Social Security to deny benefits to married gay couples living in non-equality states.

[Not Me]

Social Security has said it will be using the "State of Domicile" consideration for benefits, meaning that couples legally married in one (equality) state who move to a non-equality state will be denied joint benefits.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/social-security-payments-to-same-sex-married-couples-limited

And, to make matters worse, the IRS is likely to use the same criteria.

There is going to be a mass exodus of non-equality states. Mark my words.

[Swede Atlanta]

1. This will be challenged under equal protection.......

I realize that family matters have traditionally been the purview of the various states but this goes to federal benefits based on an individual state's status in this issue.

Perhaps they are trying to trigger more legal action that will fully and openly reveal the stupidity of this issue and we will see the supremes agree with marriage equality.

I'm not holding my breath but......

[Politicalboi]

2. State law trumps federal law

Except when it comes to Marijuana. Cowards.

[AZ Progressive]

4. The Right Wing's de facto motto: Do whatever it takes to get your way

Principles and rhetoric are bullshit. It's all about winning and getting your way.

[TDale313]

7. So very true. n/t

[KansDem]

3. "There is going to be a mass exodus of non-equality states."

I hope there will be employment for those who want to leave. Unfortunately, the economy is such it makes it increasingly more difficult to move to another part of the country.

[Not Me]

6. I live in Florida (married in NY)

and am within a year or two of retirement. It bugs the shit out of me that I cannot make plans for my future. Florida will be years before it changes its laws, so the only hope is federal court intervention.
My husband is a couple years younger and will likely work another 5 years or so. His skills are readily transferable.
We are planning on moving back to NY.

[closeupready]

5. Yep. Here we go. Why would you, given the choice,

choose to live in a non-equality state with your spouse when you know their lives will be much worse off if, God forbid, something happened to you? K&R

[ProSense]

8. There's a lot of

good informaiton in the article:

<...>

(Update at 2:05 a.m.: Will Baude at The Volokh Conspiracy writes that he “assume(s)” that the agency relied on “a special statute dealing with choice of marital law for social security claims,” which states that the marriage is valid for Social Security purposes “if the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled … would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married.” At the same time, Baude points to an alternative provision that would provide additional coverage beyond that — a provision that did not appear to be applied in Friday’s instructions.)

The Department of Homeland Security, for example, has stated that “as a general matter, (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) looks to the law of the place where the marriage took place when determining whether it is valid for immigration law purposes.” Secretary of State John Kerry made similar commitments last week as to the issuance of visas.

When the Office of Personnel Management announced its plans to extend federal employee health insurance program and other key programs to same-sex married couples a spokesman told BuzzFeed, “(T)hese benefits will be available to any Federal employee or annuitant who has a valid marriage license, regardless of their State of residency.”

(Update at 10:35 a.m.: Human RIghts Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz pushed the agency to do more, telling BuzzFeed, “We are glad to see some couples getting benefits and that the door is still open for those couples living in non-marriage equality states. We urge them to take the broadest interpretation to ensure the maximum numbers of same sex couples have access to benefits.”)

<...>

Kerry Announces U.S. Will Treat Visa Applications From Same-Sex Spouses Equally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393565

[joeybee12]

9. This will lead to legal challenges, which is a good thing...

It'll force SCOTUS to revisit the issue and realize they can't punt again.

[Not Me]

10. So, maybe in three of four years?

Justice delayed is justice denied.
Doesn't help me much, I need certainty in order to plan my retirement. The only way I can get that is to move to an equality state.

[joeybee12]

12. I don't think it took that long for Prop 8 to make it, did it?

It could have...also, there could be a push by some in Congress to get the SSA and IRS to change their policies.

[Not Me]

15. Prop 8 took 4 1/2 years and Millions of dollars to litigate

And this was in a liberal state (and a liberal Fed District Court) that had strong and growing approval for marriage equality.
Not the case in TX, FL, NC, GA and many other states.

[joeybee12]

17. Well, one thing to consider is that a case against the SSN would take a different route...

which I would asusme would be quicker, because Prop 8 went also through the state system, then had to go up trhough the federal system...you might be able to go right to the top with this one...any legal experts know?

[SoCalDem]

20. and the second any state has its legislature shift to republican,

they act with breakneck speed to immediately roll back any freedoms held by people they don't like

This is the one thing that bugs me most about Democratic leaders..and activists to a degree too.. We tend to go "whew..glad that's over", and move on to the next issue.. Republicans just move those foiled issues to the TOP of their to-do list and work ten times harder to reinstate things they like and to abandon things they don't. They are relentlessly focused and have the financial backing of too many rich no-good-niks.

[davidpdx]

30. It's been almost 8 years since the law in Oregon was passed

That was fairly similar to that of Prop 8. That is really bad.

[DevonRex]

19. Before Obama's out of office.

And it will be solid law from there on out. It's the only way that gives you certainty.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. Please Gay couples...if you have the means....move away from these small-minded phobic states.

pay taxes to the states that protect your civil liberties...

