By Alison Knezevich
Staff writer Feb 22, 2010
www.sundaygazettemail.com
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — State Republican delegates say they’re tired of waiting on Democratic legislative leaders to open debate on issues like gay marriage and certain tax breaks.

House Republicans plan a series of procedural motions this week to force floor votes on proposals they say Democrats have allowed to die in committees. Those include a resolution (HJR5) that calls for a statewide referendum on whether to amend the constitution to define marriage, and a proposal (HJR104) to boost tax breaks for elderly and disabled people.

“We have tried to work through the process, and now the time is running out,” House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, said at a press conference Monday.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 71 to 29 in the House, and the GOP strategy started unsuccessfully Monday. At the House floor session, Delegate Patrick Lane, R-Kanawha, moved to discharge the tax-break resolution, but the House postponed consideration of the move.

In a press release issued last week, state Democratic Chairman Nick Casey accused Republicans of “political grandstanding.”

“The Republicans only seem to want to score election year points by trying to force debates and votes on issues like gay marriage,” he said. “The people of [West Virginia] expect Republican and Democratic legislators not to waste a week of legislative time and taxpayer money on politics.”

Casey pointed to an existing state law that prohibits the state from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Armstead said West Virginians expect their leaders to “stand up” on issues.

The Republican strategy is “about free and open debate on important issues,” he said.

Last year, House Republicans tried to force a floor vote on the gay-marriage issue, but Democrats blocked their attempts.

On Monday, Armstead told his colleagues he would again try to bring the issue to the floor.

“If we don’t pass this legislation, we will basically be saying that we choose to allow the courts, rather than the people, to decide how marriage will be defined in our state,” he said.

One group that is pushing hard for a constitutional amendment on marriage says it disapproves of forcing a vote on the House floor.

In a press release, Family Policy Council of West Virginia President Jeremy Dys said the planned motion is “nothing more than another example of partisan politics at its finest.”

Reach Alison Knezevich at 304-348-1240.

By The Associated Press
02.23.2010

(Washington) The Army’s top uniformed officer said Tuesday that he has “serious concerns” about overturning a 17-year policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military and supports a yearlong study into the matter before any changes are made.

The carefully crafted comments by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey to the Senate Armed Services Committee indicate reluctance by some within the military’s senior ranks to President Barack Obama’s plan to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Obama says the policy is wrongheaded and should change. Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees but wants to move slowly, and has tasked a lengthy assessment on how to lift the ban without affecting the force.

Casey’s testimony as a service chief is considered crucial to the debate. As the top uniformed officials in each service, a service chief is in charge of recruitment and preparing troops for deployments. If the policy on gays is overturned, the chiefs would have to decide how to implement the changes.

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years,” Casey told the Senate panel. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates to repeal the law, said it’s important to note that Casey doesn’t oppose Gates’ study on how a repeal would be implemented.

“There will continue to be differences around the margins, but at the end of the day, I think the chiefs will salute” the president and other leadership, said Sarvis.

Casey and other service leaders have said they would abide by any changes of law or new orders by the president. But their personal opinions could still sway Congress. Some Democrats are hesitant to change the law and might join Republicans in trying to block legislation if they are convinced that an overturn could hurt the military’s ability to fight.

Casey said he would oppose legislation being considered by Sen. Carl Levin, the committee’s Democratic chairman, that would force the military to immediately suspend dismissals. Levin, D-Mich., says he wants a moratorium on firings under the law until Congress and the Pentagon can agree on how to repeal the law.

Among the questions to be answered through broader legislation is whether the military would recognize gay marriages and extend benefits to gay partners.

Casey and Army Secretary John McHugh said a moratorium on “don’t ask, don’t tell” would put existing cases in legal limbo and introduce confusion.

“This process is going to be difficult and complicated enough,” Casey told Levin. “Anything that complicates it more, I think I would be opposed.”

Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, agreed.

“It flies in the face of what the defense secretary has committed to,” the Arizona Republican said of a moratorium on dismissals.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month that he thinks the law unfairly forces gay troops to compromise their integrity by lying about who they are.

