Article by Thomas D. Begley Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n This is the first of a two-part article on tax and public benefits planning for same-sex couples. \u00a0In the 2013 case of United States v.<\/i> Windsor<\/i>,[1]<\/a> the Supreme Court of the United States declared \u00a73 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.\u00a0 Section 3 was drafted to prohibit the payment of federal benefits to same-sex married couples.\u00a0 It should be noted, however, that Windsor<\/i> did not apply to \u00a72 of DOMA, which prohibits any state from being forced to recognize the actions of another state on the issue of same-sex marriage.\u00a0 As a result, there is importance attached to the state in which the marriage was celebrated and also to the state in which the couple is domiciled.\u00a0 As of the writing of this article, the following states recognize same-sex marriages:\u00a0 California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Article by Thomas D. Begley Jr. This is the first of a two-part article on tax and public benefits planning for same-sex couples. \u00a0In the 2013 case of United States v. Windsor,[1] the Supreme Court of the United States declared…<\/span><\/p>\n