From my inbox this afternoon:"I am very sorry to tell you, but I know in previous years the credit union paid for Keith's return, but starting this year they will not."
After almost 8 years, there are suddenly
The new rule states that the company will only pay for the filing of an employee's tax return. It sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? An employee's significant other -- whether boyfriend, girlfriend, finacee, or spouse -- will have to pay for their own tax return.
Except for the fact that most married couples file jointly and therefore have a free filing. As the argument follows, the employer will only pay for one tax return. You can tell this is specifically designed to prevent unmarried persons from getting a "freebie" from the credit union. The only way to get around this is to get married and file your taxes jointly.
But what do you do when the current laws in the country prevent you from taking that simple step?
I mean, for straight people it is a total choice. They can get married or not. They can file jointly or not. It is all up to them. I can see this new policy as a protection for the company to not spend money to cover the "boyfriend/girlfriend" of the moment.
Keith and I have been together for 10 years (longer than some couples, and definitely exceeding any marriage by Brittany Spears), however there is no way that we are allowed to take that "marriage" step. It's not a choice for us -- we just can't. And now we're even denied the one common courtesy that we had enjoyed before.
I'm not sure how to fight it and seriously doubt there is any way that I could win it. You could be sure that no matter what I do, there will be some unmarried straight person behind me claiming, "You're giving the homo benefits, but you won't extent them to my baby's daddy/momma." And you know they won't see the inequality of the situation.
There's always hope that someday it will change -- it just may not be within my lifetime.