McHugh, a former New York congressman and Republican, said he would support a repeal if that is what the president and Congress decides.

“My job is to try to provide” the “best possible information and views from the Army side,” he said.

When asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, whether the Army should rethink its policies toward women, Casey said yes. The Army prohibits women from serving on the front lines, although those lines have been blurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I believe it’s time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we take a look at our policies,” he said. While no organized effort is under way, “I think it’s time,” he added.

By Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com
02.22.2010

New Hampshire legislators voted last week to kill two proposed bills that would have changed the state’s new same-sex marriage law.

The House voted 210-109 to defeat a bill calling for the repeal of same-sex marriage law. Earlier in the day, House lawmakers voted 201-135 to stop a bill that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Marriage equality opponents needed 60 percent of the votes to forward the bills to the state Senate.

Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, a Republican and sponsor of the repeal bill, told Boston.com that being gay violates natural law. He said it is a matter of choice.

“A black person cannot change the color of their skin, but a homosexual can change their sexual preference any time,” he added.

His fellow representative has other plans. Rep. Ed Butler, a Democrat, told the Web site of his plans to tie the knot.

“We have fought to be married not because we want to tear down the institution of marriage, but because we respect and honor it,” he said. “Thank you for what will be an incredibly powerful moment in our lives. Please don’t take it away.”

By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: February 22, 2010 www.ontopmag.com

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in a challenge to the law, the AP reported.

The lawsuit filed in July by Coakley on behalf of the 15,000 gay and lesbian couples that have legally wed in Massachusetts since the state legalized gay nuptials in 2004 challenges section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as a heterosexual union for federal agencies.

In papers filed Thursday, Coakley asked a judge to declare the law unconstitutional without holding a trial on the lawsuit, saying the law interferes with her state’s right to regulate marriage.

“Throughout our history, marital status has been determined solely and exclusively by State law – not simply for purposes of State legislation, but also wherever Congress has chosen to make federal law turn on marital status,” Coakley said.

“The federal government has no legitimate interest in ‘preserving the status quo’ where the status quo is invidious discrimination,” she added.

Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Since then, 4 out of 6 New England states have followed suit.

Coakley’s lawsuit is one of several challenging the federal government on the issue of gay marriage. A second lawsuit filed by the Boston-based gay rights group GLAD also calls portions of DOMA unconstitutional. And the first federal trial to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, concluded last month in a San Francisco courtroom and a ruling is expected in March. The cases could reach the Supreme Court.

Coakley also argues that the federal law forces Massachusetts to discriminate against married gay couples.

“Massachusetts cannot receive or retain federal funds if it gives same-sex and different-sex spouses equal treatment, namely by authorizing the burial of a same-sex spouse in a federally-funded veterans’ cemetery and by recognizing the marriages of same-sex spouses in assessing eligibility for Medicaid health benefits,” she said.

- By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD Feb 22, 2010 http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com

Gay couples have complicated financial lives, and preparing tax returns is no exception.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples who are living in states that do recognize their various legal unions must still file separate federal returns. That requires more record-keeping and planning than their heterosexual counterparts — and oftentimes, gay couples will have to pay more to an accountant to prepare their returns.

But the consequences aren’t all negative. By remaining unmarried, some same-sex couples will avoid the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than if they had remained single. Or, they may qualify for more tax deductions or credits that phase out as their income rises.

On the other hand, plenty of same-sex couples end up paying higher tax bills than their heterosexual married counterparts, including those with a stay-at-home parent. That’s because the tax code tends to favor married couples with disparate incomes or a nonworking spouse.

No matter which category you fall into, tax experts say the best way to minimize the tax bite is to look at both partners as an economic unit. If the higher-earning partner won’t get the full child tax credit, should the lower earner take it? Who should file as head of household, which has more favorable rates than the single filing status?

“Gay taxpayers will do best when they look at their tax results as a household, and not as individuals,” said Tina Salandra, a certified public accountant in New York.

