- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
- U.N. warns of Muslim ‘cleansing’ in Central African Republic
- Senate blocks change to military sex assault cases
- Drug mix may have cured child born with HIV, doctors say
Same-sex ‘marriage’ likely to prove costly
Employers, insurance companies, consumers and the government would foot the bill for the financial benefits that homosexuals would gain if same-sex “marriage” is legalized nationally.
Insurance and tax costs would drop for the partners, while spousal benefits would increase.
AGeneral Accounting Office report lists 1,138 federal laws in which marital status conveys benefits, rights or privileges. The benefits include Social Security, disability payments, food stamps, Medicare and welfare.
“Won’t this just break the bank?” said Rep. Spencer Bachus, Alabama Republican, during a House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee hearing last week on same-sex “marriage.”
Health care and retirement benefits for domestic partners of federal employees would cost the government about $1.4 billion from 2004 to 2013, according to a Congressional Budget Office report that was cited by Mr. Bachus.
Like President Bush, he supports a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The exact cost to the government if same-sex “marriage” benefits were extended nationally has not been tallied, although government officials say it would be high.
“It would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the budget through lower revenues and higher spending,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.
Massachusetts yesterday began allowing same-sex “marriages,” and other states are considering it.
However, only the federal government can decide who can file joint tax returns, receive Social Security or get other federal benefits.
“For tax purposes, it doesn’t matter what the states rule,” said Tara Bradshaw, spokeswoman for the Treasury Department.
Manyunmarried homosexual couples pay significantly more in federal and state taxes than their married counterparts, according to a National Gay and Lesbian Task Force report released last month.
The report profiled a homosexual couple that paid $1,929, or 25 percent, more per year in state and federal taxes than a heterosexual couple earning the same amount. The homosexual couple could not file a joint tax return.
As with opposite-sex couples, the sliding scale of tax rates would create the biggest advantage of a joint return for same-sex “married” couples with greatly different incomes. Equal incomes would create no advantage for a joint return.
Greater financial advantages also would come from insurance and Social Security benefits, which married people can receive when their spouses are sick, injured or die.
By Tammy Bruce
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- BRUCE: Obama's bizarre immigration rules
- IRS to turn over Lerner emails in tea party targeting probe
- Unemployment insurance vote could happen next week
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- DELAY: A revolution for the Constitution
- PRUDEN: Likening Putin to Hitler on Ukraine shows Hillary's shaky grasp of history
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again