Legal Same-sex Marriage: The True Paperwork Reduction Act

The pros and cons of same-sex marriage have been debated endlessly, but there's one advantage that is routinely ignored: saving trees.

Yes, without all the cumbersome and repetitive paperwork same-sex couples now have to complete just to prove they are committed to each other, think of all the forests that could be left standing.

Here's just a sampling of the paperwork my wife and I have had to fill out in our nine years together, almost all of which would not have been required if we were just simply married:

- Registered domestic partnership. Twice. Once for the state, once for the city.
- Marriage certificates. Twice. 2004 marriage in San Francisco was ruled invalid; outcome of 2008 marriage is still pending CA Supreme Court review.
- Name change paperwork (plus court appearance).
- Paperwork adding her to the title of the house.
- Paperwork proving that we didn't have to pay transfer tax in our city when she was added to the title.
- Power of attorney for finances.
- Medical power of attorney.
- Paperwork to have me on her health insurance.
- Paperwork to tax her for having me on her health insurance.
- Paperwork to ensure that we are both considered equal parents to our daughter.

And halfway recognition of our relationship brings its own paperwork: because Registered Domestic Partners in the state of California must now file joint tax returns -- but because we're not allowed to file together federally -- we had to complete one federal return for me, one federal return for her, one joint dummy return to show what we would be paying the feds if our marriage were legally recognized, and one joint state return based on that dummy federal return. (A process that's particularly galling given that we can't, in fact, enjoy any of the over 1,100 federal benefits and protections available to married couples -- such as passing on Social Security benefits to the surviving spouse.)

The most recent spate of paperwork only added to the mess: because we are refinancing and my wife's name has changed, we needed to change how we hold title. Our choices: registered domestic partners or married couple? We are a legally married couple right now. We can legally check that box. But will we be able to do so in a month? Or would we have to change how we hold title yet again?

We were advised that while we could check the married couple box, it might set off red flags with the lender, forcing us to kill yet more trees to get it all straightened out (bad pun intended). It's an "insecure" way to hold title, said our escrow officer.

Which is the simplest statement about what's wrong with domestic partnership, civil unions, or any other consolation prize that isn't marriage: in the end, anything besides marriage is just plain insecure.

And a tree-killer.

(See this site for actions to protest the cost of being gay this tax season.)

Comments

[jccw]

Ellen Goodman has a piece on the same topic today in the Boston Globe at
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/17/a_strange_dual_citizenship_for_gay_couples/

She calls your situation a "strange dual citizenship" which is a pretty good way of putting it.

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Great essay! And we have this added twist of being married/not married/married in CA, but filing as Registered Domestic Partners. Oy, the headache.

I think most predictions are that we will remain married post-CA Supreme Court decision, but that Prop. 8 will also remain "valid." So this means that for at least the next few years until same-sex marriage becomes firmly legal in CA, we will be a weird blip, a footnote in history. We'll be our own cohort confusing every paper-pusher and rubber-stamper we meet.

[johnbdonovan]

Marriage has ALWAYS been a form of discrimination -- and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Unless society discriminates in favor of committed mothers and fathers, commitment tends to weaken and society breaks down as a system for supporting its newest members. The loose attitudes toward extramarital sex since the Sixties have resulted in a deficit of fathers, which correlates directly to criminality, teen pregnancy, and substance abuse. Special benefits for mother-and-father families should increase, not decrease.

[JohnBisceglia]

But every time one of us Queer Americans "follow the rules" and comply with this immoral, unconstitutional legal segregation (equal protection), WE ARE TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO TREAT US. The Q "community" enables this ugly segregation of families by NOT reacting with civil disobedience.

[Mike Pearson]

Amen! I just did our taxes in New Jersey, but we work in New York. We live in NJ and have a civil union. We can file joint in NJ, but we had to fill out 3 federal forms, 2 NY and 1 NJ. It was the bain of our existence for the last couple of months. You can hire someone to do them, but in all honesty, not many tax accountants are very schooled in how it works. After all this, I'm in the wrong business. I should be doing taxes for gay couples!

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, we pay extra to our tax preparer to file our joint Registered Domestic Partner taxes for the state. I don't begrudge him the money -- he is a great queer guy who really gets it and knows what he's doing -- but I do begrudge the whole system!

[thebigbike]

Don't forget your Wills which you must have to ENSURE that in spite of the intent of California registered Domestic Partnership ( and hopefuly permanently California marriage) that should (G-d Forbid) one of you die , your property would pass to the surviving partner should your "blood kin" choose to assert a claim. Even with a registered domestic partnership, the inheritance of property from one's partner who died without a will can get even more problematic in the battle between a bereaved "partner" and greedy kin as to who can afford the more high powered lawyer.........

[dm10003]

large corporations are socially progressive to get and keep the best talents.

but another reason big companies are inclusive is something this article hints at; they know which way the winds are blowing and want to make their own lives easier -- they don't want the competition to get the best people and they don't want legal suits for discriminating.

this is a language financial conservatives understand, cost effectiveness!

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for writing dm10003 and whitney and angela. Yes, I do think it's telling how many big corporations do provide same-sex benefits.

As for paying taxes for being on my partner's health insurance: I am no tax specialist and do not claim to be, but nonetheless here's one more thing I wish: that the imputed income my partner has to pay for having me on her health insurance could somehow be offset by a pay differential. That her employer would be progressive enough to say "hey, it's not fair that you get taxed for your partner's health benefits, when straight married couples don't."

Yes, that would mean people with same sex partners would get paid more, and there'd be a huge outcry about how unfair that is -- but think about it this way: right now we are in effect paid less because we have to pay taxes on imputed income, AND we don't get access to all those 1,100 benefits.

Just something to think about.

[Whitney Moss]

"Paperwork to tax her for having me on her health insurance." This one - well I cannot respond without using a lot of 4-letter words. What BS!

[Angela White]

And paperwork is the worst!

[Dynamohum]

This is really a very interesting and great perspective with a one man, one woman, we're partners twist. Maybe the homophobes will learn something. It is the perfect way to make someone who is close minded see exactly what it is like to have no rights and protections. Thank you....a very thoughful article.

[johnbdonovan]

It's not a matter of being homophobes but of being childophiles. Let's hear it for Moms AND Dads -- together. That's how the human race works!

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for writing. But John, many of us have children. I do. Think about how much more secure every child would be if their parents were able to be securely married.