Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

House gives gay Congressmen special rights

Timothy Kincaid

May 5th, 2011

One of the ironies of anti-gay antagonism is that it sometimes results in gay people being removed from provisions that are designed to eliminate abuse. Sometimes anti-gays are so determined to deny that gay people have real lives and real relationships that they are willing to allow gay couples (which don’t really exist, you see) to get away with behavior that would otherwise be banned.

From Roll Call

The House Ethics Committee has overhauled its instruction manual for completing annual Congressional financial disclosure forms, sidestepping a proposed provision that would have for the first time requested the spousal information of same-sex couples.

Under the heading “Same-Sex Marriages,” the draft version stated that “In 2009, there were a total of four states which issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. (New Hampshire and the District of Columbia began issuing such licenses effective in 2010). If you and your spouse were issued a marriage license by any of these states and were subsequently legally married in that state, you must disclose all required spousal information on your Financial Disclosure Statement.” The new instruction manual deleted this section entirely.

Members of Congress and certain staffers are required by federal law to report income, investments and liabilities. The source of spousal earned income — though not the amount — is requested on the annual disclosure form, and assets owned by the spouse must also be disclosed.

So legally married same-sex couples have special rights in Congress, the right to ignore disclosure laws.

Ironically, back in 2008 conservative Republicans were screaming their heads off about how Barney Frank’s relationship with a Fannie May executive was a conflict of interest. And they were right.

But now that it comes to applying the rules that Frank must comply with, they’re back to saying that his relationships are inconsequential and should not be treated like real heterosexual relationships.

Make up your mind, boys, you can’t have it both ways.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Leonard Drake
May 5th, 2011 | LINK

Be patient… I’m sure Barney will raise a storm with this indignation. As he rightly should. The hypocrisy of the social conservatives is astounding.

customartist
May 6th, 2011 | LINK

In addition to this, while DOMA disallows the Federal Government from recognizing Gay Marriage and Anything Like Marriage, the IRS sidesteps DOMA by acknowledging “Common Property Laws” (which exist because of Same Sex Marriages and Unions) in states such as California, by acknowledging THAT/Common Property status.

Wow! What a big distinction! “We’re not acknowledging your Marriage, just your property status created by your Californmia Marriage.

Using THIS calculation, shouldn’t the IRS also acknowledge the DEDUCTIONS & BENEFITS that are due to those same Couples? (without acknowledging the MARRIAGE for Goodness sakes!)

“Oh no! We can’t do THAT!”

Bottom Line:

The Fed can TAKE Gay Money but not extend Federal Benefits to Gays.

We Gays meet all of the criteria as a Suspect Class.

Timothy Kincaid
May 6th, 2011 | LINK

customartist,

The IRS’ recognition of community property income is a GOOD thing for most couples.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.