The Sacramento Bee’s Claudia Buck is reporting that same-sex couples in three separate states — California, Nevada and Washington — can now “divide their combined income equally and report it on their separate tax returns,” and in some instances, push themselves into a lower tax bracket and pay less taxes. According to the new rule, the IRS will treat community property earned by same-sex couples in the same way that it treats community property earned by married different-sex couples who file separate federal tax returns: add together all the community income earned by both members of the couple and to allocate half to each one’s separate return.

Those who will save the most are same-sex couples with the biggest disparities in income. For instance, a couple where one earns $100,000 and the other is a stay-at-home spouse with little or no income, will split their combined community earnings on their individual tax returns, with each reporting $50,000 in income. The result: an overall lower tax bill for both.

In an example cited by Lambda officials, a hypothetical couple where “David” is an attorney earning $225,000 and “Richard” a librarian with $20,000 in income, will see a combined savings of $6,824 in taxes.

But since the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and same-sex spouses must continue to file separate federal income tax returns.

In fact, the new income splitting requirement may even add more complexity to gay couples filing their tax returns and could increase the costs of filing a return over the short-term. One CPA contacted by the paper estimates that “the new income-splitting requirements could take twice as long to prepare.” “We have to go through every single item of income and determine if it’s community property or separate property. Then you have to do the same with expenses and deductions. If there’s a prenup (prenuptial agreement), that has to be taken into account. Then you develop a IRS worksheet that has to be attached and show how you split everything up,” because the reported income won’t match what’s on an employer’s W-2 statement.

Maryland’s same-sex marriage legislation passed a second reading this afternoon in a vote of 25-22, paving the way for final approval later this week. Below are just some of the most interesting amendments that were either passed or rejected:

- Religious institutions would not have to engage in “the promotion of marriage, through religious programs, counseling, educational courses, summer camps, and retreats, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.” ADOPTED.

- “Fraternal benefit societies” can deny admission to or provide insurance benefits to an individual under certain circumstances. ADOPTED.

- Adoption agencies can discriminate against couples based on their religious beliefs. Supporters of marriage argued that the broad language in this amendment would allow agencies to exclude interracial or inter-religious couples. REJECTED.

- Small businesses can deny services to gay couples based on a religious objection. WITHDRAWN.

- Public officials can opt out of performing same-sex marriages. REJECTED.

- Teachers cannot be required to discuss, teach, condone or promote same-sex marriages based on their religious beliefs. REJECTED.

- To take out “Religious Freedom and” from the title of the bill. ADOPTED.

For a complete list of amendments, click here.

As news broke of President Obama’s decision not to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in a court of law, Fox News invited the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)’s Maggie Gallagher to discuss the development. Gallagher, who’s organization has been spearheading the fight against marriage equality, chastised the president for declaring that “gay is like black” and promised to “push very hard” to urge the House of Representatives to defend the law in the administration’s stead:

This is an end-run really around our normal constitutional processes. And we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this by President Obama now that he faces a Republican-dominated Congress. Not only is he refusing to defend the law, but he has unilaterally declared that gay is like black that orientation is subject to strict scrutiny. [...]

Here is the good news Megyn, President Obama wasn’t really defending this law at all. His Justice Department was trying to throw this case and I think this now open up for the House to intervene in this case and to get somebody in court who actually wants to defend the law. So in a backwards way, I think it’s going to end up being good news for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Watch it:

There is no indication that the House will pursue this strategy, however. In a statement issued this afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

Moments ago, in a sharp reversal of policy, the Obama administration announced that it believes that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional and will ask the Justice Department to stop defending the law. In a press release announcing the change, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also argues that laws regarding sexual orientation should be subject to a higher level of review:

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Back in July, a Federal District Court in Boston ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with the traditional state right to define marriage and forces the state to “violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.” The decision was composed of two separate challenges, one brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) “on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts” who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples. In November 2010, plaintiffs also filed two “new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny.”

The Obama administration announced its intention to defend DOMA in October of 2010 and in January filed a brief arguing that “DOMA is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.” The government maintained that Congress enacted the law during an era of upheaval to maintain “uniformity on the federal level” and allow states the flexibility to expand the definition of marriage as they see fit.

Today’s decision is consistent with President Obama’s opposition to DOMA during the 2008 campaign. “I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether,” Obama said in November of 2007.

Last night during a speech in Philadelphia, former House Speaker and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R) was confronted about the contradiction of opposing marriage equality while repeatedly disregarding his own marriage vows. The former speaker seemed to suggest that the real victims of intolerance are Christians, before going on to say that the mistakes he has made in his private life are irrelevant in the larger public policy debate:

ISABEL FRIEDMAN: You adamantly oppose gay rights… but you’ve also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second… As a successful politician who’s considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?

GINGRICH: I hope you feel better about yourself…the fascist behavior I described was an older woman wearing a cross and I think if you go back and read the news accounts, it was explicitly fascist behavior and if you look at things that have been done to churches, it’s explicitly fascist behavior and frankly if you look at the recent tearing down of the cross in Mojave Desert, in my judgment, that is the kind of anti-religious behavior [...]

I’ve had a life which, on occasion, has had problems. I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future. They have to decide who can effectively get us to a future in which we are economically prosperous, military safe, and maximize freedom. That’s a debate I’ll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run.

Watch it (via Towleroad):

The hypocrisy of Gingrich’s answer is hard to bear: he’s suggesting that his private sexual transgressions have no effect on the larger policy issues facing the country, while holding the position that same-sex marriages threaten American families and must therefore be outlawed.

Gingrich has previously claimed, “There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it.” He has described Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn Proposition 8 as “an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

In an interview with right-winger John Lofton, Gingrich claimed, “you have to” believe “homosexuality is a sin,” adding, “I think that if you believe the Bible then it’s fairly clear.” Though he said he didn’t “want to be judgmental about others,” Gingrich stated he opposes the right of gay people to marry or adopt children.