You are here: Home » News » In The Courts » Little Alaska Property Tax Case Threatens Opposite-Sex Marriage Rights

Little Alaska Property Tax Case Threatens Opposite-Sex Marriage Rights

It is a simple case involving property taxes in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is certainly getting Tony Perkin’s panties in a twist. The Alaska Constitution has some pretty strong equal protection guarantees and an amendment that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Still, it was the case of the property tax exemption that could trip this one up.

Gayle Schuh and Julie Schmidt are both in their sixties and separated by about five years. Schmidt is 67, and if the two could be married, they would be entitled to a $150,000 property tax exemption for those who are over the age of 65. Because they are not married, the exemption is only $127,000, or half of what their home is worth. That difference costs them $359.

Well, they challenged this in court, and the court ruled that any laws that benefit married couples discriminate on the basis of sex.

According to Forbes:

The challenged Tax Exemption allows seniors over the age of sixty-five and disabled veterans to exclude from their real property tax the first $150,000 of the assessed value of their primary residence. An eligible person who is married may exempt the full value of his or her property. 7 However, if an eligible person co-owns or co-occupies property with a person to whom the eligible person is not married (such as a same-sex domestic partner, a friend, or a relative) the eligible person may exclude only the value proportionate to his or her ownership interest. The statute’s implementing regulation provides that a married person may claim the full $150,000 exemption “regardless of whether the property is held in the name of the husband, wife, or both.” Therefore, married people can receive a larger benefit from the Tax Exemption than unmarried property co-owners or cohabitants.

The marital classification prevents co-owners or co-occupants from obtaining the full value of the exemption when one person qualifies for the exemption and the other does not. If both people qualify for the exemption, then each person could exempt one-half of the property’s assessed value and they would receive, in combination, the exemption’s full value. If unmarried people co-own or co-occupy property with an assessed value greater than $300,000, the marital classification does not prevent the eligible person from obtaining the full benefit. At that point, the eligible person’s one-half ownership interest is greater than $150,000 — the maximum value of the tax exemption.

The plaintiffs pointed out that this statute “cannot acquire constitutional dimension because of the Marriage Amendment, and cannot supersede or supplant the constitutional right to equal protection.” What is more, the ACLU took this to the Alaska Supreme Court and explained that the amendment “effectively prevents same-sex couples from marrying” but it “does not automatically permit the government to treat them differently in other ways.” In other words, it is the possible for the government and the courts to strip away the rights of opposite-sex married couples on the basis of discrimination.

So…which one is hurting same-sex marriage again?

Tony Perkins went off the deep end on this one. You can read it here in this photo via JoeMyGod: