National
McDermott introduces pro-gay tax equity bill
Legislation would eliminate tax on employer-provided coverage
The sponsor of legislation that would ensure tax equity for same-sex couples receiving employer-provided health benefits envisions upcoming tax reform legislation as a potential vehicle for passage.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, said in an interview with the Washington Blade that he sees an opportunity to move his legislation forward when Congress takes up planned legislation for tax reform.
“It will be easy to put it in some tax bill along the way,” McDermott said. “It won’t be a standalone bill.”
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, has said he wants to address tax reform during this Congress and has held hearings on the issue, although the time for when the panel will take up the larger bill is still unknown.
A McDermott staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said his boss could amend the larger tax reform legislation with the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act when it comes before the committee, but said it “depends on the process the Republicans take.”
McDermott’s legislation rectifies an inequity faced by LGBT couples under current law, which exempts employer-provided health coverage for opposite-sex spouses from an employee’s gross income, but makes domestic partner benefits and coverage for same-sex spouses subject to taxation.
Consequently, employees seeking to cover their same-sex partners or spouses pay more income and payroll tax than a straight employee with an opposite-sex spouse.
This inequity also burdens employers who want to extend their health benefits to the partners of their gay employees. Companies that offer such benefits have the administrative burden of calculating taxes separately and have to pay additional payroll taxes.
McDermott said he introduced the legislation, which has been languishing in Congress since 2001, as a “matter of basic fairness” for same-sex couples who are receiving employer-provided health benefits.
“If there is a couple who are in some kind of union, recognized in one way or another, they have to pay taxes on it,” McDermott said. “That’s not fair. Why should a gay couple, or any kind of couples that are living together, using one health insurance plan have to pay taxes whereas if you’re married and not a same-sex couple, you don’t have to pay taxes.”
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the legislation will eliminate an additional barrier that same-sex couples face in securing health insurance coverage.
“This legislation would remove that added tax burden, which can be as much as $2,200 per year, as well as the penalty imposed on fair-minded employers who provide equal benefits to their LGBT employees,” Solmonese said.
In the last Congress, the legislation was included as a provision in a House version of health care reform legislation. However, the language never made it as part of the final bill because the Senate version of health care reform was the bill that made its way to President Obama’s desk.
Despite the failure last week, McDermott said the prospects of passing tax reform legislation this Congress are even greater than last year — even with Republicans in control of the House — because of the plan for Congress to address tax reform legislation by the end of next year.
“We’ve got some Republican sponsors this time,” McDermott said. “As a matter of fact, there are a lot more Republicans who have heard from people in their district who are saying, ‘Just change the tax code and make it easier for us.'”
As of this week, McDermott’s legislation has three co-sponsors: Reps. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) , Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.). In the Senate, Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is set to introduce companion legislation either this week or the next. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) will be an original co-sponsor.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, praised the Republican co-sponsors for joining on in early support of the legislation.
“We need common sense, pro-growth policies to give businesses and entrepreneurs renewed confidence in our economy and to remove Washington as the roadblock to job creation,” Cooper said. “Under current policy, the federal tax code is punishing the business community for providing their gay and lesbian employees with benefits. Congress can help private sector growth by eliminating the punitive domestic partner tax.”
An estimated 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies offer health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of the employees. On May 31, 77 major American businesses — including Alaska Airlines, Microsoft and Boeing — sent a letter to McDermott in support of the legislation.
“Companies like ours in increasing numbers have made the business decision to provide health benefits to such beneficiaries, such as the domestic partners, adult children, certain grandchildren, etc. of our employees,” the letter states. “This coverage and coverage of non-spouse, non-dependent beneficiaries helps corporations attract and retain qualified employees and provides employees with health security on an equitable basis.”
The legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Republican-controlled House Ways & Means Committee, which most observers expect to be unfriendly to pro-LGBT legislation. Camp’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the bill.
However, one of the signers of the legislation is the Dow Chemical Co., which is headquartered in Midland, Mich., and in Camp’s district. Supporters of the legislation are hoping Dow’s endorsement will prompt Camp to support it.
McDermott said he hasn’t had discussions with Camp about his bill yet, but plans to do so when the congressional recess ends at the start of next week.
The administration has also yet to voice support one way or the other for the legislation. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, told the Blade the administration hasn’t yet reviewed the measure.
“While we have not reviewed this specific legislation, the president generally supports efforts to give parity and equal protection to same-sex couples,” Inouye said.
McDermott said he doesn’t see any interim action that President Obama could take to address the situation and said passing legislation is the only to end the tax inequity faced by LGBT couples.
“I think it’s going to require a law change,” McDermott said. “If you keep after something that’s right, then ultimately the stars line up and it passes. That’s what’s going to happen here.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
Underdog glorious: a personal remembrance of Jill Sobule
Dr. Fauci receives Harvey Milk Award, reflects on legacy of love and public health
I’m a lesbian and LGBTQ books would have changed my life
Comings & Goings
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
-
The Vatican3 days agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved