One year ago today, I stood on the steps of the United States Supreme Court and joined thousands of marriage equality supporters in congratulating our plaintiffs, Paul & Jeff and Kris & Sandy, for their victory in restoring the freedom to marry in California.

Just minutes before that, Edie Windsor became a national hero by ensuring that all loving married same-sex couples across the nation are treated equally and with dignity under federal law.

Take a look back at that exciting day:

Along with the hard work of numerous organizations fighting for marriage equality, we have succeeded in changing the national landscape. An overwhelming majority of Americans support full federal marriage equality, and in the past year over twenty pro-equality rulings have been handed down by courts across the country. The momentum is undeniable.

Though today is a momentous day, we still have much work to accomplish. Thirty states still deny loving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Over eighty federal and state lawsuits have been filed to strike down those discriminatory laws. AFER’s work continues in Virginia with Bostic v. Schaefer.

Our incomparable legal team, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, delivered a decisive victory to our plaintiffs, Tim & Tony and Mary & Carol, at district court. Appealed by the defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, our case is fully briefed, and a decision is expected any day.

Our plaintiffs — and all Virginians and Americans alike — deserve their fundamental right to marry the person whom they love. Pledge your support today by donating to AFER so that we can continue our work in the fight for full federal marriage equality.

It is because of your support that thousands of gay and lesbian couples in California can now can enjoy their basic human right of marriage. All Virginians deserve the same. Your tax-deducitble donation today will ensure that one day soon, all Americans — from Richmond to Los Angeles or Raleigh to Little Rock — can finally have their freedom to marry affirmed.

Sincerely,

Adam D. Umhoefer
Executive Director
American Foundation for Equal Rights

P.S. Sign up for breaking news alerts for our Bostic case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This policy is in incredibly important for a number of reasons. First, it makes it crystal clear that federal tax laws and policies apply to all married couples, regardless of where they live. Second, it will greatly reduce confusion for same-sex couples and their employers, especially for those people who work in one state and live in another. Third, it erases much of the “gay tax,” whereby married gay and lesbian couples in states with marriage equality were treated as legal strangers for their federal taxes. In many cases, this was could amount to thousands of dollars in additional taxes with fewer rights.

While there is still a long way to go to ensure couples and families in 37 states have the state recognition they are entitled to, the new tax policies of the federal government will ease a great burden for many gay and lesbian couples and their families, especially around tax season.

Here are six things you need to know about the new ruling, according to the Treasury Department. You may want to consult your attorney before taking any action:

1. Under the ruling, legally married gay and lesbian couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA, and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.
2. Any gay or lesbian couple married in a state that recognizes marriage equality, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory, or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.
3. Legally-married gay and lesbian couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” filing status.
4. Married individuals may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations. The ruling does not apply to state taxes.
5. Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances (such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open) that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.
6. Additionally, gay and lesbian employees who purchased health insurance coverage for their spouse from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

Resources

• Factsheet: What It Means for You >
• AFER’s Wedding Registry >
• FAQ: Getting Married in California >

 “This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change,” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a statement.

As long as you are legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes marriage equality—for instance, one of the 13 states or 14 countries with marriage equality,Washington, D.C., or elsewhere—you’ll be able to file jointly for taxes, and receive other benefits such as avoiding lofty inheritance taxes upon the death of your partner.

The implications of this decision are widespread. Gay and lesbian couples can now get married in a state like California and then live or move to any state, regardless of whether or not it recognizes their marriage, and still be treated as equal under federal tax law.

In response, AFER co-founder and HRC president Chad Griffin heralded today’s announcement:

“With today’s ruling, committed and loving gay and lesbian married couples will now be treated equally under our nation’s federal tax laws, regardless of what state they call home. These families finally have access to crucial tax benefits and protections previously denied to them under the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.”

Here are six important things to note, from the Treasury Department:

1. Under the ruling, same sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA, and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.
2. Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory, or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.
3. Legally-married same-sex couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” filing status.
4. Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations.
5. Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances (such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open) that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.
6. Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

Resources

• Factsheet: What It Means for You >
• AFER’s Wedding Registry >
• FAQ: Getting Married in California >

In a memo to senior Pentagon officials, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:

“It is now the department’s policy to treat all married military personnel equally.”

Additionally, military personnel who are stationed in a state without marriage equality will be allowed to take leave for travel to a jurisdiction where they can marry legally. The Associated Press reports that Defense officials estimate there are 18,000 same-sex couples in the active-duty military, National Guard and Reserves and among military retirees. It’s unclear how many of those are married.

The policy change comes nearly two months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act which prevented the federal government from recognizing the marriages of gay and lesbian couples and nearly two years after the ban was lifted that prevented gay and lesbian Americans from serving openly in the military.

Read the full memo >

One month ago the U.S. Supreme Court decided two landmark marriage equality cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor.

The effects of the twin decisions, announced on June 26, 2013, were felt almost immediately.

Within minutes, a judge stopped the deportation of a Columbian man who is married to an American citizen in New York. Shortly thereafter, a Florida man was the first member of a same-sex couple to receive approval for a permanent resident visa after over 15 years living in the U.S.

Then, two days after the decisions, AFER’s plaintiffs Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo became the first lesbian and gay couples to marry in California since the 2008 passage of Prop. 8 . For each, the moment fulfilled a decade-long dream.

They were joined by hundreds of couples who flocked to San Francisco City Hall that weekend and to their local county registrar the following Monday.

