Skip to main content

Exactly one month ago, the Supreme Court declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Quickly, within hours, the impact was felt in several areas including immigration equality, federal benefits, and state and federal taxation for residents in Marriage Equality states.

First same-sex married couple to be approved for permanent resident visa
Immigration Equality
Benefits are granted to LGBT Federal Employees
Ohio recognizes a marriage from Maryland for a terminally ill man and his husband
PA AG won't defend state's marriage equality ban
PA issues first same-sex marriage license

And the IRS?   One month later... Crickets

Exactly one month ago, I asked my boyfriend / partner / roommate to get married.
He said, "Meh... Ouch!  You're hurting me!!  Stop!!!"
(The doctor said that the bruises from twisting his arm will go away eventually.)
And yet, despite my excitement and his ambivalence, the wedding plans remain on hold.  
I don't know what to do.

Do we go to California and have an amazing Napa Valley wedding?
Do we go to Washington?  Delaware?  Massachusetts?
Do we go to Canada?  France?  Mexico?  Brazil?
Do we go to Minnesota in September and take a risk that we'll get snowed in?
Do we go to Iowa and...  Wait... IOWA?

Should we go to Iowa and declare a common law marriage?  

We live in Texas (sympathy cards not required) and Texas recognizes common law.  So do Iowa, seven other states, and DC... only Iowa and DC recognize same-sex marriage. Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Montana, Texas and Utah don't.


The three elements of a common-law marriage are: (1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are married. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617. The public declaration or holding out to the public is considered to be the acid test of a common-law marriage.

There is no residency requirement for marriage in either Iowa or DC.

The IRS has a practice of using a Place of Domicile Rule for marriages, except Common Law marriages.  The IRS recognizes common law marriages based on the state where the Common Law marriage was first declared or formalized. If you are from Iowa, your common law marriage will still be recognized by the IRS for federal tax purposes regardless of where you currently live... if you're straight.

Note: Social Security Administration is another story.  SSA only accepts common law marriage based on your current residence.  

If we choose to be married via common law in Iowa or DC and live in Texas, the IRS should recognize that we're married. A fall wedding in Des Moines? Not my dream vision of the special day, but we can't afford to be single anymore.  

I want the federal tax benefits that have previously been given to only straight families.

"Teh Gay" tax has got to end in our household.  Last year, changing our tax returns from 2 singles to 1 married family would have saved our household $7,000. Seriously.. $7,000 is a lot of money... Just that one thing... $7,000... to be gay... seriously?

The IRS has been silent for a month.

From the IRS website:

IRS Statement on the Supreme Court Decision on the Defense of Marriage Act

We are reviewing the important June 26 Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act. We will be working with the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice, and we will move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 27-Jun-2013

Dear IRS - Make a friggin decision.
I need time to plan my fabulous wedding.
I need time to complete my gift registry (no toasters please).
I need time to find the venue in the right state or country or...
I need time to book a 2 hour layover in Souix City.

I've been paying $7,000 a year to be queer in the US.  
I'm done.  Finito.  The End.    T-t-t-that's all folks...

Dear IRS - Get off the pot!
Decide so I can get my finances in order.
Decide so we can get on with our lives.

Decide Already!

Originally posted to skip945 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:47 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.


OMG! Where should we get married?

55%16 votes
6%2 votes
17%5 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
6%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
6%2 votes
0%0 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  DOMA: September 21, 1996 - June 26, 2013 (12+ / 0-)


    Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

    by skip945 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:53:20 PM PDT

  •  For maximum effect: (8+ / 0-)

    DOMA Section 3: 9/21/96-6/26/13.

    When Section 2 falls, then it'll REALLY be time to celebrate (and you won't need to ask the poll question).

    Personally, my view is that the recent circuit court decision in Ohio is a shot across the bow of Section 2. Section 2 has no more legitimate reason to exist than Section 3 ever did. And when it's gone, all that'll be left will be Section 1: the definition of the act. THEN DOMA will burn in hell.

  •  eh, they'll get around to it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, Aunt Pat, FG

    it's not like they're terribly quick on anything.

    •  & I don't think taxes should hold anything up. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, FG

      I don't understand your common law argument.  It might work if you live in Iowa and if Iowa recognizes gay marriage, but I don't think you can go there and say, "we're married" and then return to TX.

      •  Why not... there is no residency requirement. (0+ / 0-)

        Common-Law Marriage in Iowa:

        Under Iowa Code for Revenue and Finance1, common law marriage in Iowa is legal for the purposes of filing income taxes (Administrative Rule, Chapter 39 [701]) and property tax exemptions (Administrative Rule, Chapter 73 [701]).

        Iowans may claim Common Law Marriage status if:

            a present intent of both parties freely given to become married exists
            both parties publicly declare themselves as common law married
            the parties have lived together continuously and consummated the marriage (no special time limit, however)
            both parties are legally capable of entering into a marriage relationship; that is, both are of legal age and neither is legally married to someone else at the time.

        For marriage certificate purposes:

            Only legally solemnized marriage ceremonies per the Code of Iowa, chapter 595, are registered as an Iowa vital event. Such marriages permit the parties to legally change their surname through the marriage certificate. Common law marriages are not registered in the Iowa vital records system.

        1 Adm. Rule 701—73.25 (425) Common Law Marriage

            A common law marriage is a social relationship that meets all the necessary requisites of a marriage except that it was not solemnized, performed or witnessed by an official authorized to perform marriages. The necessary elements of a common law marriage are: (a) a present intent of both parties freely given to become married, (b) a public declaration by the parties or a holding out to the public that they are husband and wife, (c) continuous cohabitation together as husband and wife (this means consummation of the marriage), and (d) both parties must be capable of entering into the marriage relationship. No special time limit is necessary to establish a common law marriage. This rule is intended to implement Iowa Code section 425.17 [Homestead Tax Credits and Reimbursement: Definitions].

        So based on this definition, I think I can fly into IOWA, call my husband my husband and go back to Texas.

        Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

        by skip945 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:15:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This needs to be fixed .. so we can all be equal. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, Aunt Pat, Steveningen, blueoasis

    With that being said, I still think my partner of close to 20 years (almost a decade cohabitating and the previous decade in a long distance relationship) will never marry me.  

    Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

    by emsprater on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:11:04 AM PDT

    •  I'm in the same boat... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but the financial impacts are too great...
      we need to be married for the tax benefits.

      All things equal, if they eliminated all the benefits to married couples, I'm not sure we would either...

      Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

      by skip945 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:17:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Out of selfishness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, sfbob, Dave in Northridge

    I voted for Napa so I can personally throw rice at your heads.

  •  yay Massachusetts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, sfbob

    please come here!  we are about to herald the 10th anniversary of Goodridge.  Celebrate with us!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:41:29 AM PDT

  •  Go to a marriage equality state and get a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    marriage license and then get legally married, forget about the IRS, they have no say in the matter.

    There is a heirarchy of authorities in law, though some agencies like the IRS twist them up a bit.

    The Constitution
    Supreme Court  cases
    The law, in this case, the Internal Revenue Code

    The code says that you can file jointly if you are married. It doesn't define marriage. Traditionally and historically that is up to the states to decide. By a vast number of decisions and such, statutory marriages (as opposed to common law) are binding upon the IRS.

    Then came DOMA. Pursuant to Doma Section 3, the IRS ruled that same sex marriages did not qualify for joint filing. but DOMA was struck down by the supremes. Any attempt by the IRS to continue to discriminate against statutory marriages would be likewise struck down. No IRS appeals officer worth his salt would uphold any such rule.

    IANAL, but the law is the law.

    s6DA@E:D>[ :E :D E96:C C:89E[ :E :D E96:C 5FEJ[ E@ E9C@H @77 DF49 v@G6C?>6?E[ 2?5 E@ AC@G:56 ?6H vF2C5D 7@C E96:C 7FEFC6 D64FC:EJ]&xC5;$F49 92D 366? E96 A2E:6?E DF776C2?46 @7 E96D6 r@@?:6Dj 2?5 DF49 :D ?@H E96 ?646DD:EJ H9:49 4@?DEC2:?D E96> E@ 2=E6C E96:C 7@C>6C $JDE6>D @7 v@G6C?>6?E] %96 9:DE@CJ @7 E96 AC6D6?E z:?8 @7 vC62E qC:E2:? :D 2 9:DE@CJ @7 C6A62E65 :?;FC:6D 2?5 FDFCA2E:@?D[ 2= 92G:?8 :? 5:C64E @3;64E E96 6DE23=:D9>6?E @7 2? 23D@=FE6

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

  •  Iowa ain't so bad. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, HeyMikey

    Here's the view from Mom's deck:

    Don't knock Iowa; it's a beautiful state that already has marriage equality.

  •  One thing that might be a factor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is the question of harm, and the fact that a serious harm makes a challenge to the mini-DOMAs in the states more likely to succeed.   So if the IRS changes the rule to "place of celebration" and a couple marries in Iowa but lives in Texas, it perversely makes it a bit more difficult for that couple to challenge Texas' DOMA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site