Box Turtle Bulletin

Brazil Supreme Court legalizes civil unions

From Veja (translated by Google)

Most justices of the Supreme Court (STF) has recognized civil unions between homosexuals, ensuring these couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Of the eleven ministers of the Supreme Court, six had already voted in favor of the thesis until late afternoon on Thursday. If no request for examination and any minister to change the vote, the trial is set. Only José Antonio Dias Toffoli, former attorney general of the Union and who starred in one of the processes in question, did not participate in the discussion by declaring itself prevented.

The deciding vote was the former Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes. He agreed with his colleagues in saying that, even without words, in the constitutional text, stable homosexual marriage, the civil rights of same-sex couples can not be denied. “The fact that the Constitution deal with the union between man and woman does not mean the negative union between persons of the same sex.” Given the lack of definition on the issue in Congress, Gilmar Mendes was critical to the inertia of deputies and senators, as a plan is under discussion at home, without success. “What is required is a minimal model of institutional protection to prevent discrimination. This protection should be done by the Congress.”

A quote worth memorizing

During the debate over whether to propose a ban on marriage equality, Minnesota Representative Steve Simon (D) asked his fellow legislators to take a moment at some point to seriously consider how the biological contributions to the development of sexual orientation impact the morality of their opposition to gay rights.

Simon then put it “into the vernacular” and asked a question that goes to the very heart of religious objection:

“How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?”

A very important, very timely endorsement

A New York newspaper has endorsed the push for marriage equality in New York State:

Homosexuality is a human reality. Most New Yorkers have a friend, colleague or relative gay. It’s time to give these people the opportunity to develop family and community building. Our government should not be in the business of telling people who fall in love or marry.

We expect our senators to act boldly this time, to put their religious beliefs and political interests aside, and really work for all New Yorkers. Our children and grandchildren will remember this legacy and will be grateful.

A bit old hat, really. And is it all that surprising that a NY newspaper endorses same-sex marriage?

But this endorsement is different. Because it actually reads:

La homosexualidad es una realidad humana. La mayoría de los neoyorquinos tienen un amigo, colega o pariente gay. Es hora de darles a estas personas la oportunidad de desarrollar familia y construir comunidades. Nuestro gobierno no debe estar en el negocio de decirle a la gente de quien enamorarse o con quien casarse.

Esperamos que nuestros senadores actúen valientemente esta vez, que pongan sus creencias religiosas e intereses políticos a un lado, y que realmente trabajen para todos los neoyorquinos. Nuestros niños y nietos recordarán este legado y se lo agradecerán.

and comes from El Diario La Prensa, the largest and oldest Spanish-language daily newspaper in New York City. And it comes a week before State Senator Rubin Diaz holds his rally of Hispanic evangelicals to demand that gay couples remain disadvantaged.

Diaz has tried to appeal to identity politics in his fight for inequality, seeking to equate Hispanic ethnicity with anti-gay animus and give it a sheen of defensibleness based on culture. El Diario’s editorial destroys that illusion.

Minnesota Senate Committee Advances Marriage Ban

In a strict 8-4 party line vote, the Minnesota Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee approved a measure to put a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage before voters in the November 2012 elections. The bill now goes to the Senate rules committee.

Marriage bills proposed in Brazil and Uruguay

On Top Magazine is reporting that two South American neighbors will be reviewing laws to legalize same-sex marriage. The largest, Brazil, currently has no nationwide recognition of same-sex couples.

A group of 171 senators and deputies in Brazil have joined a “Parliamentary Front for the LGBT Community,” which will promote the legalization of gay marriage, Spanish news agency EFE reported.

The effort is helmed by Senator Marta Suplicy and Congressman Jean Wyllys, Brazil’s first openly gay lawmaker.

The discussion surrounding this endeavor will well serve gay Brazilians as it introduces and debates the concept of equality. But Uruguay, sandwiched between Brazil and Argentina, where marriage equality is the law, may have a greater chance of success. It was the first to adopt nation-wide recognition of civil unions.

A bill that would legalize marriage between two members of the same sex is expected to be introduced in Uruguay next week, La Nacion reported.

The bill was drafted with the help of the gay right group Ovejas Negras (Black Sheep) and is being sponsored by Representative Sebastian Sabini of the Frente Amplio, the nation’s ruling party.

The bill also proposes to reform divorce in the country, making it easier for couples to end their marriage.

Tax time and total confusion

It is tax time and across the country individuals and families are finalizing their income tax returns and trying to makes heads or tails out of Alternative Minimum Tax and Capital Loss Limitations and Net Operating Loss Carrybacks and Itemized Deduction Phase Outs and a whole host of other intricacies of adherence to the federal tax code.