Just be prepared to spend some extra time strategizing. “If you are filing separately but are really leading very joint lives, there are many extra things you need to do,” said Jeff Pretsfelder, a senior tax analyst at the tax and accounting business of Thomson Reuters.

We list some of those items below, along with several other things you need to keep in mind:

New Items for 2009 If you bought a home and expect to be eligible for the home buyer’s tax credit, remember that you must split the $8,000 credit with your partner. “The I.R.S. was very clear that if two unmarried people or a same-sex couple buy a home, they need to split the credit,” Ms. Salandra said. But there is a potential benefit: Since the home buyers’ credit phases out as your income rises, and same-sex couples don’t combine their income on their federal returns, the lower-wage earner may still qualify for half the credit even though the higher earner is above the limit, she added.

Separately, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance in a memo from its chief counsel’s office that clarifies how much mortgage interest is deductible for people who own homes jointly. Taxpayers who file as single or married filing jointly can generally deduct all of their mortgage interest on up to $1 million in mortgage debt and $100,000 in home equity debt (or half those amounts if married filing separately).

Some same-sex couples — or the professionals advising them — have interpreted that to mean that each partner could deduct interest on up to $1 million in debt. But in a memo in March 2009, the I.R.S. said that the $1 million limit applies to the home, and not each taxpayer (at least in a situation where two taxpayers co-own their only residence). So a gay couple who jointly owned a Manhattan apartment could deduct interest on only up to $1 million in debt, not $2 million. “That is incredibly significant for gay couples, especially in a high real estate market like New York City,” Ms. Salandra said.

Filing Status. Unlike heterosexual married couples, same-sex couples can choose to have one partner file a federal return as “head of household,” where tax rates are lower than filing as single. To qualify, you must be unmarried or considered unmarried, have paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home and live with a “qualifying person,” like a dependent child. So generally, only one partner (who is also the legal parent of a dependent child) can claim this status on a federal return. But it’s not impossible for two partners to claim head of household — one partner, for instance, may be supporting an elderly parent, while the other is supporting a child.

It often makes sense for the higher-earning partner to file as head of household, but not always.

States operate according to their own rules. And not all states that recognize same-sex marriage extend that recognition for tax purposes. New York, for instance, says it recognizes gay marriage, but it doesn’t allow married couples to file joint state returns.

But if you live in a state that recognizes your union — whether you’re married, registered domestic partners or part of a civil union — you will probably be required to file joint returns (or married/civil union/domestic partner filing separately). But each state varies, so be sure to evaluate which filing status will save you the most money.

Strategies If you have joint accounts, property or children, the question then becomes who should deduct what and what filing status each partner should take, if one or both have the option of filing as head of household.

Generally speaking, the person who pays the expense gets the deduction, said Chris Kollaja, an accountant and partner at A.L. Nella in San Francisco. For instance, if you paid 60 percent of the mortgage payments, you could deduct that percentage of interest, while your partner could deduct the remaining 40 percent. But to take a deduction, you need to have an ownership stake in the property.

“Like any two people who are roommates that don’t file a joint return, there is the question of who pays for certain things, and there is a need to document that,” Mr. Pretsfelder said.

Extra Paperwork When it comes to jointly held accounts or property, you should call your bank or brokerage to get two copies of the forms that report any sort of miscellaneous income (including the 1099 form, which lists any income earned other than wages, salaries or tips, or the 1098 form, which lists mortgage interest paid). The banks usually send out only one form to the person whose Social Security number is listed first, which doesn’t affect heterosexual couples filing jointly.

If, say, you split the interest income collected on a joint savings account for tax purposes, you will want to attach a letter to each partner’s tax return, along with a copy of the relevant form. The letter should state that the accounts are held jointly, and that you’re splitting the interest, the dividends or whatever the item.

“The partner whose Social Security number is not on the tax form may be challenged by the I.R.S., saying we have no records,” Ms. Salandra said. “That is all remedied by a letter and documentation that shows the other taxpayer’s name on the joint account.”

