A strange dual citizenship for gay couples

By Ellen Goodman  |  April 17, 2009
THEY ARE NOT the only married couple in America who talk about taxes
and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who
believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are
part of a noisy majority.
But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity
crisis. You see, Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez file state taxes as
what they are - a legally married Massachusetts couple. But under
federal law, they have to file federal taxes as what they aren't - two
single women.
This identity crisis is not just some psychological blip on the
cheerful landscape of their family life. In the last four years, the
government's refusal to consider them a married couple has cost the
writer and the CFO of a nonprofit about $5,000 a year. As Beatrice puts
it, "We don't know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn't
significant."
This is one reason they joined seven other married couples and three
surviving spouses last month in bringing a legal complaint against
DOMA, the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same-sex
marriages. The other plaintiffs include a postal worker who can't get
health coverage for her spouse, a widower ineligible for higher Social
Security benefits, and a couple who can't get a passport under their
married name.
The suit is not just timely because we all share a certain post-tax
traumatic stress syndrome. But we have just doubled the number of
states in which same-sex couples can be legally married. First, Iowa
joined Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont followed with the
first legislative approval. And a bill was just introduced in New York,
where people cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.
This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side
effect, it's producing more Americans with a strange dual citizenship:
married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible
for a pension, healthcare, family leave in the eyes of the state;
ineligible in the eyes of the feds.
DOMA is doing it. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act passed in
the panic of 1996 when it looked as if Hawaii would become the first
state with gay marriage. The purpose was as obvious and discriminatory
as Representative Henry Hyde's declaration that DOMA was to express
"disapprobation" for homosexuality.
The day that it passed, Dean Hara remembers deliberately going to
have dinner in the members' lounge with his longtime partner,
Representative Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, to face down his
colleagues. Now, 13 years later, after their marriage and Studds's
death, Hara is denied congressional survivor's annuities of $60,000 a
year.
Much has changed since 1996. Even former representative Bob Barr, who wrote DOMA, now disavows it.
GLAD, the gay rights group that brought the marriage case to the
Massachusetts court, is arguing on pretty narrow grounds. "In our
system," says Mary Bonauto of GLAD, "the states decide who gets
married. It's a violation of equal protection to deny recognition of
marriages of same-sex couples validly licensed by their state."
"Our case does not seek to marry any more people," she adds
carefully. "It's about how the federal government is dealing with
people already married by their states."
But this is also a next step, the first direct confrontation with a federal law against gay marriage.
There is still enormous controversy around this issue, as well as
setbacks - such as Proposition 8 in California. But in the glacial
scheme of social change, attitudes are evolving at whitewater speed.
Civil unions were once radical, now they are the conservative default
position. The scare tactics of 1996 are the satires of 2009.
Did you see the current ad against same-sex marriage that puts
zombies on parade uttering dire warnings? - "There is a storm
gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am
afraid." It got laughed out of the news when the audition tape for the
actors became a YouTube sensation.
So what do you say about an out-of-date law that enforces an
identity crisis? What do you say about a law that "defends" marriage by
denying it? The winds are blowing, but in a very different direction.
Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.