Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(112,086 posts)
Fri Oct 24, 2014, 06:58 PM Oct 2014

Texas lesbian widow is plaintiff in Lambda Legal suit against Social Security Administration

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit today (Wednesday, Oct. 22) against the Social Security Administration on behalf of Kathy Murphy of Austin and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, claiming that the SSA’s decision to deny spousal benefits to Murphy after the death of her wife violates the U.S. Constitution. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in United States v. Windsor, in which the court struck down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples, Lambda Legal attorneys argue that “SSA cannot perpetuate the same kind of discrimination now and leave lesbian and gay spouses without the financial protections of social security as they age,” according to a press statement the organization released this afternoon.

Murphy, 62, and Sara Barker had been together 30 years when they were legally married in Massachusetts in 2010, although they lived in Texas, a non-marriage-equality state. Barker died of cancer in March, 2012 at age 62. But because they lived in Texas, which does not legally recognize their marriage, SSA has refused to legally recognize their marriage, denying Murphy the spousal survivor benefits Barker had earned during her lifetime of work.

Following the SCOTUS ruling in the Windsor case last year, President Obama ordered the U.S. Attorney General’s office to work with other federal agencies and officials to implement the Windsor decision. In implementing that decision, the Department of Justice and most federal agencies depended on the law where a couple’s marriage took place — the “place of celebration” to determine whether the marriage was legal, rather then place where they lived. Under that standard, Murphy’s and Barker’s marriage should be legally recognized by the federal government.

Murphy applied to the SSA for surviving spouse benefits last year after the Windsor decision. But in June of this year, with Murphy’s application for benefits still pending, the Department of Justice announced that the SSA and the Department of Veterans Affairs viewed themselves as being prohibited by statute from using the “place of celebration” rule for certain programs, including the surviving spouse benefits program.

Read more: http://www.dallasvoice.com/texas-lesbian-widow-plaintiff-lambda-legal-suit-social-security-administration-10182946.html

Separate story: http://www.lonestarq.com/meet-the-new-edie-windsor/

Cross-posted in the Texas Group.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Texas lesbian widow is plaintiff in Lambda Legal suit against Social Security Administration (Original Post) TexasTowelie Oct 2014 OP
I thought one of the federal rules marym625 Oct 2014 #1
Sorry another thought marym625 Oct 2014 #2
k&r. Thanks for posting. nm rhett o rick Oct 2014 #3

marym625

(17,997 posts)
1. I thought one of the federal rules
Fri Oct 24, 2014, 07:15 PM
Oct 2014

With the Windsor decision was ALL federal benefits were legal in all legal marriages. That's why couples married in marriage equality states file a federal return but then have to complete a second federal return to determine what goes on their state return (hope I said that well enough to follow)

Which means that the federal government would have to look at where the marriage was.

What a fucked up bullshit thing to do. The IRS has to look at the marriage state but not the military or SSA?

marym625

(17,997 posts)
2. Sorry another thought
Fri Oct 24, 2014, 07:17 PM
Oct 2014

If their taxes for 2012 were accepted by the irs as married filing jointly, and the IRS collects for the SSA, then they should have to pay it. Imho.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»LGBT»Texas lesbian widow is pl...