Cambridge, MA Seeks to Redress Gay Marriage Tax

Among the other expenses and fees that gay and lesbian families pay out of pocket that heterosexual couples are spared are taxes on health benefits that one spouse receives through the employer of the other spouse. Those benefits are taxed as additional income when the recipient is a same-sex spouse, but not when the couple is heterosexual.

The reason for this is that the federal government cannot recognize gay and lesbian married couples under an anti-gay 1996 law, the so-called "Defense of Marriage" Act.

But at least one city is stepping up to close that gap in taxation parity: Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is located just across the Charles River from Boston, the site of another celebrated action in response to unfair taxes. Cambridge city employees with same-sex spouses pay out between $1,000 and $3,000 to provide medical coverage to their families -- a financial burden that is not imposed upon their heterosexual colleagues.

Rather than dumping tea into the harbor, Cambridge is reimbursing city employees with same-sex spouses for the tax liability imposed upon them by the federal government. Cambridge city leaders call the federal tax "discriminatory," reported local newspaper the Boston Globe in a June 9 article.

It is thought that Cambridge is the first -- and, so far, the only -- American city to redress this taxation.

"Beginning in July, the city will begin paying quarterly stipends to city employees in a same-sex marriage who must pay federal taxes on the value of the health benefits their spouse receives from the city," the Globe reported.

The article noted that the city's reimbursement plan is similar to those already in place at some major corporations such as Google.

"The city, which in 2004 was the first in the nation to offer same-sex marriage licenses, currently provides health insurance benefits to the spouses of 22 city and school department employees who are married to a partner of the same sex," the article said, citing Michael Gardner, Cambridge's personnel director. The Globe reported that the cost of the reimbursement scheme is estimated at $33,000 annually.

"Having marriage equality yet an unequal tax burden keeps GLBT married couples on the margins, and marginalization in a lot of ways is seen as a level of discrimination," openly gay City Councilor and former Cambridge mayor E. Denise Simmons told the newspaper.

The article said Simmons was one of the city councilors who proposed an order to the city manager to come up with the reimbursement plan.

"It's a wonderful way to say that you value your workforce," said Cambridge GLBT Commission member Jeff Walker.

One city worker, Priscilla Lee, recounted the burden the federal tax inflicted on her family. Because Lee provides coverage for her wife and stepchildren, her $38,000 salary is taxed by the feds as though she had been paid $53,000.

The city's openly gay mayor, David Maher, noted that the tax on married families of the same gender was unfair, and praised the city council's solution to the problem.

"[T]he City of Cambridge once again stepped up as a leader in civil rights and took steps to mitigate this tax inequity," Maher told the Globe. "We hope that other communities across the Commonwealth will follow suit. This action is the right and fair thing to do until the federal government addresses this issue."

There are a number of suits against DOMA in federal court. The Obama administration announced earlier this year that it will no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges, on the grounds that the administration agrees with a federal judge who found that part of the law is unconstitutional.

In response, House Republicans have announced that they will defend the law, hiring a private attorney at taxpayer expense. The attorney hired by GOP House members is Paul Clement.

When initially hired, Clement worked for the law firm King and Spaulding, but when details of the agreement between the firm and the House leaked -- including reports of a "gag rule" that would have banned employees of the firm from supporting marriage equality causes -- the firm pulled out of the contract in the face of the resulting public uproar.

Conservatives then joined the fray, denouncing King and Spalding for abandoning the case. Clement resigned from the firm in order to keep to his agreement to defend DOMA in federal court.