Thursday, October 29, 2009

Tallahassee approves domestic partner benefits, prohibts discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

City OKs benefits for same-sex couples


By TaMaryn Waters
TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER
October 29, 2009

City Hall chambers erupted in cheers and applause Wednesday after the Tallahassee City Commission unanimously voted to change its benefits policy to include same-sex and domestic partnerships.

That means significant others, no matter their sexual orientation, will be eligible for the same benefits currently available to married couples. The policy change also means a non-married couple that has been together for a number of years is eligible for benefits.

Lisa Pontoriero was among those visibly pleased by the vote.

Pontoriero, a dispatcher for the Tallahassee Police Department, was at the meeting with her partner, Melissa Yown, a TPD sergeant. Their two sons, ages 3 and 4, playfully chased each other as their parents reveled in what they saw as an overdue victory.

She said it's about respecting people's choices.

"It has taken a long time for people to understand that and kind of wrap their brains around the fact that we are people, too," Pontoriero said.

Commissioners also agreed to include sexual orientation and identity under the city's Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies and Procedures.

Travis Parsons, human-relations manager for the city, said Commissioner Andrew Gillum brought the issue up a few months ago during a meeting. Staffers were instructed to look into multiple sources regarding how others cities, including some in Florida, have incorporated a more inclusive approach to their benefits policy.

The city's change will allow city employees to include their partners for health, dental, vision and other benefits coverage.

"It's no different than adding new spouses or new children to their program." Parsons said.

When looking at employers across the country who provided domestic-partner benefits, Parsons said the percentage of employees receiving those benefits is between .5 percent to 2.5 percent. If that average were applied to the city of Tallahassee, Parsons said the benefits could apply to 12 to 57 people.

In an effort to avoid fraud, employees will need to provide some proof for the benefits, such as joint rental leases or a mortgage and joint-bank accounts.

Gillum shared his personal interest in this issue since he has a brother who is gay. And he said he often hears his brother's concerns about being treated as a "second-class citizen."

"I'm just very proud of the Commission today for considering this," Gillum said.

All of the commissioners showed support for this policy change.

"Quite frankly, I was surprised we had not done this a long time ago," Tallahassee Mayor John Marks said. "All individuals should be treated equally."

Commissioner Mark Mustian said, "Seems like basic fairness to me."

In other news, commissioners gave a green light for the city attorney to proceed with an eminent domain lawsuit against University Lofts, an apartment complex, to obtain property on Dewey and Virginia streets for a the Frenchtown storm-water improvement project.

The commission also approved $4 million to initiate a project that would replace a 36-inch diameter pipeline that caused significant sewage damage during Tropical Storm Fay.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Ted Deutch for Congress - GLBT Appeal for Volunteers and Contributions

Dear friends,

A few years ago a friend pulled me aside at an event at Compass, Palm Beach County's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community center. "Let me introduce you to Ted Deutch, a candidate for the Florida Senate, " he said. "You'll like him."

After talking for a few minutes about the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, Ted asked me why there was no statewide gay rights law.

My response was direct. "We do not have anyone in the Florida Legislature to effectively champion our cause."

Like so many other political candidates over the years, Ted assured me that if we helped get him elected, he could help make it happen.

But Ted actually meant it.

After his first trip to Tallahassee following his election, Ted told me how just much was needed in Tallahassee to move any gay rights legislation forward. "Most of the lawmakers just don't understand the problems the GLBT community faces," Ted told me. "This is going to be a long process and we need to start now."

Ted Deutch first introduced a basic gay rights legislation in 2007. Each year since, he has reintroduced a strong bill. As the 2010 legislative session draws near, Ted continues to work with Equality Florida, the ACLU of Florida, OUT, the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council and other organizations to ensure that this year's GLBT-inclusive civil rights bill will continue to move forward in the Florida legislature.

As a result of Ted's efforts, his gay rights bill was been approved by the Senate Commerce in 2008 with overwhelming bipartisan support. This year, the bill was co-sponsored by a record number of Florida lawmakers.

When Congressman Robert Wexler announced that he would be retiring in January, the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council urged Ted to run for Congress.

Within days of announcing his candidacy, Ted was formally endorsed by the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.