But for same-sex couples, the confusion starts with Box One, filing status. What is the filing status of a same-sex legally married couple?

Well, that depends. There simply isn’t a clear answer.

Due to DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government currently takes the position that you are roommates – legal strangers – who share residency but not lives. Theoretically, one might expect to see rental income or gift tax or other such items on returns, though, to their credit, the IRS does not apply such rigidity to either gay or straight cohabiting couples.

So the final answer (so far) is that you file as single (or as head-of-household if you qualify). But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you report your income as though you were single.

Because the IRS, while not recognizing your marriage, may recognize your legal right to your spouse’s income. And that depends on where you live.

If your state has community property laws, then you have a claim on half of the income of your heterosexual spouse. But some states have also applied community property laws to same-sex relationships, whether called marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. In California, for example, one half of a same-sex couple has a legal claim on half of her partner’s income whether she is in a domestic partnership or got married in the 2008 window.

And the IRS is now taking the position that if you have a claim on it, you need to report it. So in California, for example, each half of the partnership would claim half of the partnership’s community property income (being careful to exclude income that does not fall into this category) and prepare income tax returns as “Single” to report their share. In Massachusetts, not a community property state, the same couple would segregate their income and prepare “Single” income tax returns reflecting only their own income.

All of which is thrown out the window for state return preparation. Each state defines who is or who is not married and requires those couples which they recognize as married to file as “Married”. Some, like California, require that domestic partnerships or civil unions prepare “Married” returns.

But that isn’t the extent of it. Most states don’t duplicate the entire return calculation process but instead start with the federal numbers and make adjustments. So while you cannot file a joint federal return, in order for the state to have a starting point, you must prepare a joint federal return so as to come up with the numbers you would report were you allowed to do so.

Thus, depending on where you live, your income tax return for the state could be filed with a different status than your federal income tax return, your state return could be based on a federal return which will never be filed, and your federal return may or may not recognize a portion of your income as jointly earned though reported as though single.

Confused? You should be.

So now a group of married same-sex couples have started a campaign to Refuse To Lie about their marriage status. As they are legally married in the eyes of their state, they find it offensive – legally and morally – to be forced to say that they are not. And just as there is an inherent indignity to being forced to annually tick a box labeled “I’m inferior”, so too is in unconscionable to force citizens to tick a box that is premised in that concept. (New York Times)

“More people are refusing to lie on those forms, even though the government is telling them to,” said Nadine Smith, executive director of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Florida, who plans on filing a joint return with her wife, Andrea. “It would be both dishonest and deeply humiliating to now disavow each other or our marriage and declare ourselves single on our tax form.”

This is not a new concept. I’ve heard of tax rebels who have, for years, flouted the tax code and took a stand for equality. Such efforts tend to be ineffective and costly. The IRS is not a compassionate or forgiving institution.

But this year may be different. The Defense of Marriage Act has been declared to be in violation of the US Constitution, the Justice Department has determined it to be indefensible, and there is no presumption that the SCOTUS will uphold the law. So it is not unreasonable to act accordingly (though the campaign notes that you must act in a manner that is in conformity with the IRS’s procedures for challenging positions, not haphazardly).

My best guess is that if and when DOMA is overturned, it will not be retroactive. In other words, for 2010 you will most likely be required to file as strangers even if DOMA is tossed out. But those who challenge the provision probably will not face punitive action or be accused of tax fraud.

Should you decide to prepare your taxes using Married status, the smartest action would be to place the difference in taxes in a trust account to be released upon determination of the DOMA challenges and be very very careful. And don’t expect your tax accountant to go along with you; accountants are increasingly being held liable for their client’s positions.

But there are other options that I find both safe and smart.

The “Refuse to Lie” Web site warns same-sex couples of the risks of filing jointly, and explains different options to both adhere to the law while expressing that they disagree with it. One way to do that would be to put an asterisk by the “single” box, and then indicate at the bottom of the tax form that you are “only single under DOMA.” Another option, the site says, is to attach a note with a similar message.

They can’t punish you for “providing a full disclosure” and such a stand can give you something to talk about around the water cooler. (And never underestimate the world-changing power of water-cooler conversation)

Poll: 74% of Catholics Support Recognizing Same-Sex Unions

The Public Religion Research Institute has released a poll that probably won’t come as much of a surprise among Catholics. According to the poll, nearly three quarters of Americna Catholics favor legal recognition of same-sex union, either in the form of civil unions (31%) or marriage (43%) Only 22% of Catholics oppose all legal recognition of same-sex couples. When same-sex marriage is explicitly defined as civil marriage, support shoots up higher: 71% then support same sex civil marriages “like you get at city hall.”