Gifts While heterosexual couples can freely transfer money, property or expensive cars and gifts to one another without tax consequences, same-sex couples cannot: anything valued above $13,000 per calendar year is considered a taxable gift. So Ms. Salandra recommends that her clients keep a joint bank account to pay their joint expenses — and that each partner keep records of how much he or she contributed to the account.

“I caution them not to put more than the gift limit over than what the other person was putting in,” Ms. Salandra said. If you did give your partner a gift valued at more than $13,000 last year, you are required to file a gift tax return by April 15, and the amount will be counted against your $1 million lifetime exemption.

Heterosexual married couples “can arrange their affairs any way they want without a tax burden, and generally that doesn’t happen for gay and lesbians,” Mr. Kollaja said.

Professional Help It often pays to get professional help, especially from an accountant who is well versed in these issues. PridePlanners, a group of financial planners who serve gay and lesbian clients, has a list of providers by state.

But same-sex couples can expect to pay more in tax preparation fees. This is especially true for couples who live in states that recognize their unions and require them to file their state returns jointly (or married/civil union/domestic partner filing separately). That’s because the couple must first file separate federal tax returns (as single or head of household). But the tax preparer must also create a dummy federal tax return using a married filing status, so that they can use that data for filing the joint state return.

While a heterosexual married couple needs to file only two returns, a same-sex married couple living in a gay union state must file three returns, but technically fill out four. (In our article that tallied up the extra costs that same-sex couples incur over the course of their lifetimes, we found that same-sex couples could spend around $12,300 more on tax preparation fees than their heterosexual counterparts).

To get answers to your tax questions, visit

Original Article at Airforcetimes

By Bruce Rolfsen – Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 19, 2010

ORLANDO, Fla. — Gay and lesbian airmen who disclose their sexual orientation will be dismissed even though the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law is under review by the Pentagon, according to the service’s top civilian leader.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley made the proclamation to reporters after he mentioned the review and possible repeal of the law during his keynote speech Thursday at the winter conference of the Air Force Association here.

“We are continuing to process those cases,” Donley replied when asked whether the service would wait to act until the Defense Department finishes its assessment, which should be in 45 days.

Donley declined to discuss specific cases such as the potential dismissal of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-16E Strike Eagle weapons systems officer who was outed by an acquaintance.

The review, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will address whether an airman who is outed violates the ban on gays serving openly.

The number of airmen dismissed because of their sexual orientation has steadily declined in the past few years, Donley said. The Air Force let go about 100 airmen in 2006, compared with about 75 in 2009, he said.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama told a joint session of Congress that he wants the ban lifted.

“The president as commander in chief has answered the question of whether this legislative change will be pursued, and the answer is ‘yes,’” Donley told the several hundred airmen who came to hear him speak. “We know this will be an issue of interest to all airmen and is certain to generate much discussion.”

Donley warned the audience that the Air Force cannot be “pulled into the political debate” and that it should “add light and not heat to the discussion.”

Beyond legal issues, Donley said, the Air Force will advise the Pentagon on how repeal of the law could affect unit cohesion and military readiness.

“Congress will be listening to what the military has to say,” he said.

On other matters, Donley said:

* Airmen flying remote-controlled airplanes will outnumber F-16 pilots by the end of the year. The shift comes with the Air Force’s decision to retire more than 100 F-16s and to buy more than 50 unmanned aircraft.

* Congress members will push to buy more C-17 Globemasters in 2011, even though Air Force leaders think the service has enough strategic airlifters and do not want more than the 223 planes already paid for. Money for more C-17s would simply mean less money for other programs.

* The service will announce specifications for the new air refueling tanker by the end of February. The announcement of the winning bid likely will not come until August or September. The Air Force had hoped to announce its choice in June.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent www.lifesitenews.

MEXICO CITY, February 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Five Mexican state governors are suing the nation’s Federal District, Mexico City, for legalizing homosexual “marriage” in December of last year.

The governors of the states of Jalisco, Tlaxcala, Guanajuato, Morelos, and Sonora say that the law is unconstitutional, and will require their state governments to recognize “marriages” between people of the same sex, despite the states’ rejection of such unions.

