’75 law blocks benefits for gay vets’ spouses

Army veteran Tracey Cooper-Harris (left) and her wife, Maggie, want the 1975 law to be declared unconstitutional. Photo: Carolyn Kaster, ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

Bob Egelko | San Francisco Chronicle | July 28, 2013

Despite last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples, gay and lesbian military veterans still face a barrier to equal rights for themselves and their spouses in a separate 1975 law that was actually intended to help female veterans.

The law – which governs veterans’ disability payments, survivors’ benefits and military burials – requires a veteran’s spouse to be “a person of the opposite sex.” Passed to replace laws that provided benefits only to male service members and their widows, it is now used against same-sex couples like Tracey Cooper-Harris of Pasadena, a disabled Army veteran, and her wife, Maggie.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, however, the 1975 law has lost its last legal defender and may soon lose its force.

Read more

Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships Officially Unequal

John M. Becker | Bilerico | July 9, 2013

A popular argument among those who oppose marriage equality is that same-sex couples don’t need marriage itself because they can get equality in rights and benefits under an institution with another name, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

However, in a series of memos recently released by the Office of Personnel Management in response to last month’s Supreme Court decision striking down the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government makes it crystal clear that “separate but equal” relationship recognition structures are not equal at all.

The Washington Post reports:

The Obama administration will not extend federal-worker benefits to domestic partners under the Supreme Court ruling that overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, meaning the government will treat civil unions differently than legal same-sex marriages.

The Office of Personnel Management made that announcement in a series of memos to federal benefits administrators and insurance carriers, saying couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

So there you have it: only same-sex couples who are legally married will be able to access federal employee benefits. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are inherently unequal to marriage. Another anti-gay right-wing argument obliterated!

Read more

Where You Live May Make All The Difference For Federal Marriage Benefits

There’s no downplaying the significance of the Supreme Court ruling striking  down the Defense of Marriage Act. But in fact the ruling may not be quite as  sweeping as you might think. Just because you were legally married in one state  doesn’t mean you will necessarily get all the benefits you think you are  entitled to. Geography  will play a big role in how the federal government looks upon your  marriage.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the federal benefits it made available  to same-sex married couples will only apply to those couples married in states  that have marriage equality. Those couples who live in states that ban marriage  equality are still out in the cold.

The problem will be when couples move from the state where they are married.  If you move for work or school, retire or for whatever reason end up in a state  that does not recognize your marriage, you are in a gray zone (which will be a  lawyer’s delight).

The reason: for some federal benefits, the government relies upon the state  in which you live to determine if you are legally married. If you move from  Massachusetts to Montana, for the purpose of certain federal benefits you are no  longer married. Those benefits include Social Security survivor benefits. It may  also affect whether you will be able to take unpaid leave to care for your  spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Moving may also affect how you pay taxes. If you move to a non-marriage  equality state, it’s not clear whether you can still file a joint federal tax  return, which could mean  a big financial hit.

It will take years of litigation to sort through these issues. In the  meantime, the Obama Administration could do everyone a big favor by making it  clear how it interprets the application of benefits.

Read more

How the Court’s Ruling Will Affect Same-Sex Spouses

TARA SIEGEL BERNARD | New York Times | June 26, 2013

Gay couples have long had second-tier status when it came to their finances — many things were more complicated, like filing tax returns, and often more costly, like health insurance.

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, some of these issues will be wiped away. The ruling makes clear that married gay couples living in states that recognize their unions will immediately gain access to more than 1,000 federal benefits, like Social Security and family leave rights. Less certain is how couples living in the remaining 37 states will fare.

The murkiness exists because federal agencies generally defer to the states to determine a couple’s marital status. Some agencies look to the laws in the state in which a couple now live, for instance, while others look to those in the state in which the couple were married.

Read more

Here’s President Obama’s statement on the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act

The White House | June 26, 2013

President Obama released the statement below after the Supreme Court mades its ruling this morning on the Defense of Marriage Act. Check it out, then forward this message to share it with your friends.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/doma-statement

Unfair Punishments

THE EDITORIAL BOARD | New York Times | March 16, 2013

Congress embraced a destructive policy when it decreed in 1996 that people convicted of drug felonies would henceforth be banned for life from receiving food stamps or cash assistance unless they lived in a state that expressly opted out of the ban.

The bans affected the country’s most vulnerable families, including women with children. And by denying welfare benefits to former drug addicts, the government makes it much harder for them to get access to residential treatment, which is sometimes required as a condition of release and is often paid for with welfare benefits.

A majority of states have either opted out of the bans or softened them in some way. But about a dozen states have adopted the welfare ban without modification, while others have preserved obstacles to cash assistance and food stamps, with unfortunate consequences.

Read more

Journalist rips ‘pro-life’ Republicans for seeking to cut infant nutrition program

Eric W. Dolan | Raw Story | February 19, 2013

While discussing the looming sequestration on MSNBC, journalist David Cay Boyle Johnston slammed Republicans for supporting cuts to a federal program that provides food to the infants of poor mothers.

“Six hundred thousand pregnant women and mothers of small children will be cut from the [Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program],” he said. “The Republicans are always telling us about their reverence for life. Really? They are going to have 600,000 poor women and children not have proper food.”

“There is a lifetime effect on development, especially mental development, if you don’t have proper nutrition in the womb and when you’re an infant, but they are determined to cut those poor children — who are helpless — out of good nutrition.”

Read more