New Yorkers Ask How Gay Marriage Will Affect Benefits
- Posted on July 2, 2011 at 11:59am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
NEW YORK (AP) — As same-sex marriage becomes legal in New York — a world financial capital that often sets the corporate tone for businesses everywhere, and a city with a large gay and lesbian community — companies and individuals are wrestling with the changing complexities of their financial realities.
For straight couples, the choice has generally been to marry or not to marry, period. But conflicting state and federal marriage laws and questions about corporate benefits policies make financial planning decisions much less cut-and-dried for many gay couples.
Jason Ganns, an accountant from Albany, figures getting married to his same-sex partner will save him $350 to $450 a year in state income taxes — after a devil of a time reconciling those forms with his federal return, on which he won’t be considered married.
New York City resident Andrew Troup and his partner have kept their health insurance policies separate because of tax complications and are now weighing whether merging them will make sense after marriage.
And if they’ve been waffling on marriage, some couples may now have to decide whether to take the plunge if their employers now restrict domestic partner benefits to the lawfully hitched.
“There’s just a lot of rumors going around,” said Erica Freudenstein, a 46-year-old freelance photographer from New York City who plans to wed her longtime partner, television video editor Cybele Policastro. Freudenstein has been covered under Policastro’s health insurance.
“She has to pay taxes on it for my health insurance, and now for New York state I think she won’t,” she said. “So it’s a benefit. It’s all about the benefits.”
New York is home to an estimated 42,600 same-sex couples, many already considered married in Canada and other places that allow gay marriage but are less business-heavy, including Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
The range of newly available benefits for New York’s married gay couples will span from cradle to grave, affecting rights on everything from adoption to the settling of estates. But taxes and health care benefits are the dollar-and-cents issues in the forefront for many couples.
It is estimated that thousands of gay people in New York are covered under their partners’ employer-provided health care plan. Married couples are not taxed on the value of an employer’s contribution to cover their spouse, but it’s been different for gay couples, even for New Yorkers who got legally married elsewhere.
Troup and his partner were married in Canada and have been recognized as such under New York law since 2009 — but they’re not sure how their relationship status will change when New York on July 24 starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in the state.
They work at different software companies and are weighing whether to merge their health insurance policies once they’re married.
“We’re going to have to sort of re-evaluate and decide whether it’s more cost-effective to be under one plan or not,” he said.
While marriage will afford gay couples some state tax benefits, federal taxes are still off the table because of the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, under which federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and does not require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside its borders.
For Ganns and his husband-to-be, that means they can file jointly on their state returns but must file individually on the federal forms, which are typically used as the basis for state forms.
“Not only is that complicated, but our tax preparer will have to prepare a joint federal return to get certain numbers on that end up on that state joint return, and then throw federal return away because he can’t file it anyway. … It’s going to cost most people more to get their taxes done,” Ganns said.
A little more than a third of U.S. employers offer health coverage to their employees’ same-sex partners, according to a report last week from the Society for Human Resource Management.
Some companies initially extended domestic partner benefits solely to same-sex couples to put them on equal footing, benefit-wise, with heterosexual employees who had the option of getting married.
With that inherent difference soon out the door, some couples in New York could face the choice of getting married or losing partner benefits if their companies restrict partner benefits to the legally married.
For instance, Elmira-based Corning Inc. extended benefits to same-sex domestic partners in 2002. But the specialty glass maker requires those couples residing in any state that permits same-sex marriages to be married to receive the benefit. IBM and defense contractor Raytheon Co. also will require New York employees to be married to receive benefits.
“The only thing that is changing is that now same-sex couples are going to have the opportunity to marry,” said Louise Young, a Dallas-based senior software engineer for Raytheon who founded the company’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Allies Employee Resource Group. “And to be consistent in our benefit policies, they’ll need to do so. But not in a punitive way at all. It‘s what we’ve been working for.”
Companies including New York-based IBM, Raytheon, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Babson College took similar action in Massachusetts when it became the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed in 2004. The rationale behind the policy changes is to keep benefits consistent among all employees.
Retired IBM technical writer Suzanne McHugh, who gets eye and dental care for her partner, AnnaMae Schuler, under her IBM health plan, expects to be affected. McHugh, who was on an IBM task force that helped usher in domestic partner benefits for the company in 1996, is not troubled by it.
“Because of IBM’s effort to be as fair as possible under the circumstances, I knew it would be an inevitability should it become legal in New York,” she said. “So I’m not upset by it. I knew it was coming.”
The two women, who live in Kerhonkson in the Hudson Valley, expect to get married in November, though not specifically for the health benefits. They also mentioned property tax benefits and said that after being together for 28 years, “it seems like the right thing to do.”
