care for a seriously ill spouse, parent or child. However, the law does not cover same-sex partners or spouses, making it impossible for some employees to be with their partners during times of medical need. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would expand FMLA to permit an employee to take unpaid leave from work if his or her domestic partner or same-sex spouse has a serious health condition.

And finally, we're seeking equal treatment for same-sex couples who work for our nation's largest civilian employer, the federal government. The Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act would extend all federal civilian employment benefits to partners of federal employees. That has become a standard benefit in America's major corporations. As of 2006, over 53 percent of the Fortune 500 companies offered benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Corporate America already understands the value of recruiting and retaining the best workers. Current law puts the federal government at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting the some of the nation's best employees because it does not offer these benefits.

At its core, "Family Matters" is about fairness. None of these proposals are complicated or controversial. Together, they help create a level playing field for more American families.

On April 15th, same-sex couples across America will pay their state and federal taxes--as will millions of heterosexual married couples. Passing the provisions of "Family Matters" will be a very positive step toward ensuring equal rights, and equal compensation for equal contributions. Quite simply, "Family Matters" would offer all Americans the unfettered opportunity to spend a life doing meaningful work and accumulating assets to reach a point of financial independence--regardless of where they live.

Comments

[ProudLiberalDan]

My personal belief is that anywhere church and state merge, it has been bad for both. I'd get rid of government recognized "marriage" and have Civil Unions for everyone, straight and gay.

I think the "state" should get out of the "marriage" business and leave that as a church ceremony. I think the state should only be recognizing "civil" unions, not "religious" ones.

This is why we need federally recognized Civil Unions for everyone.

It has to be Federally recognized.

However, there is no chance of that happening, so therefore we need federally recognized gay marriages. Having legal gay marriages hasn't harmed Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Spain or Canada one iota. Numerous other countries now have a Civil Union or Partnership.

As the Democratic nominee, if Obama will not come out for gay "marriages", then he needs to at least come up with federally recognized Civil Unions as the interim step.

I've seen bi-national couples split in two, forcing Americans to leave their country. It's nonsense. Treating people fairly and with dignity and respect should be just part of being an American.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

please understand that states are not in the religious marriage business. States issue licences for CIVIL Marriage. Civil marriage is recognied by the state whether anyone ever steps foot inside a church. No church ceremony is required for a legal Civil marriage.

The religious BIGOTS who are against marriage for gays would be just as against civil unions for gays. they do not want any legal recognition of GAY couples in any way. The majority of states that have adopted constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage have also banned civil unions and anything that approximates the benefits of marriage for gays.

It isn't the word marriage that these BIGOTS object to. It is any legal recognition for gay couples at all.

[missmarg]

And what about all the bi-national same-sex couples? I've read two reports, one states 35,000, and the other 27,000 couples in the USA where one is a citizen and their partner is foreign born. Only way they can be together is work permits (hard to come by), or student visas -- neither is long term. Most of these couples are forced to hide their true identity. This has to be the cruelest basic rights not allowed to gays and lesbians. Immigration would not be that hard to work out. Just do what Canada does, demand photographs, notarized letters, proving the relationship.

It is an outrage that these couples are not only told their relationship is not good enough, but that they will be prosecuted if they marry abroad, as it shows intent of the foreign-born to not return to their country of origin according to visa requirements.

And yes, this is a sore subject for me, as it has torn my family apart.

[Knowbetter]

Idaho? WTF did you expect, guys? IT"S F*CKING IDAHO!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

it doesnt matter that it is Idaho. It's the company he works for that is causing the problem. Idaho can't stop a company from providing benefits to same sex couples if it wants to. The man worked for the same company in NJ and they were provided the benefits there.

I live in NC and the state doesn't recognie civil unions. But, the comapny I work for still offers benefits to same sex domestic partners.