There is no doubt that once elected to Congress, Ted Deutch will carry on the tradition of his two predecessors - Congressmen Robert Wexler and Harry Johnston - by earning 100% voting records from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Here is where Ted Deutch stands on pending federal legislation of concern to our community.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and will co-sponsor laws to prohibit GLBT discrimination in housing and public accommodations.
  • Ted Deutch will vote to enact the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which will repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
  • Ted Deutch not only supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but also advocates for full marriage equality for gay and lesbians.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act which will provide family benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.
  • Ted Deutch will also help enact the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. When passed into law, this law will equalize tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Uniting American Families Act so that allow Americans in long-term relationships will be able to sponsor their partners for U.S. citizenship.
And rest assured, Ted Deutch will be one of the strongest supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives to increase funding for HIV/AIDS education, treatment and research.

Now that you know why the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council is supporting Ted Deutch for Congress, you need to help elect Ted to Congress.

Ted's campaign needs you to contribute today. Whether you can afford $10, $100, $1000 or more please click here to contribute.

Or mail your check to:

Ted Deutch For Congress Campaign Committee
20423 State Road 7, Suite F6-383
Boca Raton, Florida 33498

To volunteer online for Ted's campaign , click here.

Thank you in advance for supporting Ted Deutch, Democratic Candidate for U.S. house of Representatives - 19th Congressional District.


Judge Rand Hoch (retired)
President and Founder
Palm Beach County Human Rights Council


Paid for and approved by Ted Deutch for Congress Committee

Ted Deutch for Congress - GLBT appeal

Dear friends,

A few years ago a friend pulled me aside at an event at Compass, Palm Beach County's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community center. "Let me introduce you to Ted Deutch, a candidate for the Florida Senate, " he said. "You'll like him."

After talking for a few minutes about the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, Ted asked me why there was no statewide gay rights law.

My response was direct. "We do not have anyone in the Florida Legislature to effectively champion our cause."

Like so many other political candidates over the years, Ted assured me that if we helped get him elected, he could help make it happen.

But Ted actually meant it.

After his first trip to Tallahassee following his election, Ted told me how just much was needed in Tallahassee to move any gay rights legislation forward. "Most of the lawmakers just don't understand the problems the GLBT community faces," Ted told me. "This is going to be a long process and we need to start now."

Ted Deutch first introduced a basic gay rights legislation in 2007. Each year since, he has reintroduced a strong bill. As the 2010 legislative session draws near, Ted continues to work with Equality Florida, the ACLU of Florida, OUT, the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council and other organizations to ensure that this year's GLBT-inclusive civil rights bill will continue to move forward in the Florida legislature.

As a result of Ted's efforts, his gay rights bill was been approved by the Senate Commerce in 2008 with overwhelming bipartisan support. This year, the bill was co-sponsored by a record number of Florida lawmakers.

When Congressman Robert Wexler announced that he would be retiring in January, the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council urged Ted to run for Congress.

Within days of announcing his candidacy, Ted was formally endorsed by the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.

There is no doubt that once elected to Congress, Ted Deutch will carry on the tradition of his two predecessors - Congressmen Robert Wexler and Harry Johnston - by earning 100% voting records from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Here is where Ted Deutch stands on pending federal legislation of concern to our community.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and will co-sponsor laws to prohibit GLBT discrimination in housing and public accommodations.
  • Ted Deutch will vote to enact the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which will repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
  • Ted Deutch not only supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but also advocates for full marriage equality for gay and lesbians.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act which will provide family benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.
  • Ted Deutch will also help enact the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. When passed into law, this law will equalize tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners.
  • Ted Deutch supports the Uniting American Families Act so that allow Americans in long-term relationships will be able to sponsor their partners for U.S. citizenship.
And rest assured, Ted Deutch will be one of the strongest supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives to increase funding for HIV/AIDS education, treatment and research.

Now that you know why the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council is supporting Ted Deutch for Congress, you need to help elect Ted to Congress.

Ted's campaign needs you to contribute today. Whether you can afford $10, $100, $1000 or more please click here to contribute.

Or mail your check to:

Ted Deutch For Congress Campaign Committee
20423 State Road 7, Suite F6-383
Boca Raton, Florida 33498

To volunteer online for Ted's campaign , click here.

Thank you in advance for supporting Ted Deutch, Democratic Candidate for U.S. house of Representatives - 19th Congressional District.


Judge Rand Hoch (retired)
President and Founder
Palm Beach County Human Rights Council

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Twenty Senate Democrats Still Haven’t Co-Sponsored ENDA. That’s Embarrassing.Bill Nelson, Do you hear us?




