Will Social Security force the USSC to decide on gay marriage?

By Jonathan Capehart June 23 at 10:14 AM 

Further proof of the need for the Supreme Court to rule that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution came via a Friday announcement from the Social Security Administration. “Social Security has published new instructions that allow the agency to process more claims in which entitlement or eligibility is affected by a same-sex relationship,” the federal retiree agency said. Unfortunately, “the Social Security Act requires the agency to follow state law in Social Security cases.”

When the Supreme Court invalidated the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal agencies set about making their policies reflect the new reality. That is, ensuring that legally married same-sex couples were being treated equally under the law. In addition, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memorandum last February announcing that “same-sex marriages, valid in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated” would be viewed as legal under federal law. Except if that law is the Social Security Act.

“As with previous same-sex marriage policies, we worked closely with the Department of Justice,” said Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security. “We are bound by the law within the Social Security Act, and we have to respect state laws.” Last month, I told you about a bill sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would “confer spousal benefits to any individual legally married in United States.” It would also “eliminate the requirement that the spouse reside in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage in order to be eligible for Social Security benefits.”

Given Capitol gridlock, I placed great hope in the agency’s ability to make things right for legally married same-sex couples. That the Justice Department could not find a legal way for the Social Security Administration to use the demise of DOMA to treat all Americans “fairly and equally, with the dignity and respect they deserve,” as Colvin said last year, means the law needs to be changed. That’s not an easy task when the prognosis of passage of the Murray-Udall bill from Govtrack.us is “0% chance of being enacted.” That’s why the Supreme Court must act. Until marriage equality is legal nationwide, legally married same-sex couples won’t be able to avail themselves of the benefits they deserve without impediment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-why-supreme-court-must-act-on-gay-marriage/

Give the congruence of the Far Right who wish to abolish Social Security (for "private investment accounts")...and the Antipathetic-to-Gay-Rights Far Right who want to try to stem the tide of overturning bans, court cases going against them, polls going against them, etc....

it'll be interesting politically to see how the two groups react to this story.

 

I hope that it does get addressed. If they review it for those who have gay sex then it must be reviewed for everyone and that includes single people who can't will all of their and their employer's contribution to whomever they wish. Some good may finally come out treating those who have gay sex as something special.

If you earn $1 million your working life (easy to do) then about $130k-$150k got taken from you and your employer. If you don't live to collect it, then it's gone

if you earn $2 million, still not difficult to do, then it's $260k-$300k which is gone.

It's really not a gay sex issue but more of a FUBAR govt program

 

It is not a gay sex issue....it's a marriage benefit issue.

But you focus on what you want to focus on, that's your right.

 

nah, the moment you treat gay anything as special it's giving privileges based solely on engaging in gay sex. That will force the courts to examine the lunacy of it all and perhaps return back to the Constitution where we treat people as individuals and don't' grant privileges because you have sex this way or that.

 

It has never been a gay sex issue- so we are in agreement.

If we have social security and social security survivor benefits, then they should be equal for all surviving married partners.

I do not support your call to eliminate Social Security, but certainly that would be one way of making SS equitable.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL....that is some serious lunacy.

"If we treat homosexuals the same way we treat heterosexuals that is special treatment"

Only in the minds of the rabidly anti-homosexual activists.

 

So gay marriage is unconstitutional?.......we shall see....

 

I don't call for SS elimination

I call for treating everyone the same, be they single or married

- - - Updated - - -

marriage of all kinds is not the business of the fed govt

 

This is sec admitting that gay marriage will eventually be ruled Constitutionally.

 

oh, I've never said anything other than if the govt involves itself in marriage over one form of sexual relations or groups, then it must do the same for ALL. It's the slippery slope

that is why I'm against the fed govt going any further than just the individual and SS is a great representation of how they got it wrong by considering marriage vs the individual

 

No, you want the Federal Government "out of marriage" in some desperate hope that you can keep gay marriage banned.

But since the abolition of Jim Crow, we have precedent for the Federal Government ruling in favor of individual rights over the subjugation of those rights by the State.

BTW, neither heterosexual incest nor heterosexual polyamory concern you in the least.

 

You can live your homosexual lifestyle all that you want. The moment we make rules over how you have sex, or how I have sex, is when we open it up to everything.

