scholarly journals The Moonscape of Tax Equality: Windsor and Beyond

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Infanti
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Human Relationships ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
Privileged Status ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
The U.S

108 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 110 (2013)This essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The essay is important because, while other federal laws will apply to some same-sex couples some of the time, the federal tax laws are a concern for all same-sex couples all of the time. The essay is timely because it addresses the recently issued IRS guidance regarding the tax treatment of same-sex couples. In this essay, I first describe the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, I turn to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply -- even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than fostering the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.

scholarly journals Big (Gay) Love: Has the IRS Legalized Polygamy?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Infanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Plural Marriage ◽  
The U.S

"93 North Carolina Law Review Addendum 1 (2014)Within days in December, a federal judge in Utah made news by loosening that state's criminal prohibition against polygamy and the Attorney General of North Dakota made news by opining that a party to a same-sex marriage could enter into a different-sex marriage in that state without first obtaining a divorce or annulment. Both of these opinions raised the specter of legalized plural marriage. What discussions of these opinions missed, however, is the possibility that the IRS might already have legalized plural marriage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last June in United States v. Windsor, which struck down section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In exploring that possibility, this essay continues my work analyzing the shortcomings of the IRS's implementation of the Windsor decision. The Secretary of the Treasury promised that IRS guidance would provide same-sex couples with "certainty and clear, coherent tax-filing guidance." To the contrary, I have explained that the IRS's guidance provides no more than the same veneer of clarity that DOMA did, because it leaves important questions unanswered, lays traps for the unwary, creates inequities, and entails unfortunate (and, hopefully, unintended) consequences. In this essay, I extend that analysis by explaining how ambiguity in the IRS's guidance may also have unintentionally opened the door to recognizing plural marriage for federal tax purposes."

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Frank ◽  
Bethany Moreton ◽  
Heather R. White
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sunday Morning ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The U.S

The lines seem so clearly drawn: A white evangelical minister stands in front of his California congregation on a Sunday morning. In one hand he holds a Bible. In the other is the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the country. “It’s time to choose,” he thunders to thousands of believers in the stadium-style worship center. “Will we follow the Word of God or the tyrannical dictates of government?” His declaration “This is who I stand with” is met with applause from the faithful as he dramatically flings the Court’s decision to the ground and tramples on it, waving the Bible in his upraised hand....

The 1990s, Fulcrum of Change: Politics and Culture

2021 ◽  
pp. 71-85
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Politics And Culture ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Don't Ask Don't Tell ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Military ◽  
Tv Show

In his campaign for president in 1992, Bill Clinton did something surprising: he advocated for gay rights. After winning the presidency, however, he was unable to integrate gay soldiers into the military as he had promised to do. Congress instead created a program known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which forced gay soldiers back into the closet. Congress also passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allowed states to continue to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. In 1997 television star Ellen DeGeneres came out as a lesbian both in person and in character on her TV show Ellen, becoming one of the most prominent out-of-the-closet gay people in the US.

Dropping the Other Shoe:Obergefelland the Inevitability of the Constitutional Right to Equal Marriage

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora Markard
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
The Other ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Road ◽  
Historical Reason ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Individual

After having invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court “dropped the other shoe” inObergefell v. Hodgesby declaring the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage at the state level unconstitutional. Written by Justice Kennedy, the majority opinion heavily relied on the dignity-bestowing character of marriage to show why this exclusion is so harmful. But this strategy comes with a cost: it inflicts a stigma even as it conveys recognition—a drawback that an equality analysis can avoid. Respondents had argued that opening marriage dangerously disconnected marriage from procreation, both the historical reason for and the essence of marriage. In finding that they had failed to provide evidence for the harmful outcomes they described, the majority not only provided the rational basis test with a new kind of “bite.” It also asserted that tradition or religious beliefs were not enough to justify exclusion. Once secular purposes define marriage and rational reasons are required to regulate access, the road to marriage equality opens wide. As the line of cases leading up toObergefellsuggests, and developments in Germany, Austria, and other jurisdictions confirm, equality works as a one-way ratchet—albeit without necessarily including polygamy and incest. Crucially, equality changes the focus: From an equality perspective, the harm lies not in the exclusion from a dignity-conferring institution, but in the suggestion that the excluded group is not worthy of participating in it and does not deserve the recognition and benefits associated with it. Instead of aspiring to achieve dignity through marriage, in this view same-sex couples claim recognition as free and equal citizens. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation subsumes an individual under a group category whose purported characteristics are systematically devalued, thus refusing to appreciate a person as an individual. It is this denial of recognition that conveys harm to the dignity of the individual above and beyond the respective disadvantage suffered. Thus taken with equality, dignity does not have the exclusive effect it has in isolation, as struggling against degrading exclusion stresses common traits.

scholarly journals Making Migration Sexy: Immigrants in Same-Sex Couples in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Isaac Hoffmann ◽  
Kristopher Velasco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Social Acceptance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The U.S

As same-sex couples gain greater social acceptance and new rights, their numbers in the United States are rapidly increasing. Yet few researchers have studied immigrants in same-sex couples on a large scale. Using the American Community Survey from 2008 to 2019, this study compares immigrants in same-sex couples to corresponding different-sex couples in order to characterize and assess the scale of “sexual migration” to the U.S. Moreover, we evaluate how the policy environment regarding same-sex couples shapes migratory patterns. We find that, compared to different-sex immigrant couples, immigrants in same-sex couples come from richer, more democratic countries that are less represented in immigrant networks. Fixed effects models show that as origin countries become more LGBT-friendly, we see more LGB immigrants from those countries in the U.S. On the individual level, immigrants in same-sex couples are more likely to live in progressive U.S. states, an effect that increases in strength as migrants come from for more LGBT-friendly countries of origin. Our findings put into question dominant models of migration that emphasize economic and network effects, suggesting the importance of considering sexuality as well as political and lifestyle motivations more broadly.

Getting (Un-)Hitched

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-284
Author(s):  
Brook J. Sadler ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Although I concur that same-sex couples should have the right to marry if anyone does, I argue that civil marriage is an unjust institution. By examining the claims employed in the majority opinion, I expose the Court’s romanticized, patriarchal view of marriage. I critique four central claims: (1) that marriage is central to individual autonomy and liberty; (2) that civil marriage is uniquely valuable; (3) that marriage “safeguards” children and families; and (4) that marriage is fundamental to civil society.

A discussion of Stephen Macedo Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy & the Future of Marriage

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 797-798
Author(s):  
Jyl J. Josephson
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Road ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Future ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The U.S

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids legal discrimination against same-sex marriage. The decision sent shock waves throughout the country, with both supporters and opponents regarding it as signal of dramatic shifts in public opinion and a revolutionary development on the road to sex-gender equality. Just two days earlier, on June 24, 2015, Stephen Macedo’s Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage was published. Macedo has always worked at the intersection of legal theory, normative theory, and public policy, and Just Married offers a nuanced liberal democratic defense of marriage equality with striking resonance in light of Obergefell. We have thus invited a range of scholars on LGBT rights, and LGBT politics more generally, to comment on his book.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document