Rights group sues government after gay widower denied spousal benefits

[herding cats]

Source: NBC

Anthony Gonzales and Mark Johnson met in 1998 and spent the next 15 years together. When New Mexico legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, they married the very next day. Six months later, however, Johnson passed away from cancer.

Despite living together as a committed couple for over a decade and marrying as soon as they were legally permitted, Gonzales was not eligible to receive his husband’s Social Security benefits. This is because Section 216 of the Social Security Act stipulates that couples must be married for at least nine months in order for the surviving spouse to receive benefits.

We established a joint checking account, named each other as our beneficiaries, and cared for each other when sick — basically, all the things that committed couples do,” Gonzales said in a statement shared with NBC News. “We got married as soon as humanly possible, but I’m still barred from receiving the same benefits as other widowers, even though my husband worked hard and paid into the social security system with every paycheck.”

As a result, LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal announced on Thursday that it is suing the Social Security Administration on Gonzales’s behalf.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/rights-group-sues-government-after-gay-widower-denied-spousal-benefits-n948256?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

[cstanleytech]

1. I am not sure if he has a strong enough case to be honest unless he can show the government was

making exceptions for straight couples that had been together for years before they got married and one of them dying under that nine month period.

[Zenlitened]

2. You cannot possibly be serious.

Do you really see no distinction here?

One couple in your scenario could easily have gotten married at any point in all the years of their relationship.

Can the same be said of the other couple?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. The law says that you have to be married for nine months

They weren't.

[cstanleytech]

7. Exactly so they are probably going to have to prove the government was waiving

the nine month minimum to other people that were in common law relationships for years.

[Ink Addict]

14. Nine months stipulation? Is that because, what's that old saying about

first baby comes anytime? Kinda assumes one-man/one woman, if such, and possibly overlooked, on purpose, under changes? Then, too, just an arbitrary majority of a year or more?

[cstanleytech]

15. No idea why they set the limit to nine months but its what everyone has to deal with and the courts

are unlikely to change it as its not their place to write the laws its just their place to try and make sure the laws that are written are within what the Constitution allows.

[Zenlitened]

17. Aaaaaaand... let's think it through..,

Precisely WHY were they not married?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. It makes no difference. They were not married for the required nine months. Period.

[yardwork]

25. Actually, the law works a little differently than that.

These two people lived together as a committed couple for decades. That's called "common law marriage" and is recognized as a marriage by many states.

If there is a single instance of the federal government giving spousal benefits to people in a common law marriage, then this man may have a very good case.

And that's not even taking account that this couple wanted to be legally married for decades and was denied that right. They married in the very first day they were allowed. Now that legal marriage among gay people is recognized by law, this denial of benefits to this particular couple may be unconstitutional.

My final point is that your posts here are, at best, tone deaf to the human suffering caused by bigotry and discrimination. You might want to rethink your approach.

[cstanleytech]

30. Apparently common law spouses can collect but only if the state recognizes common law marriages

and unfortunately New Mexico is not such a state.

[Tess49]

3. Agree. New Mexico is not a common law state, so the surviving spouse may be out of luck.

As Zenlitened suggests, the court will have to consider the lack of opportunity for this couple to marry. Will be an interesting case.

[cstanleytech]

11. Aye but as I pointed out in another post if they had an official civil wedding before then the

courts might be willing to consider it.
Mind you its a long shot still but its better than the courts not issuing a favorable ruling which is likely given they had not reached that nine month minimum together after their wedding.

[cstanleytech]

24. What special rules? Social Security applies the nine month rule to everyone.

[yardwork]

27. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Gay people are not treated "the same as everyone."

[Honeycombe8]

32. Under the law, they are, now.

There are provisions in the law, though, like this one, that were obviously overlooked in amending.

I think the Court will try to correct the unjust result, if it can. Its hands may be tied by the letter of the law. I don't know. But if it is able to correct an unjust result, I think it will try to do so.

It's not the SSA's fault in denying the claim. They have to follow the law as written. They cannot legally make exceptions. It's a matter for the legislature and court system.

[yardwork]

33. It's still legal to fire people for saying that they are gay.

It's still legal to evict people from housing just because they say they're gay.

I could go on and on. I'm gay. We are discrimated against in many ways.

[Honeycombe8]

36. Actually, no.

Sexual orientation is included in the civil rights statutes.

Wherever people exist, they will always discriminate against those not like themselves, whether they are a different race, gender, sexual orientation, and even white in some instances.

But legally, it is against the civil rights statutes. If you can prove it, which is the hard part.

[yardwork]

37. You're mistaken. I'm shocked that you think this.

[mountain grammy]

5. Since denying them the right to marry was found to be unconstitutional

I would hope the courts would find accordingly, but hope isn't something I have too much of these days.

[cstanleytech]

8. Unfortunately I doubt the court will agree. Now there might be two possible chances and the first is

if they had a private civil wedding a few years before.
If they had that then the court might be inclined to grant them a judgement in their favor.
The other?
That relies on them proving the government had been granting exemptions to other people that were in common law relationships for years that were married for less than the 9 month minimum.

[mountain grammy]

9. and I'm sure you're right

but I wonder if this issue came up after the Loving ruling on interracial marriage.. The Lovings were married but not in the eyes of their home state which is why state laws on issues like this have to be superseded by federal law.. I know I'm not making much sense here,but it's infuriatiding that when a bad policy is made right, people still suffer under the old bad policy.

I wonder, if this couple had left NM and been married in another state then returned to NM.. how would SS rule on the case, so should they be penalized because they didn't do that?

[cstanleytech]

12. I suspect the courts might be willing to consider ruling in their favor if we were talking about

a case where they married in another state already but unfortunately they apparently (or the article neglects to mention it) did not so the court cannot take that into consideration.

[mountain grammy]

13. And once again I'm sure you're right.

The Loving decision was unanimous. Sadly I don’t think it would be today.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Actually, the point you raise goes against his case.

If they could have gotten married in another state, but didn't, that makes his case weaker. He'd have more of a chance if they had gotten married in another state. Because they would then have been married, even though their state didn't recognize it.

This case is unusual. It could be argued that this result is not what the Social Security provision intends. If that's so, I wonder if the Court is able to rule in this man's favor, to arrive at a result that is just. Or if the Court's hands are tied because of that provision. Because that provision, on its face, does require them to have been married at least nine months. In other words, the Court may not be able to rule in any other way, since the law could have, and should have, been changed to allow for this situation. That is a legislative duty. The Court might have to say "If the legislature wants exceptions to that provision, it has to amend that provision. As it reads now, though, the Court is required to apply it, as written."

But the Court may be able to apply it in a just way, stating that this situation was not the intent of the provision, and that this is a unique situation, since the government itself prevented them from marrying in their state.

The problem with that, is if they could have gotten married in another state that wasn't too far away from NM. But being able to get married in NY, when they live in NM, is a hardship that the Court may not impose on them because of the cost and distance.

The Court may be able to do something to correct this. I think it may do that. We'll see.

[yardwork]

31. Getting married in another state or country didn't provide any benefits.

I'm gay. I'm now legally married to my spouse. We thought about getting married in another state before it was legal to be married in our state, but honestly it would have given us zero benefits.

Without legal recognition of our marriage at the federal level, none of the federal benefits of marriage - including social security, etc. - applied.

Without legal recognition at our state's level, none of those few rights applied either.

Note that this couple married in 2013 in New Mexico, years before the Supreme Court's decision made equal marriage a right. New Mexico was one of the very first states to recognize equal marriage.

[Honeycombe8]

34. That doesn't matter.

It goes to show that they were legally married in the country somewhere.

The provision does not require that they be legally married "at the federal level." Just that they be legally married.

They were not legally married in their state for nine months, but having gotten married legally in another state I think would go to show their intent to be married, and that they were in fact "legally married" in the country and would give the Court a reason to correct the unjust result.

But the reverse is true and would make the case like one between man and woman: If they can get married legally, but choose not to, the provision clearly prevents one partner from claiming those benefits, even though they lived together for years.

The Court may be able to do something to correct the result, though. It could find that the result is not one intended by the provision, since the couple was prohibited by their state from getting legally married, and they had cohabitated for 15 years. If the Court can do that, it probably will.

[yardwork]

35. At the time, they would not have known that getting married in another state would help.

[Honeycombe8]

38. That's not the point I was making.

I'm just saying that would be an argument showing their intent to be a married couple....or not. If they had the ability to be a married couple.

In the end, it may not make a difference. But I'm just saying, it could be a strong argument for showing that they were, in fact, married in the eyes of the law (where they could legally get married), or the opposite: they could have gotten legally married nearby, but chose not to. I'm not speaking of getting married specifically for this claim or other benefits. I'm speaking of intent to be a married couple, period. A legal argument.

But the Court may be able to correct the unjust result. We'll see.

[mountain grammy]

39. Thank you for your insight and input..

and I think what you said here is the very heart of this matter.

[Zenlitened]

16. You're not a lawyer, are you?

Serious question. Because you seem to be examining law and precedent here, and others might get that impression.

But I don't find your examination at all thorough. Quite the opposite, in fact, and much too quick to invent:

A) a one and only standard for evaluating the case, previous waivers for straight couples;

and B) a sole determinant of couplehood, civil ceremonies.

I most definitely am not a lawyer. But I've devoted much of my lifetime of activism to the subject of marriage equality, and I'm troubled by such quick dismissal of any chance for remedy to the gross injustices inflicted on same-sex couples.

[cstanleytech]

18. No, I am not one but the issue at hand is if they married long enough for the surviving spouse

to qualify for benefits?

[Zenlitened]

19. The issue is far more nuanced than you suggest. n/t

[cstanleytech]

20. Only if extenuating circumstance exist such as they were married in one of the states where it

was legal which it appears did not happen in which case I suspect Social Security will have to treat it like they do in cases where one person in a common law marriage a dies.
Personally I have no objection to them changing the rules to allow common law spouses to collect benefits or remove the 9 month requirement so newly married spouses can collect but until Congress passes such laws the courts probably going to be limited on what it can do.

[Honeycombe8]

28. It comes down to whether the Court is legally able to rule to create a just result...

despite the provision in the law, or if it's hands are tied.

If the Court is able to rule in this man's favor, because of the uniqueness of the situation, then it may do that. If not, the Court's hands may be tied to the letter of the law, since it's the legislature's responsibility to amend provisions like this.

Another issue may be if they could have gotten married in another nearby state. If they could have, and had done that, it could be argued that they were, in fact, married, even though their state didn't recognize it.

This is an unjust result, so I think the Court will try to rule in a way that corrects that, if it can.

I don't blame the SS Admin. They are civil workers and have to follow the laws as written. This is a matter for the Court system and legislature.

[lostnfound]

6. I'd be worried about the consequences of this if it gets to the Supreme Court. Nt

[ChiTownDenny]

10. IANAL, but...

a discriminatory law was ruled unconstitutional. The discriminatory law prevented benefits that were available to those who weren't discriminated against. I can't imagine an unfavorable outcome for the surviving spouse.

[Honeycombe8]

29. I agree that the Court will try to rule in a way that corrects the unjust result, if it can.

It may not be able to, since it's up to the legislature to amend laws.

But when the result is unjust and goes against the spirit of the law, the Court may be able to do something. I don't know.