[cthulu2016]

13. DOMA mandated this, but having no-DOMA dosn't automatically end this

Some courts will probably have to get involved with these policies (which may be legally required—agencies are creatures of the laws) to reveiw the policies in terms of the SCOTUS equal protection ruling.

[MineralMan]

14. They need to rethink this, and right away.

Perhaps a little nudge by the Administration, as in a butt-kicking, would do the job.

[Not Me]

16. The problem with Social Security (and IRS)

is that they are using the Domicile criteria based on former court precedent. They believe they have no power to change this.

[dbackjon]

18. How is that Constitutional?

Under the 14th Amendment?

[DevonRex]

21. This will obviously generate court cases. It's a good thing

because the court cases will start to close all the holes the DOMA case didn't address. If I remember correctly, the Supes left way too much unsaid even though it was a favorable ruling.

I have a sneaky feeling that Federal agencies will try to instigate cases in a big hurry, to get as many of these decided as they can while the iron is hot. The Roberts court would have a hard time deciding differently on these issues.

The idiot states will, though. So the appeals will go to the SC.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

24. It's not. And that is why the struggle against the bigots and hater must continue

[cthulu2016]

25. SCOTUS precedent doesn't automatically change all laws

Laws that are almost identical to laws struck down will sometimes be struck down summarily, but a new line of legal reasoning has to percolate through the system case-by-case.

The equal protection based ruling in the DOMA case will be applied to these policies in new lawsuits which may probably result in them being struck down, but until then they remain the law.

The government can also decline to mount a defense agains a challenge if they feel that subsequent SCOTUS rullings render something unconstitutional.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Obama has said he wants the rights of LGBT people left up to the States.

Not his own, just ours. States should NOT be able to make marijuana law but should be able to oppress minorities according to Obama. Makes no sense and is hypocritical because he is a 'faith based' thinker. All about buying bullshit dogma.

[Wilms]

23. ^

[Jim Lane]

26. Will the IRS apply the "marriage penalty" to such couples?

The "marriage penalty" in federal income tax affects, roughly speaking, two people who each earn good wages at a comparable level. A married couple will often pay more in taxes than would two single people with the same incomes. (A couple with one wage earner and one non-earner will usually pay less if married.)

Suppose a same-sex couple is married in one of the marriage equality states and then moves to one of the bigoted ones. They're years away from collecting Social Security (barring any disability or early death), but they have to file with the IRS right now. If they say they're married they may pay more in taxes. If they avoid that result by saying they're not married, the IRS could come after them for perjury. I don't think the IRS is bound by what the Social Security Administration does.

Similar questions must have arisen with regard to first-cousin marriages, which some states allow and some don't. If two married first cousins move to a state that wouldn't have let them marry in the first place, my guess is that the SSA, the IRS, and everybody else still treats them as married.

It should not be necessary for me to add that I'm not insinuating that same-sex marriage is like incest -- but it probably is necessary. I'm not saying that. Also, as to any of you married first cousins out there, I'm not saying that your marriage is incestuous, but some LGBT people have implied that in similar contexts in the past.

[Not Me]

31. The IRS has yet to provide guidance as to how same gender married couples in non-equality states

will be treated. But it currently used the "domicile rule" just as Social Security does. And it is expected to come down (at least for now) along the same way as Social Security did. So to answer your question, it IS very likely that the marriage penalty will continue for those of us who live in bigot states.

[Jim Lane]

33. Sorry, I don't understand your answer.

You say that the IRS will probably follow the SSA's course, and then you conclude that "it IS very likely that the marriage penalty will continue for those of us who live in bigot states."

Those two statements are inconsistent. If the IRS joins the SSA in following the rule of the state of the individual's domicile, then, in non-equality states, the marriage penalty will be imposed only on opposite-sex married couples. Some same-sex married couples will pay less in taxes than they would if they were of opposite sexes.

The irony is that, if that happens, some homophobes will probably point to it as evidence that LGBT people are seeking special privileges.

[Not Me]

35. Sorry for the confusion.

It can work either way...depending on the incomes of the couple. In my case, we would have saved about $3500 last year because my income is significantly higher than my husbands. I was coming at it from my situation.

[MADem]

27. That's not right. That's just not right.

However, it's good news for the equality states; the economic clout of the gay community is nothing to sneeze at. Their presence will strengthen the communities as well as the economies.

I just don't see how they can get away with that, though. If the other forty nine states have their marriages recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I don't see how some of those states can get away with not reciprocating.

Maybe Massachusetts ought to stop recognizing the marriages of states that deny equality???

[Egnever]

28. Well that blows

Clearly more work to be done.

[loyalsister]

29. DOMA did not imply affirmative marriage rights

The DEFENSE of marriage was overturned. The federal government can not defend marriage discrimination laws. But that does not mean that it can overturn state constitutional amendments. I think it will take rulings on those state laws\amendments.

[theHandpuppet]

32. This is exactly one of the problems my partner and I face

And yes, we will have to move. We had hoped to retire closer to family but will now have to relocate even farther away.

23 years together and still treated like second class crap in our own country.

[MrScorpio]

34. This is the sort of thing that creates an imperative to make full equality the law of the land

Instead of just the law of certain states.