 

I disagree. The government does have the right to restrict marriage.

 

Not really, if a couple is married and one spouse dies the other spouse as the option to either get their own SS benefits or those of their spouse, in some cases where the surviving spouse made more than the one that died they will opt to keep their own, but if the dead sppuse made more and hence would draw more the surviving spouse should have the right to draw their spouses SS instead of their own, it is only fair. The hidden factor in all this is no matter what the Government comes out ahead since they get to keep the remaining balance from one or the other spouse when one dies before drawing their full benefits, in otherwords if one spouse dies the government wins, kinda like Vegas, the House always wins. Personally I think the surviving spouse should be able to get the higher amount and at least 50% of the other amount, and guess what the Government still comes out ahead.

 

Nope that is untrue, it simply the claim that those opposed to gay marriage make on a regular basis, no one is going to allow you to marry a 3 year old girl or marry your cat, we are talking about consenting adults only, their sexual orientation should not come into play when it comes to the government not being able to descriminate, as you would like them to be able to do.

 

that is an incorrect assertion. Science has shown that they cannot prove the "born homosexual" theory. Given that, the lobbying efforts are for a chosen sexual lifestyle. It is akin to a smokers rights advocate group. Would you create laws for smokers? At least you can visibly tell who smokes.

 

Okay- so you are calling for the end of survivor benefits for spouses.

 

marriage is marriage, same gender, opposite gender, same race opposite race... as long as one is legally married they should be treated equally to anyone else that is married

 

it has nothing to do with how you have sex, it all about the gender of the partners... nothing more

 

Wrong again, just because some group did not find a "gay gene" does not mean they were not born that way, that is you LEAPING to a conclusion, your theory falls flat on its face when one considers children that are gay and were so before they even thought about sex and many grew up in families that are not accepting of gays, hence why in the past so many remained hidden until they moved away from home. You can stomp your feet and claim it is a choice all you want, but reality says something altogether different.
Just curious, since you are not gay, I assume, and neither am I: Why does it matter to you if gays are not discriminated against and why shouldn’t they be able to get married like any other couple? Don't like seeing a gay couple hold hands and kiss then do not look, their marriage has no connection to yours what so ever, and one spouse being able to have the same privileges under the law as every other spouse does not affect you in the least? For years the antigay people out there claimed that gays do not have real relationships like married couples and as such are leading some sort of hedonistic lifestyle, but then when gay couples say they want to commit to each other through marriage the same people whining about gays before go off the deep end and say it should be illegal. You guys make no sense, you do know that, right?

 

Good grief, I have a relationship with m cat and dogs. Some would say that at times I have an unhealthy relationship with my fishing rod, or my engine hoist as I'm always yanking out an engine from one of my cars.

SS and other topics are not a gay sex issue. The fed govt has again over reached. One rule should be made and covers all. If at you die prior to collecting, you should be able to will over some amount to anyone or charity you wish that you and your employers had paid into all those years.

 

In a way, yes

Why should those who choose to wed be given more consideration than one who chose to be single? As I've stated before, if one earned $2 million in their life (easily done), that would be about $260,000 taken from the worker and employer by SS.

Why is it that if you die prior to receiving benefit, that it just goes away? Why can't it be part of your will and you are able to do with it as you wish including give to charity? Why are special considerations given to those who were wed or had under age children?

 

If it only impacted one gay spouse, sec would want 100,000 heterosexual spouses to be denied their benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

sec, curious about this....do you REALLY believe everybody who supports gay rights....is homosexual? If not...how do you tell the difference???

 

first

"gay rights" is a misnomer because it infers that engaging in gay sex is akin to race/gender/species when it's not.

To create laws based on how a small population engages in sex is way beyond govt over-reach; it's pure craziness.

We should be viewed only as individuals by the fed govt with no consideration at all as to what we do in our bedrooms.

with respect to who does or does not engage in gay sex, only you know for sure if you fit that mold.

 

This is the only correct thing you have said. This is NOT about sex, this is about marriage.

Homosexuality is not about how you have sex. There are both heterosexual and homosexual virgins. But I've told you this many times, and you conveniently ignore it every time.

 

"If I never have sex with another man, then I'm really not a homosexual, IM REALLY NOT I SWEAR!!!!!!"