Moreover, they argue, adoption by homosexual couples is “totally against the best interests of the children, which should prevail over any circumstance,” according to a press release by the National Action Party, to which all five governors belong.

“These reforms could obligate the states and municipalities to recognize marriages between same-sex couples and so, in Jalisco, the same rights recognized for matrimony in its laws would be awarded to them,” said Secretary General of Government Fernando Guzman in a statement issued to the press.

Indeed, the Mexican homosexualist organization “Codise,” says that it will attempt to achieve legal recognition for such unions in the states that have filed suit immediately following the first “marriages,” which are to be formalized in Mexico City in the first week of March.

In an interview with the Guadalajara newspaper Publico, Guzman added that “unions of convenience are one thing, but marriage is another, let alone the right of adoption. What we are protecting is marriage and children, so that children who are adopted have the right to a family, and a family consisting of a father and a mother.”

Arguing that such rights are recognized by the International Commission of Human Rights, Guzman added that children “are not pets, and all of this must be done with respect to the rights of children.”

By Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com: Original Article

Rep. Barney Frank said the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is on track to pass through the House of Representatives, but he is less certain about its success in the Senate, he said in an interview with DC Agenda.

“We were very close just before we snowed out to basically come to an agreement on a bill that would get a majority vote in the Education & Labor Committee,” he said.

Frank said he expects a vote on the floor of the House in March.

“The speaker has promised me that as soon as it passes the committee, she’ll bring it up to the floor of the House,” he said.

Frank noted that there could be problems with transgender protections.

“There has always been a problem with the question of people who are transgender in situations where people are totally or partially unclothed,” Frank said.

While Frank expects ENDA to pass the U.S. House easily, the Senate may pose a problem. Frank doesn’t think there are 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on ENDA.

- www.joemygod.blogspot.com Feb 19, 2010

Next week the Minnesota legislature will consider several bills related to same-sex marriage.
The House Civil Justice Committee will be the first in Minnesota’s history to conduct a hearing on the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Three bills will be up for discussion on Monday, and all three are supportive of expanded relationship rights for Minnesota’s same-sex couples. The Marriage and Family Protection Act would make marriages in Minnesota gender neutral, a civil unions bill is also being proposed and another bill would recognize same-sex marriage performed in states where it is legal, such as neighboring Iowa. “The hearing will be historic because it is the first time a committee in our state Legislature will be looking at what enacting marriage equality means for Minnesota,” said OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT equality group. The hearing will be held at 4:30pm on Monday, February 22 in State Office Building Room 10.

A local activist quoted in the above-linked article says the meetings will be mere “show hearings” designed to “shut up” the gay community and that the three bills have zero chance of advancing.

Seattle 911: A police blog
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle911/archives/195033.asp

Man stabbed in homophobic attack on Eastlake
A man was stabbed and robbed on Eastlake Avenue East last week after one of his attackers yelled a homophobic slur at him.

The victim was walking on Eastlake near Lakeview Bouleveard East about 3:30 a.m. Feb. 11 when an attacker yelled the slur and demanded his wallet, according to a police report released Thursday.

He turned around and was pushed to the ground. “He attempted to get up, but was stabbed in the upper arm,” Officer Rene Miller wrote in her report. “He heard one suspect tell the others to hold him down and get his wallet.”

After the suspects took the man’s wallet, they also stole his groceries and left.

“(The victim) said that except at the beginning, there was no other mention by the suspects of his orientation,” Miller wrote in her report. “(He) did not recognize the suspects and does not believe he would recognize them again.”

The suspects were all black men in their 20s or 30s wearing black hoodies, according to Seattle police. One had black pants and the others were possibly in blue jeans. One had a pair of white tennis shoes.

Police searched the area for the men, but were unsuccessful. The case was classified as having an anti-homosexual bias, according to the report.

The victim was taken to Virginia Mason for his stab wound and released the same day as the attack, according to police.

Posted by Casey McNerthney at February 18, 2010