

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sean Eldridge
Director of Communications, Freedom to Marry
sean@freedomtomarry.org
April
15th marks a deadline that few Americans look
forward to - and same-sex couples in particular have reason to dread.
This
year, same-sex couples will file joint tax returns in more states than
ever before: in the five states where gay couples have the freedom to
marry, as well as in a handful of other jurisdictions that provide some
relationship recognition, including California, Oregon, and New Jersey.
However, because of the federal discrimination enacted under the
so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, no same-sex couples will be
permitted to file their taxes with the IRS as what they are: married.
DOMA excludes same-sex couples from the more than a thousand federal
responsibilities and protections of marriage and from the common
practice and expectation that a valid marriage in one state is generally
recognized by others.
Of course, every family is
different, and generalizations can only go so far, but there are a few
elements of federal marriage discrimination that consistently harm
same-sex couples and their families - glaringly so on Tax Day:
Health care: Because gay
couples still lack the freedom to marry in most states, many companies
are not obligated to provide health insurance for an employee's partner,
even if they offer health coverage to all married spouses of their
employees. So the cost of health insurance for same-sex couples is
often a lot higher than for heterosexual couples. What many people
don't know is that when companies do provide coverage for an employee's
same-sex partner, that partner's coverage is taxed as additional
income. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, do not have to pay
taxes on spousal coverage.
Income
tax: As with non-gay
couples, filing as a married couple would affect same sex-couples in
various ways - for some taxes would decrease and for others they would
increase. What is clear, however, is that under current discriminatory
federal law, same-sex couples are treated differently. They are not
permitted to file as a couple, and in addition to the indignity of being
forced to falsely identify as "single," this often imposes financial
burdens on them and their family.
Financial planning and
estate taxes: Different-sex
married couples can share unlimited assets with one another during
their lives and upon death without paying estate taxes. In the eyes of
the federal government, however, for same sex-couples these day-to-day
transactions, as well as the transfer of earnings upon death, are
taxable "gifts," as if among strangers. Same-sex couples often end up
spending far more on financial planning to protect their families and
their assets. Navigating the complicated tax code as a gay couple is no
simple task, and because of federal marriage discrimination, gay
couples often spend thousands of dollars on professional advice and
coping strategies to protect their families.
And
needless to say, the harms and economic burdens that the denial of
marriage brings fall hardest on the most vulnerable, including people
who are ill or of lesser means.
Evan Wolfson,
Executive Director of Freedom to Marry stated that, "For gay couples, as
for non-gay couples, marriage is about much more than money and
financial security. Same-sex couples build lives based on love,
commitment, dedication, and self-sacrifice, and share the joys and, yes,
do the work of marriage. But at this time of year, the economic
injustice of exclusion from marriage is impossible to ignore. Especially
in these rough economic times, government has no business putting
obstacles in the paths of committed couples seeking to take care of
their loved ones and their families."
The White House
and the Department of Justice have conceded that "DOMA" is a discriminatory policy and should be
repealed. And a number of challenges to the federal
anti-marriage law are making their way through the courts, including
cases brought by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But Congress also has the authority to
repeal this infamous law, and according to Wolfson, "should heed
President Obama's call to dump DOMA and end federal marriage
discrimination now."
In September 2009, the Respect
for Marriage Act, which would repeal "DOMA," was introduced in the House
of Representatives, and already has more than 100 co-sponsors. Freedom to Marry is building support for the bill because,
Evan Wolfson stated, "it's time to end federal marriage discrimination
and make Tax Day a little less painful, and a whole lot fairer, for
American families."
Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Headed by Evan Wolfson, one of America's leading civil rights advocates and lawyers, Freedom to Marry brings new resources and a renewed context of urgency and opportunity to this social justice movement.
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.
"Human life cannot be left to the mercy of a president’s whim."
Amnesty International on Wednesday denounced this week's killing of six more people as US forces bombed another boat the Trump administration said—without evidence—was operated by narco-traffickers.
"Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said Sunday on social media. "Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Six male narco-terrorists were killed during this action."
The US has bombed at least 40 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since last September, killing at least 156 people, according to the Trump administration.
"Amnesty International strongly condemns these acts and reiterates that they constitute extrajudicial killings, a form of murder, prohibited under international law, and represent a grave affront to the most basic principles of humanity and legality," Amnesty said in a statement. "No circumstances justify the arbitrary deprivation of life."
The boat strikes were fraught from the start. In the first known attack, US forces killed nine people in an initial strike and then two men clinging to the boat's wreckage in a follow-up bombing. Legal experts have debated whether those strikes were a war crime or simply murder, and many argue that all of the boat bombings violate international law.
“The United States cannot claim the right to blow up boats with people on board based solely on suspicions of drug trafficking or other allegedly illicit activities," Amnesty International Americas director Ana Piquer said Wednesday. "The rest of the international community cannot normalize these extrajudicial killings, in which the United States military is judge and executioner."
"No president or military has the right to arbitrarily take life."
"Human life cannot be left to the mercy of a president’s whim," Piquer stressed. "No president or military has the right to arbitrarily take life. The level of dehumanization and cynicism reflected in these acts is deeply alarming and should be of global concern."
"It is urgent to demand accountability and immediately end these types of attacks," she added. "Due to the current acquiescence of the attorney general’s office, Congress must step in with its oversight power and investigate."
In addition to bombing boats—and 10 countries—President Donald Trump launched an invasion of Venezuela to abduct its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, who are jailed in the US awaiting trial for dubious narco-trafficking charges.
Earlier this month, Trump also authorized a joint campaign with Ecuador to combat "narco-terrorists" in which US ground troops have been deployed in the Andean nation.