Connect with us

Politics

U.S. gov’t to recognize same-sex marriages for tax purposes

Even legally wed couples in non-marriage equality states will be eligible for tax benefits

Published

on

Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade
Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

The U.S. government will treat married same-sex couples as equal in the aftermath of the court ruling against DOMA (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).

The legal same-sex marriages of gay couples — whether or not they reside in a state that observes their union — will now be recognized for tax purposes in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced the change on Thursday in a joint statement with the Internal Revenue Service.

“Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide,” Lew said. “It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve. This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”

The decision, which brings the Obama administration into compliance with the ruling against DOMA, means gay married couples will be able to file federal taxes jointly each year. The announcement also means married gay couples be treated the same as opposite-sex married couples for income and gift and estate taxes.

These couples, according to the joint statement, will now be treated equally in terms of claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

LGBT advocates applauded the Obama administration for instituting the change, which they said would help bring relief to married gay couples throughout the country.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said the 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,” Wolfson said. “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.”

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, also praised the Obama administration for implementing the change.

“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,” Griffin said.  “These families finally have access to crucial tax benefits and protections previously denied to them under the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.”

The issue of unequal federal taxation for gay married couples was the reason why the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Plaintiff Edith Windsor, a New York lesbian, sued the U.S. government because she had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.

According to the statement, the federal government will now recognize for tax purposes any legal same-sex marriage — even if the couples resides in a state that doesn’t observe the union. However, the new policy doesn’t apply to domestic partnership or civil unions.

Troy Stevenson, executive director of the New Jersey-based Garden State Equality, said the decisions demonstrates why his state needs to enact marriage equality. New Jersey offers civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.

“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,” Stevenson said. “This decision by the IRS makes it crystal clear that civil unions are not now, and never will be equal to marriage.”

Additionally, gay couples may file an amended return if they feel they would’ve receive a refund in one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations. That means these couples generally can file a refund claim for up to three years in the past: 2010, 2011, and 2012. Under some circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, they may be able to seek a refund from an earlier time.

Further, gay employees who receive same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

Pending legislation in the Senate that would have eliminated the federal tax on employer-provided health insurance for same-sex couples is known as the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to the Washington Blade he welcomes the new policy from the administration, but still seeks passage of his bill cover individuals in civil unions or domestic partnerships.

“Today’s ruling is an important part of implementing the Supreme Court’s historic decision to overturn DOMA,” Schumer said. “I still strongly believe that couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships should receive the same tax treatment as all married couples and will continue to push for exactly that.”

Senior Treasury officials lay out new policy

In a conference call with reporters, senior Treasury officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, laid out the reasoning by which the administration determined that married gay couples living in non-marriage equality states would be recognized for federal tax purposes.

“We have a federal tax code that applies to all 50 states,” officials said. “The thought process was that from tax administration standpoint, it made sense to have rules to apply across the entire nation. So, same-sex couples that are married under federal law in one state should get similar treatment regardless of where they live. On the flip side, from the administration’s standpoint, it would be very difficult to administer a situation it was dependent on where a taxpayer lived on what the state was in that time.”

Officials said the reasoning was analogous to the administration’s previous determination that common law marriages, or some kind of irregular marriage, would be recognized as a union for federal tax purposes.

It’s possible that under some circumstances, married gay couples will have to pay more in taxes than they were paying with DOMA in place. Officials didn’t have an exact number for how many gay couples would pay more in taxes, but expected it would be proportionate to the number of straight couples.

While gay couples may file an amended tax return for up to three years in the past, officials said there’s no obligation to do so — even if they should have had to pay more in taxes under the new policy.

“It’s basically the taxpayers option to that, to go back and file an amended return,” officials said. “There are instances in which a taxpayer would find it advantageous to file an amended return claiming a joint filing status for a previous tax year, but it’s not a requirement.”

In the event that an employer offers domestic partner health benefits to gay employees, but doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, officials said federal tax immunity would also apply to these benefits. That would be a situation to similar to Walmart, which is set next year to offer domestic partner health benefits to gay employees in same-sex relationships, but won’t recognize same-sex marriages.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage

Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care

Published

on

Gender-affirming care activists outside of the D.C. Attorney General's office on Feb. 13, 2026 in support of care for trans youth. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.

The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.

The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.

The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.

“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”

Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.

“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”

“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”

This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.

In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.

For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.

Continue Reading

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”

“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.

Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.

In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.

In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.

In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.

Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.

Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.

He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.

This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.

In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.

The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.

The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.

The bipartisan vote was 212-217.

The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.

Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”

“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.

Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.

“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.

According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.

The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.

The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203. 

Continue Reading

Popular