This shouldn’t be surprising for two reasons. First, Catholics have now had 43 years of clergy demanding that they refrain from artificial birth control, a teaching that the average Catholic in the pews has roundly rejected. And having rejected one teaching that the Church considers a key teaching on sexuality, they are more than willing to reconsider other teaching as well. Besides, longtimes Catholics will tell you that the image of the meek Catholic obediently following church teaching died out generations ago, at about the same time the Catholic Church stopped being an immigrant church and became, at least for American parishes, an American church.

There’s something else going on as well. Catholics are very aware of the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. As every Catholic will tell you, you can be married at city hall or at an Elvis chapel in Vegas, but the marriage doesn’t exist as far as the Church is concerned. And as divorced Catholics know very well, you can have all of the divorce decrees and marriage licenses you can collect from civil authorities, but no priest will marry you unless the Church decides you’re qualified to be married.

The conservative CatholicVote.org thinks they have an answer for these poll results:

Who is driving the numbers behind the headline: “Catholic support same-sex marriage”? Catholics who are almost never in the pews. And yet, when it comes to the headlines, Catholics who can’t even trouble themselves to get to Mass with any sort of regularity are lumped in with faithful Catholics who actually try to follow the teachings of the Church.

Nice try, but that’s not the whole story. Sure, the poll leans heavily toward Catholics who go to church less than once a week (61% of all respondents), but look at the results among regular churchgoing Catholics. The percentage who supports either marriage or civil unions still reaches 64% among Catholics who attend church weekly or more often.

The report (PDF: 351KB/23 pages) does not describe the poll’s margin of error, sample size, or methodology.

CO Senate Republicans split on gender lines

Colorado Independent:

Senate Republicans delivered Pat Steadman’s same-sex civil unions bill to the Republican-controlled House Thursday with momentum and a message. Although the twelve Republican men in the Senate voted against it, the three Republican women in the Senate voted in favor of the bill, making the case to leaders of the Republican-controlled House to take up the bill with good faith and allow it to move beyond committees and onto the floor of the House for a vote.

Is anyone besides me starting to notice a trend?

Liechtenstein parliament approves same-sex partner recognition

The tiny alpine country of Liechtenstein has made good on its promise to recognize same-sex couples. In a unanimous decision, the parliament approved the establishment of partnerschaftsgesetz, a legal status akin to the registered partnerships in its neighbors, Switzerland and Austria. (Queerblog.it)

By unanimous vote of twenty-one members present, the Parliament of the Principality of Liechtenstein has approved on second reading the law that allows civil unions between same sex. The first steps began in about 2009 when Aurelia Frick, Minister of Justice, announced that it will present a bill to that effect.

The law does not mirror marriage, disallowing adoption or reproductive rights, but does provide parity for inheritance, social security law, in occupational pension plans, the Immigration and Naturalization law, tax law and other public law.

The parliament also amended the bill to bring forward the start date from January 1, 2012 to September 1, 2011. However, within 30 days after the publishing of the law, opponents may subject the law to referendum.

Prior to passage, Catholic Archbishop Wolfgang Haas conservative asserted pressure saying, “the practice of homosexuality is objectively a grave sin” and that recognition of same-sex couples would be a scandal. Catholics and conservatives fought the bill in the public forum through letters to the paper and debate. But while about 80% of Liechtenstein’s residents are affiliated with the Catholic Church, the parliament’s unanimous decision – in a country where legislative representation is about 1 to 1,400 – may suggest little appetite for an *anti-gay referendum.

(much thanks to Jutta Zalud for bringing this to our attention)

* It is worth noting that Switzerland, Liechtenstein’s neighbor with which they are closely politically tied, is the only country to enact partner recognition through referendum, passing a similar registry in 2005 by 58%.

Iowa’s NAACP president: civil rights for me, but not for thee

Rev. Keith Ratliff, pastor of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines, is the president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP. He’s also an anti-gay activist who takes his opposition to gay equality so seriously that in last year’s gubernatorial election he endorsed Republican Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to equality his signature position.

Ratlif had a few choice things to say this week to a rally organized by Vander Plaats to stir up anti-gay sentiment. (Iowa Independent)

“For the few victories that the gay community is claiming,” Ratliff said, “they have won it mostly based on the hijacking of them trying to parallel themselves on the backs of the civil rights movement, here in America.”

He said their is “no parallel” of what an “insult” it was for them to compare themselves with the civil rights movement.

