After reading both the New York Times article  by Tara Bernard and the comments that followed, I had a mix of emotions, laughter and anger.

On the one hand it’s comical.  Many same-sex partners, whom are married and living in states (CA, NV, WA) that recognize their marriage or Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP), will actually benefit from the new tax laws. Those couples where one partner  earns significantly more then the other, could take advantage of the Combined Community Income (Form 555) filing. They would total their income, split it, and report half each thereby putting the higher earner in a lower tax bracket.  Ms. Bernard used an example of one couple, with one partner earning $82K per year and the other not earning at all, splitting the earnings on separate returns generating a $4800 in tax savings.

I HAD  to see the language on this IRS form. So I pulled it up on the net and right on the cover of IRS Form 555 it states:

This publication is also for registered domestic partners (RDPs) who are domiciled in Nevada, Washington, or California and for individuals in California who, for state law purposes, are married to an individual of the same sex. For 2010, a RDP in Nevada, Washington, California (or a person in California who is married to a person of the same sex) generally must follow state community property laws and report half the combined  income of the individual and his or her RDP (or California same-sex spouse.These rules apply to RDPs in Nevada, Washington, California in 2010 because they have full community property rights in 2010. California RDPs attained these rights as of January 1, 2007. Nevada RDPs attained them as of October 1, 2009, and Washington RDPs attained them as of June 12, 2008. For years prior to 2010, RDPs who  reported income without regard to the community property laws may file amended returns to report half of the community income of the RDPs for the applicable periods, but are not required to do so. If one of the RDPs files an amended  return to report half of the community income, the other spouse.  RDPs (and individuals in California who are married to an individual of the same sex) are not married for federal than tax purposes. They can use only the single filing status, or  the head of household filing status.  

When I see language like this I begin to panic and break into a cold sweat. Certainly Turbo Tax can’t handle this (at least not yet). And I usually use Turbo Tax to do my relatively easy return. Luckily, for tax purposes anyway, I reside in AZ and can’t file my taxes this way.

For the couples living in CA, WA and NV, who do chose to file in this manner, I can’t help wondering if their tax savings won’t go an Accountant who now has to muddle through this maze. And I also can’t help thinking how much time is spent by government workers making up new tax rules that would be totally unnecessary if same-sex marriage were recognized by the federal government. At least President Obama has taken the first step major step towards marriage equality in his position on DOMA. But until same-sex marriage is permitted in all 50 states I hope gay couples in these states will take advantage of whatever tax break you can get.

Well, we are halfway through President Barack Obama’s first term, and how is our leader doing with respect to current issues of the LGBT community? This book by Tracy Baim, examines Obama’s promises, positions and progress (or lack thereof) on issues important to most of his LGBT constituents. The book will be available on October 1, 2010 and I am anxious to read it.

Baim is joined by some of the most respected LGBT journalists, bloggers, and activists from around the US. The book includes articles by Chuck Colbert, Lisa Keen, Karen Ocamb, Bob Roehr and others; essays by Wayne Besen, Sean Cahill, John D’Emilio, Kerry Eleveld, Rod McCullom, the Reverend Irene Monroe, Michelangelo Signorile, Pam Spaulding, Timothy Stewart-Winter, Andrew Tobias, and Phill Wilson; and dozens of interviews with Chicago and national gay movement leaders. Senior editors are Toni Armstrong Jr., Jorjet Harper and William B. Kelley.

Recently a video by GetEqual portrayed the frustration of many with the current administration’s lack of progress on promises made. DADT just suffered a defeat this week when Democrats failed to advance a bill which would have included a conditional repeal of the policy which prevents gay and lesbian soldiers from serving openly in the military. Allison Hewitt, legislative director for the Human Right campaign fund, stated that this lack of progress by the current administration will likely cause a disconnect between the administration and LGBT voters which will result in a lack of political support and campaign funding. Go figure.

I know that this President inherited many issues that affect this country. Wars, an enormous deficit, soaring unemployment, a near depression to name a few. These issues impact all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation. I do however, believe that DADT, ENDA and DOMA are issues that are not as complex as the economy and foreign policy, which are affected by global influences many times out of our control. I personally believe that repealing DADT,DOMA and passing ENDA could be promises kept, and hope Obama is the man to keep them.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed and signed into law in 1996, was challenged in court by the state of Massachusetts and attorneys for GLAD, Gays and Lesbians Against Discrimination on behalf of eight same gender couples married in MA and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual couples in Massachusetts.

 Yesterday, federal judge Joseph Taura ruled in favor of these couples, who had argued that DOMA was unconstitutional and prevented them from receiving the same benefits received by heterosexual married couples in Massachusetts. Read the entire ruling. In his ruling Judge Taura stated “Congress undertook this classification (marriage only for heterosexual couples) for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit.” 

Kent Greenfield, who specializes in constitutional law, told the Associated Press if a higher court with a broader jurisdiction heard the appeal and upheld the decision, the impact could spread.

“One thing that’s going to be really interesting to watch is whether the Obama administration appeals or not,” he said.

If the ruling were upheld by the Supreme Court, for example, gay marriage could win constitutional protection – much like interracial marriage did after the 1967 ruling that declared a Virginia ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional, and in effect ended all similar bans in other states.

Finally, a ruling that tells it like it is. DOMA is discriminatory. If the U.S. a country where “all people are created equal” its laws should uphold that principle.