Gay married couples not eligible for veterans benefits
Source: Washington Blade
Gay married couples wont be able to receive federal veterans benefits afforded to straight couples despite the court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, according to a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that was obtained Tuesday by the Washington Blade.
In a letter dated Aug. 14, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki says the Obama administration has determined that gay veterans wont be able to receive the federal benefits of marriage because of Title 38, a portion of the U.S. code governing veterans benefits that defines spouse in opposite-sex terms independent of DOMA.
Certain provisions in title 38, United States Code, define spouse and surviving spouse to refer only to a person of the opposite-sex, the letter states. Under these provisions, a same-sex marriage recognized by a State would not confer spousal status for purposes of eligibility of VA benefits. Although the title 38 definition of spouse and surviving spouse are similar to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision at issue in United States v. Windsor, no court has yet held the title 38 definitions to be unconstitutional.
Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veterans cemetery.
Read more: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/08/27/breaking-gay-married-couples-wont-eligible-veterans-benefits/
iandhr
(6,852 posts)And hopefully the Justice department will refuse to defend this section of the law again.
The Windsor case did not strike down the whole law.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's not a 'one-shot wonder' to get all the discriminatory laws off the books, unfortunately.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)The Winsor case was a big win but there is still more work to do.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Some folks tend to forget that even after other cases (Loving, Roe, Brown), progress involved piling on case after case building on the precedent.
EC
(12,287 posts)I'm feeling like this is just being obtuse. I'm sure they can figure something out without going to court.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Then someone takes it to court and wins, so we get the result we want anyway, with some political gain along the way.
What's that you say? My strategy fails if the House Republicans act like sensible adults? Well, I'm willing to take that chance.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Equal is equal and as long as this sort of bullshit hairsplitting to find a way to discriminate crap ends there is no fucking standing for back patting or congratulating mealy mouthed political figures.
As long as you folks are discriminating against anyone, you discriminate against us all and you will not be allowed to forget it no matter how much you whine and cry and say sanctity and call us all your cheap little names.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Hard not to see people as the enemy when they hem and haw and equivocate over one's basic human rights...
valerief
(53,235 posts)opposite from the spouse's sex. But that would mean straight couples would lose out.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)This is bull and we all know it and I hope someone smart enough will challenge this .. perhaps if we got rid of most of the GOP in the house and establish a majority of Dems we could get something done in this country. A spouse is a spouse is a spouse.
Behind the Aegis
(53,922 posts)One more fucking hoop for us to jump though!
warrant46
(2,205 posts)In light of the last Supreme Court case especially. Regressive and evil.
It is also very short sighted and panders to the same old prejudices that continue to whip up that narrow minded base of the GOP.