Ratliff, of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines, said not being able to marry a person of the same gender was no where near what it’s like to be denied service in a restaurant or hotel for the color of their skin.

How sad that Ratliff has been subjected to the insult of gay people thinking that they were equal to him. But while it may make me seem uppity, perhaps Mr. Ratliff needs a history lesson.

You see it was in 1965 that the state of Iowa banned racial discrimination in service at restaurants and hotels, but it was perfectly legal to deny gay people those exact same services until four years ago.

And there are more than a few readers who could give personal testimony to experiencing exactly the same treatment to which Ratliff thinks there is “no parallel.” Except they had no recourse. It was perfectly legal.

I don’t pretend that racial discrimination is identical to anti-gay discrimination. There are differences and subtleties that are better discussed by those who have experienced both and I’ve heard good argument why either was painful than the other. Nor do I deceive myself into thinking that racism ended in Iowa in 1965. However, I do know that civil rights are those to which each person is entitled from their government without arbitrary denial and that discrimination is ugly and cruel.

And I know that anti-gay bigotry looks just like all other bigotry: the smirk which says that the most despicable and characterless of the “acceptable” race or gender or religion or orientation will always be better than you based on a scale that has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with unearned presumptions of superiority.

Yet while it is foolish and pointless to pit victims of bigotry against each other as though injustice and indignity against one is acceptable because someone else ‘had it worse’, if Ratliff’s wants to compete in the Oppression Olympics on “not being able to marry” and “being denied service in a restaurant or hotel” then he loses and the gay community takes gold. In our lifetime, we’ve known both.

A man and a man on Mann

Congrats to the residents of the Isle of Man. (BBC)

Gay couples on the Isle of Man will get the right to a civil partnership after a new law was signed in Tynwald, the island’s parliament.

It gives them the same rights as married couples regarding inheritance, pensions and tax allowances.

Which brings the British Crown Dependency into alignment with the UK.

Maryland’s equal marriage bill does NOT pass

In a legislative body with 98 Democrats and 43 Republicans, in a state that already recognizes same-sex marriages conducted next door, supporters of the Maryland marriage equality bill were unable to round up 71 votes. (WaPo)

The effort to legalize gay marriage in Maryland died for the year Friday after supporters said they could not find enough votes to pass the measure in the House.

House leaders avoided a final vote on the bill and returned it to the House Judiciary Committee after it became apparent they did not have the 71 votes needed for approval. The bill to make Maryland the sixth state to allow gay marriage had already passed the Senate, and the governor said he would have signed it.

Boehner Announces Defense of DOMA

TPM reports that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has issued a statement announcing that the House will intervene as a third party defendant in court cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. TPM quotes from the statement:

“Today, after consultation with the Bipartisan Leadership Advisory Group, the House General Counsel has been directed to initiate a legal defense of this law,” Boehner said in the statement. “This action by the House will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”

Of course, the president didn’t determine the law’s unconstitutionally unilaterally. The administration instead determined that they could not defend the law’s constitutionality based on the facts and heightened scrutiny. The administration also threw some bait in Boehner’s direction, pointing out that the House was perfectly within its rights to argue in court that that the law did not result in discrimination against LBGT couples. Boehner dropped the “only interested in the budget” charade to take the challenge. This should be fun.

The Hill reports that the action was taken based on a party line vote following a thirty-minute meeting, with Boehner joining House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) supporting the move. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) voted no.

Baltimore Raven calls for marriage equality

Yes! This is a welcome image and message at this critical time.

Maryland House moves closer to marriage; NOM offers bribe for votes

Today the Maryland House of Representatives took a step closer towards passing marriage equality. (DelawareOnline)

The House advanced the bill today on a voice vote.

Gay marriage supporters rejected four amendments to the measure — any of which could have sunk the bill’s chances this year — including one which would have put the issue on the ballot in 2012.

The measure —which would make Maryland the sixth state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples — now moves to a final vote in the House, which could come as soon as Thursday.

In response, the National Organization for Marriage has publicly offered a bribe to legislators: If you vote the way we want, then we will spend a million dollars on your reelection.

The National Organization of Marriage today announced that it will form the “NOM PAC Maryland” in the state. NOM pledges to spend at least $1 million in Maryland to support Democratic State Legislators who cast their votes to defend the traditional marriage and oppose any Republican Legislators who vote to redefine marriage.

I’m not sure, exactly, how that differs from an illegal bribe; it ties one specific vote to a promise of cash. But I’m sure NOM wouldn’t care one way or the other about the legality of their action.