Not all employers plan to force couples to marry to maintain benefits. General Electric Co. offers domestic benefits to same-sex couples and has no plans to change policies for its New York employees. Rochester-based Kodak, which extends benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, also has no change planned, a spokesman said.
Companies that are self-insured — typically those with more than 500 employees — don’t have to follow state law, just federal law, which doesn’t recognize gay marriage.
Those companies could, however, feel pressure to change their requirements, said Shawn Nowicki, director of health policy for the Northeast Business Group on Health, which represents employers who offer health benefits in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
“The social movement will spur them to do some critical thinking about how to approach gay marriage,” Nowicki said.
The specific effects of the New York law on business policy elsewhere is less clear.
Steven Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health, an association representing 300 large companies on health benefits and health care issues, said most large companies already provide domestic partner benefits, so the New York law might not change anything.
But M. Diane Burton, an associate professor of human resource studies at Cornell University, noted that what plays out in New York could affect business in other states.
“It is going to have a big impact because New York is a big state and it’s going to hit a lot more employers,” she said. “But many of those employers also have employees in other states. So what it does, it complicates things.”
With marriages starting in three weeks, same-sex couples have a series of questions that will play out.
Freudenstein and Policastro were recently turned down for a refinance mortgage for a second home when they applied as individuals; one had a good job and poor credit, the other vice versa. But they might give it another try as a couple.
Troup and his partner, who were married in Canada in 2008, aren’t sure if they need to get married twice.
“It’s become a bit challenging, for sure,” Troup said. “I think we’re going to have to seek some legal counsel.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 562 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 311 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (71)
pavepaws
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:18pmYawn
Report Post »Oldphoto678
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:12pmIf equal protection under the law costs money, tuff sh_t Cons.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:32pmYep, why don’t you marry your dog to get health benefits for him.
Report Post »michael48
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 7:55pmit’s your money , gumby…tough s!!t…lol
Report Post »Devil Dog 7175
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:04pmOh… Now you ask…
Report Post »TJexcite
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:56pmThere should be no financial reward from the state for being married. No higher tax for not being married and no savings for being, Heterosexual or Homosexual.
Report Post »pjmac46
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 11:05pmDito
Report Post »Deanna in Missouri
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:43pmRemember: When wrong becomes right and right becomes wrong.
Report Post »They just dug the government deeper into marriage where the government does not belong. And I agree with upper post: Its gonna cost you NY
curtmavi38
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:36pmAndrew Cuomo and the new york legislature got New York into this let them bear the consequences.
Report Post »Pandemonium is about to show it’s ugly head.meh
Eric Von Zipper
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:32pmMy friends… Looks like the genetically challenged Gay community is going to have quite a time of it… Good luck!…
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:19pmSigh…It looks as if New York is becoming more like a cesspool of amorality and Nanny Statism as time passes by. When will these New Yorkers EVER wake up?! As much as I really want to visit New York sometime, I’m not sure if I could spend even a single week trying to express tolerance towards the political correctness that dominates many of the cities there (namely, New York City).
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:09pmIdiots, they will go up and up and up! What did you think would happen? Mama used to say fools and their money are soon parted, New York is going to part with plenty for their ill thought out “plans”.
Report Post »SiToNiTsOrOs1
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:08pmIt will cost you NY and rightly so. Courts should stay out of this one, especially the progressive leaning courts like the 9th Circut or 6th Circut. Marraige is an issue between men and women. That is the way it was designed throughout the ages. Although I have nothing against the square peg life style, I believe it is based upon the brain chemistry one is born with. Within the brain, you are either male or female if you are a human being. But because you are a male brain trapped in a female body, or vise-a-versa, does not make you an entitled, politially advantaged species. You are still a human being. You are still part of our society. Live within the norms of our society.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:01pmReply function does not work. But thanks for the new pages choices.
Report Post »terrenceor
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:49pmStart the courtroom circus and the human resources nightmare. As if doing business wasn’t tough enough.
Report Post »b0mbtrack1
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:45pmI hate this state, if only I wasn’t stuck here because of business.
Report Post »caseydog27
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:36pm“So it’s a benefit. It’s all about the benefits.”
No disrespect but gay marriage has always been just about the benefits, its actually refreshing to hear someone admit it.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:59pmGay marriage has always been just about the benefits. There you go.
Report Post »Valerius Poplicola
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:03pmNo disrespect, but your post is far worse than the one you were responding to. It is fine to make your point. I am pretty sure we could have gotten the point without reference to donkey dong.
