Does Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriage: Fill & Download for Free

I'm in favor of same sex marriage. But I post on topics like these because I don't think all proponents of SSM publicly acknowledge all the ramifications.1. If marriage is “just a contract” and If my job lets my spouse get insurance I could marry 10 people and they'd all get insurance. And maybe kick back some of the savings to me?I'm all for polyamory or adult adoption or various structures beyond the nuclear family. I simply don’t buy the specific argument that marriage is a private contract. It’s a public agreement which is publicly subsidized in a variety of ways because it is beneficial to society. (And there’s nothing wrong with including same sex individuals in that arrangement.)2. Marriage allows some benefits not typical to a normal contract. For example, a person isn't required to testify against their spouse. No other contract allows that protection. Similarly, no other contract allows someone to be on your insurance or receive survivor benefits.3. Legalization of Same Sex marriage will likely increase the number of people who are in same sex relationships. I know we've been told over and over that sexuality is really binary, but the best data I can see is that there are far more people who are bisexual than strictly gay. In other words; homosexual relationships are a choice for a significant portion of people, even if their underlying sexuality is not. Of course, it's very non-politically correct to say this since the 'born gay' argument is viewed as the vehicle by which gay civil rights should be realized. I support people's sexual freedom and personal safety. But internationally, the STD rate for all STDs is higher among men who have sex with men. Correlation is not causation, of course. But this is a correlation which deserves further exploration.4. Legalizing Same Sex marriage means promoting Same Sex marriage through various laws. Many states have laws requiring that marriage be taught in schools. This doesn't mean 'teaching what marriage is.' It means advocating that people should get married. And the same is true for many of the benefits that same sex couples desire; they originated as attempts by the state to promote marriage. I'm fine with this. The Same Sex Marriage movement seems to be, in part, a reaction to the AIDS crisis. Prior to that there were certainly same sex couples but there didn't seem to be as strong a push in large parts ofthe gay male community for committed relationships. So the state has a compelling interest to promote same sex marriage. But the response in California to the Prop 8 people's claim that "same sex marriage will be promoted in schools" was not "yes, same sex marriage should be promoted in schools" which would have been an honest response. The response was "this is a lie. This will not happen." Which is, of course, dishonest.5. If same sex couples have fewer children (which may or may not happen) then this will impact the birth rate in a way that people will consider either positive or negative depending on their view. Japanese leaders are currently troubled because their lowered birth rate means that their current working population cannot provide the promised social services for their aging population. And this will happen in America soon as well, demographically, without the immigration of a large number of young, educated workers. Such workers, even if they could be brought in, would likely be from cultural backgrounds which are less tolerant of same sex relationships, thus creating a negative feedback loop.As I said, I support Same Sex marriage. It's hell for a person to do their taxes in a state that recognizes SSM and then file federally. The IRS has only recently caught up. I want people's relationships to be legally recognized if that’s what they want. I believe people in a close relationship should be allowed to care for one another. I just feel that a lot of the rhetoric used to support SSM is dogmatic and reactive rather than rational and honest.

DOMA does not recognize same sex marriages as being legal for Federal purposes, including for tax purposes. Therefore, an investor must ignore his spouse's accounts under the law.There are a hodge podge of different ways that individual states deal with this issue, so it is definitely the case that an investor may need to track cost basis separately, e.g. in the state of Oregon, even though they do not offer same sex marriage licenses, they require a joint tax return as long as you are Registered Domestic Partners.(As an aside: To make matters more confusing, in this scenario the couple may or may not be legally married. If the couple is legally married in another state, but not RDPs in Oregon, then they file taxes as Single for the state. If the couple is not married in another state, but are RDPs in Oregon, then they file as "married, filing singly/jointly" depending on preference.)The easiest way to avoid this confusion is to have a joint brokerage account.Interestingly, the implication is that unmarried gay couples may be able to "pull one over" on the IRS and not pay taxes on wash sales (e.g. Spouse 1 sells a stock for a loss, and therefore gets to write off the loss; on the same day, Spouse 2 buys at the current price, but there is no wash sale rule in effect to stop the losses from being written off).But, this is effectively a moot point because this would be part of a "pre-arranged plan." The IRS would be able to see the closeness of the transactions, and it would be difficult to prove that there was no pre-arranged element to the transactions.

In addition to my general excitement about the ruling....It means more even research and confusing paperwork!The Federal government recognizes the legal standing of my DC marriage (Hooray!)[That's me and my wife getting married three years ago, btw.]However, Virginia's -- my home state -- constitutional same-sex marriage ban is still in effect. (Boo!)So, I don't automatically get all of the 1,000 rights and benefits of marriage as established by the Federal government. Because many of them depend on the standing of your marriage in your domicile.For example:The Department of Defense has gone on record saying they would recognize all legal marriages for employee benefits, regardless of where you reside. (Yay for Gays!)Immigration statues tend to refer to the legal standing of the marriage in the location where it was celebrated. (Yay for Gays!)But Social Security laws refer to the legal standing of your marriage wherever you reside. (Boo! Those of us in states with same-sex marriage bans still won't have access to this.)And the IRS historically *tends* to use the legal standing of your marriage wherever you reside.... but they will need to issue formal guidance on how those legally married, living in states with same-sex marriage bans should file. (Boo! Gays will have to wait and see.)