Earlier this summer, Senators Jeff Merkley, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the U.S. Senate, a bill that (if passed) would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It's a bill that LGBT rights activists have pursued for more than a decade, and the general consensus is that the bill stands its best chance of passing during this session of Congress than at any other time in history.

Which is why it's downright surprising -- not to mention a little disappointed -- that 20 Democrats in the U.S. Senate haven't ponied up to support the bill. Among those Democrats include some of the stars of the progressive netroots, including Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Jim Webb, Sen. Kay Hagan, and Sen. Jon Tester. They oughta know better.

Chris Geidner over at LawDork breaks down the 20 U.S. Senators who haven't signed on to support the bill, and notes that it's disappointing more of these folks haven't joined the ENDA club. That includes Senators from states as blue as Wisconsin and Delaware.

It's no secret that LGBT issues make Democrats in some parts of the country squeamish. But come on, there's nothing squeamish about standing up against discrimination in the workplace. And if Senators like Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who come from some of the reddest territory in the country, can support ENDA, then there's no reason Claire McCaskill or Kay Hagan or any of the like can't, either.

Check out the 20 U.S. Senators below who've not come through on this issue yet, and if you haven't already, sign this petition on change.org encouraging the U.S. Senate to pass ENDA legislation this year. Passing ENDA is a priority for the Obama administration. But the U.S. Senate has to come through for the White House first, and it's our job to pressure them to do so.

(The 20 U.S. Senators, and their phone numbers, who have yet to sign on as a co-sponsor of ENDA.)

  • Baucus, MT – (202) 224-2651
  • Bayh, IN – (202) 224-5623
  • Begich, AK – (202) 224-3004
  • Byrd, WV – (202) 224-3954
  • Carper, DE – (202) 224-2441
  • Conrad, ND – (202) 224-2043
  • Dorgan, ND – (202) 224-2551
  • Hagan, NC – (202) 224-6432
  • Johnson, T., SD – (202) 224-5842
  • Kaufman, DE – (202) 224-5042
  • Kohl, WI – (202) 224-5653
  • Lincoln, AR – (202) 224-4843
  • McCaskill, MO – (202) 224-6154
  • Nelson, Bill, FL – (202) 224-5274
  • Nelson, Ben, NE – (202) 224-6551
  • Pryor, AR – (202) 224-2353
  • Rockefeller, WV – (202) 224-6472
  • Tester, MT – (202) 224-2644
  • Warner, M., VA – (202) 224-2023
  • Webb, VA – (202) 224-4024

Friday, October 9, 2009

NAACP Chair Julian Bond on Marching for LGBT Rights

Rights to be Won

By Julian Bond
The Washington Post
Friday, October 9, 2009

The civil rights struggle for legal equality in America today is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are. When lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans gather in Washington on Sunday for the National Equality March, they will invoke the unfulfilled promise in our Constitution that they, too, are due equal protection under the law.

I will join them in their march because I believe in their equality and believe in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that promises to protect it. I will join them because the humanity of all people is diminished when any class of people is denied privileges granted to others. I will join them because I know that when heterosexuals stand up and call for justice alongside their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters, the sooner justice will come.

In the ugly days of racial segregation, we had a dream. In August 1963 we came to Washington and declared that dream to the nation. Among us that day were LGBT Americans such as Bayard Rustin, the chief organizer of the '63 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. His homosexuality caused discomfort among some leaders of the day, and they played down his role in the march. But his heroic work has served as a model for civil rights organizers ever since.

We can no longer pretend that civil rights do not include rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Flimsy justifications for anti-LGBT bias are giving way to evidence that society is strengthened, not weakened, when LGBT people are given equal protection under the law. Where they are free to marry those they love, the sky has not fallen. Where they cannot be denied employment and housing simply because of who they are, the sky has not fallen. Where they serve nobly in the military without the burden of secrecy, the sky has not fallen. Rather, when all people are free to live up to their full potential, all of society benefits. Yet the United States still permits all these forms of discrimination.

And this is why we must march.

My friend Coretta Scott King said in 2000: "Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender or ethnic discrimination." That is why the NAACP resolved several years ago that "we shall pursue all legal and constitutional means to support non-discriminatory policies and practices against persons based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or cultural background."