Report Post »hcartexas
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:11pmDude… calm down angry Gay man!!! Gay marriage is about being butt buddies…..and adopting and corrupting kids…… Its not man and wife…. its Butt- Buddies…….
Report Post »USAF2003
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 2:33pmyou say some of the dumbest things ever
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:35pmProbably should have said Pelosi-ism!!
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:28pmA typical Human reaction asking whats in it for me instead of asking is it good for us.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:35pmtest of reply function
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:46pmOr is it right.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:27pmI have a bad feeling the Law of Unintended Consequences is going to come into play here. Bigtime!
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:22pmThank you Gonzo, your thoughts were exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article!! Head for the hills, grab food and whatever else you need to survive!!! Obviously a plague of Pelosism is spreading across the land!!!
Report Post »Fly Old Glory 24/7 365
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:21pmwhat a sad time we live in….we will all pay for this one….I hope your heart is right with God…
Report Post »Beckbot
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:16pmMy opinion…the high courts have no business making a decision on this; it has nothing to do with the constitution….Marriage is a good, not a right. New York must either have one of their legislatures initiate a referendum OR, if New York allows the citizens to petition a referendum, they must start now and obtain enough signatures and have the voters decide,
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:11pmThis conflict in gay marriage laws between the states will lead to a lawsuit in the next two years that will of necessity make its way to the Supreme Court who will sadly overturn Geduldig v. Aiello in a 6-3 decision.
Remember this post.
Report Post »jim
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:09pmRemember that Kevin James movie, where the two straight guys got married to get the benefits for the one guy’s whole family…?
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:42pm“Remember that Kevin James movie, where the two straight guys got married to get the benefits for the one guy’s whole family…?”
Remember reality where men and women have been doing that for like… ever?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:09pmHey New York, you’re supposed to ask these questions before you vote. I guess you didn’t learn that after voting for Obama.
Report Post »rambosharley
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:07pmI don’t know what to say about that!
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:05pmNew York, IT’S GONNA COST YA!
Report Post »drphil69
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 12:30pmFirst, benefits to non-married gay “significant others” must stop. If my live in girlfriend cant get bennies from my company cause we’re not married then neither should gays.
Second, it looks like the gay-marriage crowd was duped by the lawyers – Now lawyers have a new revenue stream – gay divorce. (As well as suing companies that allow for bennies for gay signifcant others but not for straights.)
Finally, yes, it will cost NY a LOT. Likely with the ensuing lawsuit frenzy, many companies will leave the state. With high taxes, massive regulations, this is just the straw that broke the camel’s back. On the bright side, we get to watch the fall of a once great (city) state. Enjoy!
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:08pmTo DrPhil69:
Report Post »I agree that many of the “advocates” for gay marriage in the legal community were salivating in anticipation of getting their “cut” when dealing with the inevitable dissolution of gay marriages. As far as the state & the law is concerned, marriage is simply a contract concerning property (with children & pets considered as such) & financial matters.
My world won’t end (& I doubt anyone else’s will either) with the passage of any gay marriage law. What frustrates me is the tendency for the fey crowd to demand special privileges & dispensations because of simply being gay. If the gays have marriage & want to normalize their behavior, then they damn well should be expected to live & play by the same rules as the rest of us.
You also bring up a good point about cohabitation. Once again, if you demand marriage & are given that privilege by the state, you accept ALL OTHER limits & legal expectations to which the general population must adhere.
This will lead some more militatant & unreasonable folks of the fey persuasion to demand “gay” divorce & “gay” tax law; rules that recognize them as a “protected or special” class or to whom the mundane rules & regulations don’t apply. If & when such an argument surfaces, it should be soundly trounced. Gays have been awarded what they demanded… along with all the limits & boils that are attached to the institution of marriage. NO MORE BULLYING.
No victims here. They won, now they gotta deal with it.
michael48
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 1:39pmsex changes …change back…boob jobs…un-boob jobs…check out Ca. state employees …get ready NY, you just THOUGHT you’ve seen STRANGE…BTW..the above example was for San Fran POLICE CHIEF/CHIEFETTE..or WHATEVER…
Report Post »avenger
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 7:20pmI can hardly wait for the first divorce case over who gets ownership to eric the gerbil…
Report Post »pjmac46
Posted on July 2, 2011 at 11:02pmHAHAHAHA LOL… Surprised San Fransico outlawed pet sales :)
Report Post »nysparkie
Posted on July 5, 2011 at 10:34amNYSPARKIE says: “STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF”!!!
Report Post »Lord, please, please send the COMET soon. We deserve it. The Earth needs it. One species to many here. Please Lord send the bad boy right away. SPECIAL DELIVERY “THE EARTH”