Doe 1
John Doe 1
Professor Lynde
English 110
25 November 2012
To the Benefit of All
Many people find themselves in serious and committed relationships during the course of
their lives. Certain formal engagements- marriages, domestic partnerships- afford the individuals
involved legal benefits. These benefits make it easier for the couple to manage situations such as
raising children, managing finances, and passing along property that arise within serious
relationships. Yet the current situation is such that not all of the varieties of couples formed in
the United States are eligible to enjoy such privileges. Homosexual couples cannot jointly file
taxes, establish common property, take advantage of certain insurance policies, or do a number
of other household tasks to the same degree of efficiency as heterosexual couples. This handicap
is due mainly to the fact that marriage is not formally available to homosexual couples at the
federal level and within most states. Reasons against changes to this situation are almost entirely
focused on personal, subjective, and arbitrary moral positions, none of which address the
mechanics of life. The United States should enact a legal remedy that would allow homosexuals
who wish to commit to a relationship to enjoy benefits equal to those for heterosexual couples in
the same position.
The United States Constitution opens with a paragraph that includes this statement: "in
Order to... promote the general welfare" (Patterson 633). The notion of welfare, what is good for
individuals, is very broad. It is not explicitly defined within the Constitution. Rather, the political
processes of over two-hundred years have developed concrete elaborations of what the U.S.
Doe 2
federal government considers productive for the general welfare of the citizens comprising the
U.S. One elaboration concerns privileges, benefits, and rights that are available those who are
married, or to people in a registered domestic partnership. The concept of welfare was employed
to the idea of two people attempting to amalgamate their lives together. Out of this came the
various advantages for married couples. Taking an objective stance it is clear that the operative
idea in the construction of these advantages was not any single notion of marriage. However, the
idea was that of two people in a relationship. People who are attracted to members of the same
sex can and do form relationships of two people. So, from a technical viewpoint, such
individuals should have access to the privileges defined for married couples at the federal level.
Married couples can readily make advantageous claims when filing taxes. The
instructions for IRS form 1040 state, “For federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal
union between a man and a woman as husband and wife” (13). This document goes on to state,
“A husband and wife filing jointly report their combined income and deduct their combined
allowable expenses on one return” (13). In many situations, this is more advantageous than the
only option available to homosexual couples: filing as a single taxpayer. For example, IRS form
1040 allows a spouse to be selected as an exemption, which will result in at least a $3,700.00
reduction in the overall tax liability. An additional handicap on homosexual couples applies
when they reside in states recognizing community property and community income. IRS
Publication 555, when describing what qualifies as community property or community income,
uses the following criteria: “That you, your spouse (or RDP [registered domestic
partner]/California same-sex spouse), or both acquire…” the assets in question (3). California is
included because it is the only state that recognizes community property and same-sex marriage.
Yet for all other community property states homosexual couples are denied the savings
Doe 3
associated with the community property filing status. Clearly, there is biased treatment of
homosexual couples in the United States that is institutionalized.
Ending a serious relationship is often a cumbersome process. Tax ramifications, in some
cases, outweigh the emotional toll involved. As Robert Wood describes in his article "Biggest
Injustice...", ".. in some cases, unmarried couples trying to untangle joint assets might consider
getting married just so they can then qualify for the benefits of a tax-free divorce!"
Homosexual couples currently have no such refuge. Moreover, it is difficult for homosexual
partners to economically transfer property between themselves. Consider this fact pointed out by
Wood: for married couples there are no taxes on the property or money transferred between
spouses, but if one wanted to transfer assets to someone who is not a spouse, this person is
limited to $13,000 each year in tax-free gifts. This really becomes a burden for homosexual
couples wanting to share the expense of a home. During both the acquisition and sale of a
property, homosexual couples are faced with large tax bills.