The two cases may be over, but their effect will be felt for years to come. In California and other states with marriage equality, couples can breathe a sigh relief, knowing that they are fully protected by state and federal law. And LGBT youth who have been bullied and harassed because they are labeled as different, will grow up knowing that they are the same as every other American in the eyes of the law.

While many federal departments including the IRS are still figuring out how to apply the ruling, the Social Security Administration is now accepting benefit claims of married same-sex couples and House Republicans will stop defending DOMA in other cases, including a case regarding spousal benefits for gay members of the military.

And for the people living in states that do not yet recognize the freedom to get married for all, there is renewed hope. The tide has shifted and it no longer a question of “if” we will have full federal marriage equality, but “when.”

Post by Adam Umhoefer, Executive Director

This morning, the Supreme Court did not issue rulings on either Prop. 8 or the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. The Court is expected to schedule additional days this week to hand down decisions, and AFER will keep you updated when we find out more.

Update: The Supreme Court will be issuing decisions tomorrow, Tuesday, June 25 at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT. Additional days may also be added.

Shortly after the Prop. 8 decision is announced, I’ll be on the steps of the Supreme Court with the two brave couples who challenged Prop. 8 in federal court, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, and our distinguished lead co-counsel, Ted Olson & David Boies.

RSVP now to watch the free live stream of AFER’s official press conference that will take place after the Supreme Court rules on Prop. 8.

If you’ve already signed up, please share the link with your friends and family:

Four years ago, AFER brought together Ted and David—two lawyers from opposite sides of the political spectrum—to challenge Prop. 8 in federal court because the Constitution guarantees every American the fundamental right to marry the person they love.

Now, we are days—if not hours—away from a final decision in our case, and I have great hope that it will be a defining moment in our nation’s journey toward a more perfect union.

USA Today

“When DOMA was passed in 1996, same-sex marriage was mostly theoretical. No state had legalized it. Now, thousands of gays are legally married, and the treatment DOMA imposes is explicitly inferior.” [12/10/12]

The New York Times

“The court should avoid that kind of error in the same-sex-marriage cases. It should broadly declare that under the Constitution the right to marry applies equally to all couples, period, and that this principle applies to the federal government and every state.” [03/25/13]

Los Angeles Times

“Time is on the side of same-sex marriage, as public attitudes are rapidly changing. But the court’s responsibility is not to anticipate what the public might do. It is to decide what the Constitution commands. Sometimes, as the brief filed by Boies and Olson reminds the court, that means protecting minorities from “majoritarian prejudice and indifference.” [11/29/12]

San Jose Mercury News

“It will be far better for the country if the high court comes down on the side of equal rights in a way that settles the matter quickly and cleanly and allows divisions on social issues to begin to heal. But the battle for marriage equality has been won. Now it’s just a matter of how the war will end.” [12/7/12]

The Washington Post

” Even if the direction is clear, the path toward a universal right to marriage equality remains long…Federal courts have ruled that the act deprives gay men and lesbians of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection…If the Supreme Court does enter the fray over gay marriage, it would do well to consider the results of Tuesday’s ballot questions and, more broadly, the clear trajectory of the nation’s shifting ¬attitudes.” [11/7/12]

Daily News

“The Maine and Maryland referendums — and likely one still undecided in Washington State — took matters one step further. The people themselves had their say, and they said, yes, ‘We do.’ That’s called democracy, and it’s a beautiful thing indeed.” [11/8/12]

Chicago Tribune

Marriage is “good for communities, since it minimizes the unwanted side effects of broken homes. Authorizing same-sex marriage also works to break down age-old prejudice, discrimination and even violence against gays.” [1/3/13]

Chicago Sun-Times

“It’s time for gay marriage in Illinois. Not in the distant future. Not in the near future. But now.” [12/16/12]

The Dallas Morning News

“We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law.” [12/14/12]

Houston Chronicle

“The trends are becoming clear on marriage equality. After an election in which voters in four states supported same-sex marriage, and with polls consistently showing growing support for the cause, many conservatives are rethinking their opposition. The shift isn’t just about political expediency but honestly focusing on the future of the American family.” [2/1/13]

The Philadelphia Inquirer

“It is important that any same-sex-marriage law also protects the rights of religious institutions to decide, according to their tenets, who may be married within them. But that should not prevent same-sex couples from otherwise having their marriages recognized as legal.” [12/24/12]

The Arizona Republic

“The facts on the ground are undeniable. Gays and lesbians are forming families. They’re having children. They need the full rights and framework of family law.” [8/9/10]

The Denver Post

“And the growing tolerance for gay marriage has the potential to influence the public debate in positive ways. The nation is at a turning point when it comes to same-sex marriage.” [12/16/12]

Here are some highlights:

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.

I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’ ”

The answer is of course and always yes. Read the full op/ed >

The proposed Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the 1996 law that prevents the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples living in states with marriage equality. The legislation, which will be reintroduced next year, is also supported by Reps. Richard Hanna (R-New York) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida)

Next year a federal constitutional challenge to DOMA  brought by the ACLU will also be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court alongside AFER’s challenge to Prop. 8. A final decision is expected by the end of June 2013.

In March, over 100 Republican New Hampshire legislators were critical to  defeating a bill that would have repealed the state’s popular marriage equality law. The final vote was  211-116. A majority of House Republicans voted in favor of  retaining the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married in the state.