The civil rights movement has achieved tremendous victories in past decades, and so we must again. The bias against LGBT people tolerated in this land, even at the end of the first decade of the new millennium, is ugly. We must create a better future, which will give us a past upon which we can look back and be proud. This weekend, those who believe in the ideals of our Constitution, those who have a dream that we will one day live in a nation where people will be judged not by whom they love but by the content of their character, and those who stand up for their ideals can be proud that they stood up and spoke out for justice.

The writer, a professor of history at the University of Virginia and distinguished professor in residence at American University, is board chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Monday, October 5, 2009

The High Price of Being a Gay Couple

Your Money

The High Price of Being a Gay Couple

The New York Times
October 2, 2009

Much of the debate over legalizing gay marriage has focused on God and Scripture, the Constitution and equal protection.

But we see the world through the prism of money. And for years, we’ve heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number — a couple’s lifetime cost of being gay.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s. So we gave the couple two children and assumed that one partner would stay home for five years to take care of them. We also considered the taxes in the three states that have the highest estimated gay populations — New York, California and Florida. We gave our couple an income of $140,000, which is about the average income in those three states for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18.

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.

Our analysis is not exact science. Not every couple would get married if they could, and others would not want to have children. We also made a number of assumptions based on average costs, life spans, state of residence and gender.

Our gay family is made up of two women living in New York State in a committed partnership that lasts 46 years, until the first partner dies at age 81. We ran two sets of calculations: in the one that turned out to be our worst case financially, one woman earned $110,000 and the other $30,000. In our second couple, both partners earned $70,000. We started running the numbers when both were age 35.

We received assistance from Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, who performed our tax analysis, which required simulating more than 900 income tax returns, in part because we followed the partners for 50 years. We also decided to run all scenarios across the three states so that the results would not be skewed by different state taxes. We’ve outlined all the detail in a workbook linked to the online version of this column.

As for the emotional costs of living with these added complexities, they can’t be quantified. Frederick Hertz, a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who works with same-sex couples, likens heterosexual marriage to being in the car pool lane. “Being part of a same-sex couple, it’s always stop. Wait. Pay a toll,” he said.

Harvey Hurdle, who lives in Philadelphia with his partner and their young son, said he was reminded of the disparities every time his Social Security statement arrived in the mail. “It’s pretty insulting,” he said. “It says your spouse would get this much. And it’s like, ‘Oh no he won’t!’ ”

Health Insurance

In our worst case, the lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners. So the lower earner had to buy coverage on the private market, while the higher-earning partner provided coverage for herself and the two children. All this cost the gay couple $211,993 more than their heterosexual married counterparts, who were able to take advantage of the higher-earner’s family coverage.

In our best case, health coverage cost the gay couple $28,595 more. We assumed both gay partners were eligible for employer-provided coverage. The higher-earner’s employer also provided domestic partner coverage, which covered her partner for the five years she stayed at home. When she returned to work, she used her own employer’s insurance.

Even though the couple paid nearly $29,000 more in premiums than an identical heterosexual married couple, it was cheaper than using domestic partnership coverage throughout because of the onerous tax implications, according to Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center. A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

Social Security

All our hypothetical individuals started collecting Social Security when they were 66. Same-sex couples are not entitled to a variety of Social Security benefits, including spousal benefits (heterosexual spouses can receive up to 50 percent of a spouse’s benefits while the spouse is alive, if they are higher than their own); survivor benefits (surviving spouses can receive their deceased spouse’s benefits in lieu of their own, if they are higher); and a flat death benefit of $255.

In the worst case, the gay partner who earned $30,000 could not receive higher spousal benefits or survivor benefits from her partner’s much higher earnings record. Nor was she entitled to the death benefit. In total, the gay women collected $88,511 less in Social Security than a similar heterosexual couple. Some couples might try to buy life insurance in an attempt to replace the benefit.

In our best case, when the gay partners had largely identical incomes, neither was at a huge disadvantage because they ended up with about the same monthly benefits. So the only extra benefit a heterosexual married couple received was the $255 death benefit.

Estate Taxes

Heterosexual married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of assets to each other during their lives and at death without paying estate taxes. Everyone else, including married same-sex couples, must pay federal estate taxes on amounts that exceed the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million. Many states also levy their own estate or inheritance taxes, though same-sex couples may be shielded from those in states that recognize their unions. Our couple lived in New York, where the estate tax exemption is $1 million. And though New York recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, that recognition does not extend to state income or estate taxes.