Arguments that point out ways in which homosexual couples can obtain the same
benefits as married couples exist. An article in O, the Oprah Magazine, discusses how
homosexual couples can take joint ownership of a domestic property in order to share the
associated costs. The author, Suze Orman, explains the particulars, which include having a
lawyer draft a legal agreement, setting up living revocable trusts, and strategically purchasing
term life insurance . For the vast majority of people, these remedies are out of the question
financially. The cost of retaining a good lawyer to perform such work easily runs into the
thousands of dollars. It is also clear that the procedures themselves are cumbersome since they
do require expert legal help. Heterosexual couples face no such obstacles.
Doe 4
Understanding the predicaments that homosexual couples face requires a look at the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is federal legislation passed in 1996. Amy Feldman
states that, "Because of DOMA you[homosexual partners] can't file your federal income tax
return jointly, even if you are married by state standards." The consequences of this touch
aspects that arise in nearly all serious relationships. Feldman describes how this limits
homosexual couples with children when computing child tax credits because it is not possible for
both partners in the couple to be legal guardians of the same child simultaneously. The disparity
between people who are married and homosexual couples extends to health benefits. Suppose
that there is a lesbian couple and that only one of the women works. The woman who works
receives medical benefits from her employment that cover her partner. Unfortunately, this
becomes a burden since the benefits for the non-working partner will be taxed at the federal level
as income, according to Feldman. The fact that DOMA conflicts with many state and federal
statues is evidence of its biased roots. The U.S. Congress passed this legislation due to pressure
from a constituency that was fearful of same-sex marriage. It is impermissible to think that
Americans will allow themselves to be frightened of a harmless concept forever.
Such scenarios show that the wall separating homosexual couples from married
heterosexual couples discriminates on non-moral grounds. Morality, however, is important. One
group, TFP Student Action, has published an online article that highlights ten reasons why
homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry. Their position relies upon religious
references that are not universal to all, which is common to many opponents of homosexual
relationships. TFP Student Action explains that "...it [marriage] was established by God in
Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve" (10). This is not a statement that all religions
would accept. One may argue that religions hostile to one another share the common disdain for
Doe 5
homosexual relationships. This does not express the authority of any higher power, but it does
show a that reasoning stems from a personal dislike of homosexuals. Denial of rights in
appeasement of animosities did not last in America with regard to slavery, civil rights for
African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics, or for the denial of women’s suffrage. These
movements succeeded because they were driven by the urge for people to improve their
conditions in a peaceful manner, and America should begin to consider what forms a successful
gay rights campaign can take. Due consideration must also be given to the separation of church
and state in the U.S. This ideal is expressed in theory within the U.S. constitution and it has been
affirmed by many courtroom controversies. No legal grounds exists for subjecting the U.S. to the
religious viewpoints of any group.
Within TFP Student Action's article lies the most objective reason for denying
homosexual marriage. This reason states, “It [homosexual marriage] defeats the State’s Purpose
of Benefiting Marriage” (7). During the explanation, the group claims, “It [homosexual
marriage] is not entitled… to the protection the State extends to true marriage”, presumably
because "This [marriage] aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident
interest of the State" (7). This leaves unaddressed a number of questions. It does not consider the
fact pointed out by Rom that "more and more children are born outside of marriage" (8). Nor
does TFP Student Action's position consider that having children is a personal choice and
"heterosexual couples have no need to prove that they are willing and able to have children as a
condition for obtaining a marriage license" (Rom 8). There is also no way for opponents of
homosexual relationships to show that the benefits married couples are entitled to are by virtue
of these couples having children. Extension of benefits to heterosexual couples is based upon the
Doe 6
recognition that relationships involve an intertwinement of two peoples' lives, which requires
special forms of economic relief from the government.
