Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gay Congressman's Spouse Denied Benefits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:02 PM
Original message
Gay Congressman's Spouse Denied Benefits
BOSTON -- Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government will not pay death benefits to his spouse.

Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' marriage.

Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds' case was the first of its kind known to the agency.

Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701112.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. this should be interesting....
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newburgh Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well then, it's about time to make exceptions...
for people convicted of treason, of course.:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. The challenge to the constitutionality
of the Marriage Discrimination Acts will come sometime - perhaps sooner rather than later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. After today's disgraceful bill signing, they ALL should be kicked
off the government dole.

But this is a terrible injustice, nevertheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a country where gay = treason. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. Thank you Bill Clinton!
You and your piece-of-shit "Defense of Marriage Act".

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Would you have rather had President Dole
That law, along with welfare reform, were compromises which Clinton needed to make if he wanted to be reelected in 1996.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, I'd rather have had Clinton stand up for rights...
No, I'd rather have had Clinton stand up for universal human
rights rather than try (vainly) to win friends on the Right.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Sometimes half a loaf is all that you can get
Which half would you prefer? Clinton vetoing the baill, only to have it signed by President Dole a year later? Or Clinton signing the bill and serving foru more years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Give me a break. That was NOT the choice.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. You forgot the real choice.
3. Clinton, signing the bill (so screwing a major part of
his constituency), serving four more years, and setting
things up for *EIGHT FUCKING YEARS* of George W. Bush.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. When dems sell out their own constituencies,
Edited on Wed Oct-18-06 10:59 AM by closeupready
Pukes take that as a cue that it's ok to use them as a political football. That's one of the infuriating things about seeing your rights get triangulated. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. That's a fake compromise.
You don't know that Dole would have won. It's doubtful.

The fact is, Clinton wasn't willing to risk standing up for GLBT people. He sacrificed us to increase his margin.

You can accept that and justify it all you want. I don't know if you're even effected. But those of us who are effected have a valid reason for some anger at Clinton.

Your fake dicholomy only allows two option. Clinton did exactly what he did, or Gore won. That is impossibly simplistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Additionally, isn't it true that he advised Kerry to back the FMA?
I know there was some discussion as to whether that report was true or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. To all those repugs who say...
...gay couples can get all the benefits of marriage by signing a legal contract, I say:

WHAT ABOUT THIS???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is not the ideal test case,
Edited on Wed Oct-18-06 09:14 AM by closeupready
since Studds' personal history would figure prominently in any Christian fundie PR push against paying benefits.

But I think it's disgraceful, and shame on all those three- and four-time married heterosexual and closeted homophobes who oppose paying benefits to same-sex partners. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flirtus Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
11. And Ken Lay's widow keeps millions
The hits just keep on coming!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. Paying his survivor benefits to someone with a penis destroys civilization
This isn't something silly like habeus corpus.

This is serious.

This is haveus penis.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. what happened to all the RW hype about States Rights???
if Massachusetts says their married then the Fed's have to respect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC