Connect with us

America Rejoices On News All Same-Sex Marriages Will Now Be Recognized By IRS, HHS

Published

on

Almost no one gets married for tax purposes. People marry for many reasons — almost always love, some for stability, some even out of tradition — taxes are rarely, if ever, a reason people marry. In fact, some couples actually, sadly, divorce to increase their access to life-saving benefits. But when the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, yes, the IRS, announces that it will now recognize all legal marriages regardless of the couple’s place of residence, that is a tremendous move forward for equality.

Previously, the argument has been that only states have the right to declare who is and who is not legally married — whose marriages the state will recognize. When the Supreme Court essentially struck down DOMA in June, it was assumed that the federal government would recognize same-sex marriages that their home state recognized.

Now, that’s changed, as the IRS announced today it will recognize all legal marriages — including same-sex marriages — regardless where the couple calls home. So if you married in Provincetown, but live in Tennessee, the federal government will still recognize your marriage. Today, in a similar move, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it will recognize all legal marriages — including same-sex marriages — based on the “place of celebration” — based on where a couple is married — to determine Medicare benefits eligibility.

In other words, the federal government is making it clear that same-sex marriages are no different from opposite-sex marriages, and it will recognize them all equally, regardless of how the couple’s home state behaves.

So, America, on this eve of the Labor Day holiday weekend, is rejoicing.

Here are some responses:

NYC Speaker Christine Quinn:

“Today, the federal government has brought our nation one step closer to full equality for all people. The Treasury Department and IRS’ announcement that they will now recognize all legally married same-sex couples for federal tax purposes, even in states that have not yet granted their citizens the right to marry, will increase equality across America.

“No one should be deprived the federal protections of marriage because of who they love. Today’s ruling affirms what we have always known – that all love is equal, and must be treated equally in the eyes of the law. I thank Edie Windsor, whose courage and strength paved the way for today’s important ruling and the Obama Administration for recognizing that all people are equal.”

Garden State Equality Executive Director, Troy Stevenson:

“While this is great news for couples who have been married in the 13 states that recognize full marriage equality; let us be clear, New Jerseyans should not be required to cross state lines to be afforded the dignity of marriage. This decision by the IRS makes it crystal clear that civil unions are not now, and never will be equal to marriage.”

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin:

“With today’s ruling, committed and loving gay and lesbian married couples will now be treated equally under our nation’s federal tax laws, regardless of what state they call home,” said Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin. “These families finally have access to crucial tax benefits and protections previously denied to them under the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.”

“We urge all federal agencies to the greatest degree possible to join the Treasury Department and the IRS in recognizing the legal marriages of all same-sex couples,” continued Griffin. “No family should have to worry about losing important federal rights and benefits, simply because they live in a state that doesn’t recognize them as equal under the law.”

Freedom to Marry founder and president Evan Wolfson:

“This announcement makes today a day of celebration and relief for married same-sex couples all over America. At long last, the IRS will treat them as what they are: married. Freedom to Marry commends the administration’s swift implementation of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling for federal equality in an area that will have a direct, tangible impact on families’ financial health.

“The fact that this new respect applies only to married couples – not those joined by domestic partnerships or civil unions – highlights the need for an America where everyone can marry the person they love in any state, and have that marriage respected at all levels of government.”

PFLAG Executive Director Jody M. Huckaby:

“The announcement today by the U.S. Department of Treasury and IRS that same-sex married couples will be treated the same as all other married couples for federal tax purposes, regardless of where they reside, is a huge step forward for equality for our LGBT loved ones. It is just and fair treatment for these loving married couples and their families to have equal standing, rights, responsibilities, and protection in the eyes of our federal government.

“PFLAG National and its members and supporters will continue to urge all federal agencies to follow the lead of those which have already taken steps to equally recognize and respect all legally married couples and their dependents. We will work fervently toward full federal understanding that without exception love is love, family is family and marriage is marriage.”

Family Equality Council

“This announcement is yet another giant step forward for our families,” said Gabriel Blau, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council. “The Federal Government will now acknowledge same-sex couples, and their children, as a family under the tax code, regardless of their zip code.”

“This is a significant win for the millions of our families who work hard, pay taxes and deserve to be recognized equally by the Federal Government. Once again the Obama Administration has demonstrated that they value the lives and contributions of the 3 million LGBT parents in the US raising 6 million children.”

ACLU:

“This welcome clarification provides fair and consistent treatment for all legally married couples across the country,” said James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “The federal government is right to recognize that people’s marriages shouldn’t dissolve when they cross state lines.”

Image by Jamison Wieser via Flickr

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Reality Problem’: Columnist Says Trump ‘Isn’t Even Trying’ to Honor His Promises

Published

17 hours ago

on

December 9, 2025

By

A Wall Street Journal opinion columnist is blasting President Donald Trump’s policies and remarks, warning that the affordability issue “could sink” his presidency.

Trump is underwater on his handling of inflation, and will deliver a speech in Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening that the White House says will be “a positive economic, a focused speech, where he talks about all that he and his team has done to provide bigger paychecks and lower prices for the American people.”

But columnist William A. Galston says “there’s a problem: Mr. Trump isn’t buying it. He has denounced the focus on affordability as a Democratic ‘con job,’ a ‘scam’ and a ‘hoax.'”

READ MORE: ‘Loyalty to the President’: Former Civil Rights Staff Expose Trump-Era ‘Purge’ Inside DOJ

“Starting the day I take the oath of office,” Trump told voters last year on the campaign trail, “I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again.”

Galston noted: “The American people were listening, and they expect Mr. Trump to honor his promises. Right now, they couldn’t be blamed for thinking he isn’t even trying.”

And he blasted the president for ignoring the situation.

“’The reason I don’t want to talk about affordability is because everybody knows it is far less expensive under Trump than it was under sleepy Joe Biden,’ he said at a recent White House event. In other words: Keep moving, folks, nothing to see here.”

READ MORE: ‘Appearance of Quid Pro Quo’: Sotomayor Confronts GOP Lawyer in Campaign Finance Argument

Galston noted that economist Stephen Moore, an outside Trump adviser, “says that the president’s low standing on the affordability issue is a ‘messaging problem.’ It isn’t; it’s a reality problem.”

Americans know the problem when they see that some items “are especially unaffordable,” Galston added.

He pointed out that the cost of shelter — rents and mortgage — are up 3.6% over the past year.

Home insurance premiums, he said, are expected to rise 8%. Electricity is up 11% since January, the month Trump took office.

By “rescinding duties on some agricultural goods last month, including beef, bananas and coffee, Mr. Trump tacitly conceded that tariffs put upward pressure on prices,” Galston wrote, adding that removing those tariffs is not enough.

READ MORE: ‘Upend Political Map’: Trump Aides Expect Supreme Court Rulings to Help GOP in Midterms

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Loyalty to the President’: Former Civil Rights Staff Expose Trump-Era ‘Purge’ Inside DOJ

Published

19 hours ago

on

December 9, 2025

By

About 200 former attorneys and staff from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are warning of the “near destruction of DOJ’s once-revered crown jewel,” and what they call Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “demand” for “loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

“For decades, the non-partisan work of the Civil Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has protected all Americans—especially the most vulnerable—from unfair treatment and unequal opportunities,” they write in a letter dated Tuesday. They added that “after witnessing this Administration destroy much of our work, we made the heartbreaking decision to leave—along with hundreds of colleagues, including about 75 percent of attorneys.”

Bloomberg Law reported on Tuesday that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will now focus only on “intentional discrimination,” and not “policies that may appear neutral but disproportionately affect racial minorities and other protected classes.”

READ MORE: ‘Appearance of Quid Pro Quo’: Sotomayor Confronts GOP Lawyer in Campaign Finance Argument

In their letter, the former attorneys and staff specifically state that they left the Civil Rights Division “because this Administration turned the Division’s core mission upside down, largely abandoning its duty to protect civil rights,” and that it “achieved this goal by discarding much of the Division’s most impactful work.”

The group blasted Attorney General Bondi, who, they said, “issued a series of memos that subverted the Division’s mission in favor of President Trump’s political agenda.”

“One stood out: it insinuated that DOJ attorneys were Trump’s personal lawyers, an assertion that struck at the heart of the agency’s independence. Bondi’s demand to us was obvious: loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

In another scathing section, they charged that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon “focused her efforts on ‘driving [the Civil Rights Division] in the opposite direction’ of its longstanding purpose.”

READ MORE: ‘Upend Political Map’: Trump Aides Expect Supreme Court Rulings to Help GOP in Midterms

They allege she issued mission statements “that included fighting diversity initiatives instead of race-based discrimination, investigating baseless allegations of voter fraud rather than protecting the right to vote, and dropping any mention of the Fair Housing Act, a landmark 1968 law that protects Americans from landlords’ racial discrimination and sexual harassment.”

And they charge that the administration “demanded that we find facts to fit the Administration’s predetermined outcomes.”

“Having no use for the expertise of career staff, the Administration launched a coordinated effort to drive us out,” they wrote. “The campaign to purge staff culminated in Dhillon encouraging everyone to resign after a period of paid leave while threatening layoffs if enough staff did not accept.”

Christine Stoneman, one of the letter’s signatories, told Bloomberg Law, “It is a sad commentary that in this anniversary of the Civil Rights Division, the Trump administration has chosen to eliminate a regulation that, for nearly 60 years has helped root out illegal race and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal funds.”

READ MORE: White House Tees Up Trump Speech With ‘Con Artists’ Blast at Democrats

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Appearance of Quid Pro Quo’: Sotomayor Confronts GOP Lawyer in Campaign Finance Argument

Published

21 hours ago

on

December 9, 2025

By

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted loosened campaign finance rules during oral arguments in a case that would allow political parties to receive even more donations.

Calling it “the most consequential campaign finance-related dispute” since Citizens United, Axios explained that “the justices will decide whether to eliminate a federal law that limits the amount of money big-money party committees can spend in direct coordination with favored candidates.”

Appearing skeptical that the Court should rule in his favor, Justice Sotomayor walked Noel Francisco, the attorney for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, through some top donors to both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates while warning about the appearance of quid pro quo.

READ MORE: ‘Upend Political Map’: Trump Aides Expect Supreme Court Rulings to Help GOP in Midterms

“Your answer is suggesting to me that every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Justice Sotomayor said. “You’re telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up, yes, in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminishing another voice, that of the party.”

“Now, you want to now tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party,” she explained. “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good.”

Disagreeing, Francisco replied, “Your Honor, I personally never think free speech makes things worse. I think it virtually always makes it better.”

Without mentioning any donors’ names, Justice Sotomayor then said that “in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton set up a joint victory fund with the DNC, 32 state parties, which allowed a single donor to give up to $356,000.”

“In 2024, Donald Trump’s campaign launched a joint fundraising operation with his own leadership PAC, the RNC, and 40 State Republican Party committees, that saw donations of up to $814,600,” she said, noting, “I’m not picking on Donald Trump.”

READ MORE: White House Tees Up Trump Speech With ‘Con Artists’ Blast at Democrats

“Joe Biden’s victory fund, together with the DNC and the party committees of all 50 states, um, raised up to $1.3 billion,” the justice added.

She warned that “once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.”

Francisco disagreed again.

“You mean to suggest,” Justice Sotomayor replied, “that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration, does not give the appearance of quid pro quo?”

“Your Honor,” Francisco responded, “I’m not 100% sure about the example that you’re looking at, but if I am familiar, if I think I know what you’re talking about, I have a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery, which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that.”

Sotomayor warned, “Maybe not the salary, but certainly, the lucrative government contracts might be.”

READ MORE: ‘I Didn’t Say That You Said That’: Trump Backpedals as ‘Obnoxious’ Reporter Corners Him

 

Image: Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.