Clearly, the pursuit by homosexuals to be able to marry is opposed fiercely by many
people based upon religious or traditional viewpoints. Yet consider that many homosexual
couples wanting to marry have no direct intentions on redefining marriage. They simply want to
make conducting their personal affairs easier and to bring a feeling of dignity to their
relationship. It is possible to define a legal status for homosexuals, and term it something other
than marriage that meets these aspirations. After all, contemporary tax, financial, and civil
systems did not exist in their current forms during the times many point to as defining the
traditional marriage. Rather, marriage was identified as a demarcation that should precipitate
certain benefits within these systems. As written in The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, "... if the
definition of marriage in the United States has been a constant, views about marriage and
practices within marriage have been constantly evolving" (Rom 6). So it is possible that the
United States could accommodate homosexual couples seeking equal economic rights.
A comparison of two questions is in order. The first question is: how can homosexual
couples be allowed to experience the benefits that married couples enjoy? The second question
is: how should homosexual couples be given economic benefits equal to those for married
couples? These two questions phrase the controversy along the two main lines of divide. The
first question would be asked by those who do not find offense with the concept of same-sex
relationships, who do not feel that the personal and private actions of homosexuals will define
relationships for all people. To say it another way, the first question does not consider
homosexuality a defect. The second question, conversely, would be asked by an individual who,
by default, places homosexuality as a characteristic belonging to the handicapped. Since the
Doe 7
partners in a homosexual relationship are surely misguided, they should not be allowed all the
freedoms afforded to normal heterosexual couples. Thus, it is within reason that homosexuals do
not have the same opportunity to enjoy economic benefits as do heterosexuals. An objective
approach to deciding which of two questions to answer first examines which question is of a
subjective nature. Clearly, the second question, which views homosexuals as a class of people
entitled to only what heterosexuals allow, is based upon an opinion. Here is not the place to
examine the merits of such an opinion, it is only necessary that we identify it as such. Then it
becomes clear that the first question is the one to be answered. Fortunately, the answer is
contained in the question itself: simply allow partners in a homosexual relationship to claim the
same benefits as married couples.
To be sure, it would be necessary to define exactly how partners in a homosexual
couple could demonstrate a commitment similar to marriage between heterosexuals. For this, it
may be helpful to examine the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 No 147 (the Act). The Act is a
piece of legislation in New South Wales, a state in Australia. It uses the term "de facto
relationship" and defines this as "two adult persons: (a) who live together as a couple and (b)
who are not married to one another or related by family." Then, for those in de facto
relationships, economic benefits that assist the partners are extended. In one swoop the Act
makes clear that marriage is still a separate entity, but not the only entity that affords couples the
rights to critical benefits. Patterson explains how such a technical solution has been achieved
within the U.S. as he writes, "In 2000, Vermont became the first state to legalize the civil union
of same-sex couples, thereby granting them the same rights under Vermont law as opposite-sex
couples have" (179). A mere definition is all that it would take for the U.S. to provide
homosexuals the same opportunities to pursue happiness as those available to married couples.
Doe 8
It is to the advantage of all within a society for each member to conduct their affairs as
logically as possible. People in making decisions are influenced by the opportunities afforded to
them. Government policy is a very real factor that can drastically alter such opportunities. A
reality in which there exist homosexual couples who confront the same challenges as
heterosexual couples must be addressed. In order to improve the pursuit of happiness for a
significant part of American society, homosexual couples should not be left out of the realm of
benefits available to married couples.
Doe 9
Works Cited
"10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed." TFP Student
Action. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
Feldman, Amy. "Newly Married Gay Couples Face Tax Landmines." reuters.com. New York: 27
Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
New South Wales. Parliament. Property (Relationships) Act 1984 No 147. NSW Website: NSW,
30 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
Orman, Suze. "Owning Property Together." Oprah.com. Hearst Magazines, May 2007. Web. 26
Sept. 2012.
Patterson, Thomas. We the People. 9th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Rom, Mark. "Introduction." The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage. Ed. Craig Rimmerman and
Clyde Wilcox. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. 1-38. Print.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 1040 Instructions 2011.
Washington: GPO, 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Publication 555. March 2012.
Washington: GPO, 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
Wood, W. Robert. "Biggest Injustice of Denying Same-Sex Marriage? Tax-Free Divorce."
Forbes.com. Rich Karlgaard. 5 May 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.