Same-Sex Marriage Debate Goes to Maine

In a few days, Maine voters will decide whether or not to repeal their new same-sex marriage law.  If they choose to keep it, the state will be unique for upholding the law via popular vote.  The issue – of civil rights and family – provokes hand-wringing and loud speeches on both sides of the ballot. 

We’ll start in 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex couples from receiving federal rights and benefits.  DOMA also (this is possibly the biggest kicker in the whole debate – a total bane to gay marriage supporters, and the saving grace of its opponents) defined marriage, at the federal level, as a union between one man and one woman.  An idea wrought with intensely personal spiritual values, “marriage” is culturally and linguistically more significant than “civil union.”  Cue disagreement and polarity, even within each individual group. 

Then, there are the little things.  States can independently allow same-sex unions to occur, but couples cannot assume their rights to transfer across state lines.  If a couple moved from Massachusetts to Iowa they could reasonably assume to retain their marriage license and benefits, but would have to abide by Iowan nuances of the law.  But a move from Massachusetts to Wyoming would be saying bon voyage to the union’s legality.  Cue annoyance.

Couples in a civil union must file a joint state tax return, but each must file for federal taxes as a single person.  In addition, married couples can transfer assets and wealth without incurring penalties.  Same-sex partners in a civil union may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.  Cue frustration.

Traditional marriages have a huge advantage in social security benefits.  If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor has a right to social security payments based on the earnings of the married couple.  As a federal program, couples in same-sex marriages or civil unions are deemed ineligible.  Cue indignation.

What’s going to happen?  Does going forward mean expanding the rights available to those engaged in the one-man-one-woman formula of marriage to homosexual couples?  Does it mean expanding the rights of civil unions, and waiting for its ideological value to grow over time?

Please leave a comment below.

Subscribe to LegalCast: E-NewsLetter from LegalFish

Comments

[Melanie V.]

[Couples in a civil union must file a joint state tax return, but each must file for federal taxes as a single person.]

That just makes absolutely no sense to me! Meh.

[Adrienne]

This is such a powerful topic right now. And, I think an even larger question is if the rights of some are disenfranchised/lost, then does that limit the rights of all?