In our worst case, the gay partner who died first in 2055 left an estate that exceeded the state’s threshold by $171,528. That meant a tax bill of $43,378, according to Ron L. Meyers, an estate-planning lawyer with a significant same-sex clientele at Cane, Boniface & Meyers in Nyack, N.Y.

Meanwhile, their identical heterosexual counterparts owed nothing.

The gay couple in our best case had a smaller estate, in part because they were careful to title their home as tenants-in-common, so only the deceased partner’s half of the home was taxable. The estate didn’t exceed the federal or state threshold. So they owed nothing.

Childbearing

Two women who want to have a biological child together need sperm to do it. They may need to purchase sperm from a bank and use a medical professional to inseminate one of the partners. There are also adoption costs.

The worst case here totaled $40,000. It included 12 months of sperm and insemination costs, but the big wild card was the possible need to move to a state where same-sex second-parent adoptions were legal. While this may seem extreme, couples often do it, according to Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., who has worked with many of them. We estimated a minimum of $20,000 for this cost, including real estate brokerage fees to sell a home and moving costs.

In the best case, there might be no cost at all: the couple could use sperm from a relative of the partner who isn’t bearing the child or from a friend, inseminate at home and take their chances with free legal forms on the Web. Ms. Kaufman does not recommend such a cavalier approach to vital documents.

The cost for men to have a biological child would be much higher if they used a surrogate.

Pension

We assumed that one partner, in both best and worst cases, received a small pension. In both cases, the partner with the pension plan died first.

Employers do not have to provide survivor pension benefits to a same-sex spouse, but many do anyway (which would put our best case at $0). In our worst case, however, the higher-earning partner died first and did not work for such a company. So the surviving partner got nothing. A similarly situated heterosexual surviving spouse would receive $32,253 before dying herself several years later.

Spousal I.R.A.

You generally need to earn income to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account. But heterosexual married couples can contribute up to $5,000 annually to a spousal I.R.A. for a nonworking spouse. Stay-at-home gay partners, however, cannot make these contributions. So they end up with smaller retirement accounts.

We assumed that all the couples would have either saved 7 percent of the stay-at-home parent’s previous year’s salary, or $5,000, the maximum contribution. So the gay couple with one partner who started out earning just $30,000 would have saved less (had she been legally able to) than someone earning $70,000. In both cases, that five-year gap in savings early on in the partners’ lives haunted them later because they weren’t able to benefit from decades of compounding returns.

The couple with the lower-earning partner at home ended up $48,654 behind by the time that partner died, assuming she invested in a portfolio mixed equally between stocks and bonds that returned 5.94 percent annually. The surviving spouse from the gay couple with equal incomes ended up $112,192 behind.

Tax Preparation

Instead of filing one joint federal tax return and one state income tax return, same-sex couples must file two sets of returns. In both best and worst cases, those couples paid an additional $12,300 in tax preparation fees over the 46 years they are together.

Financial Planning

Even married same-sex couples are encouraged to create a number of documents that try to replicate the protections and rights of heterosexual marriage because their unions are not universally recognized. In the worst case, our gay couple spent $5,500 more than their heterosexual counterparts on their additional paperwork. That included a revocable living trust, which is more difficult to contest than a will, and what is known as a pour-over will, which ensured that anything left out of the trust would be included. They also each set up financial powers of attorney, health care proxies, living wills and a domestic partnership agreement.

In the best case, our couple didn’t spend any more than a prudent heterosexual couple would. Both couples created two wills, financial powers of attorney, health care proxies and living wills.

Income Taxes

Married heterosexual couples with two working spouses with similar incomes often pay more in federal taxes than if they remained single because of the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than they would have been in if they filed as singles. But some couples — especially those with a wide disparity in income or with a stay-at-home parent — usually pay less when they file jointly. They benefit from what’s known as a marriage bonus.

In our worst case, where one gay partner earned $110,000 and one earned $30,000, the couple paid $15,027 less in taxes over their lifetimes than their heterosexual counterparts.

Though the gay and heterosexual married couple had identical salaries, the married couple collected more income in retirement — a direct result of their marriage status — and thus owed more in taxes (though they still benefited from the marriage bonus). For instance, the married couple collected higher Social Security spousal benefits and survivor benefits, pension income and income derived from a spousal I.R.A. The gay couples weren’t entitled to any of these benefits.

In our best case, where the partners each earned $70,000, the gay couple paid $112,146 less in income taxes. “That is the marriage penalty rearing its ugly head,” Mr. Williams said.