Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Studds's spouse 1st denied U.S. death benefits because he's gay

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:22 PM
Original message
Studds's spouse 1st denied U.S. death benefits because he's gay
:grr: :grr: :grr:

Studds's spouse 1st denied U.S. death benefits because he's gay

For the first time, the federal government is denying death benefits to the spouse of a congressman because he is gay.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., who became the first openly gay member of Congress when his homosexuality was exposed during a teenage page sex scandal, died early Saturday. He was 69. In 2004 Studds married Dean Hara, 48, after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.

Hara, unlike the spouses of other members of Congress who have died, won't be receiving any portion of Studds' estimated annual $114,337 pension. The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks the federal government from recognizing the 2004 marriage between Studds and Hara.

Peter Graves, a spokesman for U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program under federal law, said same sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage related benefits.

He said Studds is the first case of its kind as far as the office could determine. "Our office could not think of a similar situation having occurred," he said.

Graves said Studds had other options. He could have had an insurable interest annuity, similar to buying an insurance policy, which is allowed under both the civil service and federal employee retirement system and does not come under the restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act. Graves said he didn't know if Studds used that option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is why Gay Marriage or Civil Unions are important..
there is no protection for Gays in long term relationships.....Gays have to jump through hoops to try and get decent coverage...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Discrimination based on gender, pure and simple
Bill Clinton should have vetoed the Act. Under Doma, you can be legally married by the state act but discriminated by the federal act. Based 100% on your gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. He should test this awful law in the courts based on gender bias. rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. Pathetic.
Edited on Tue Oct-17-06 09:39 PM by Rockholm
Kicked and Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. THIS is what their objection is really about..$$$$.
gay people are usually SINGLE people..when they die, their benefits go "poof"..back into the pool

the more money in the pool, the more money available to be "borrowed"..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DawgHouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think this is awful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. But don't relatives sometimes challenge the estate?
I mean, even if you set up insurance and have a legal will and all that. I've heard about 3rd cousins coming out of nowhere to sue for the estate because the domestic parter doesn't have the same legal standing as a spouse. I suppose insurance doesn't fall under that but it probably isn't automatic like it is with a spouse, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. A pension is not part of an estate.
Edited on Tue Oct-17-06 09:56 PM by Divernan
nor are life insurance benefits. Depending on particular state laws, spouses and various degrees of relatives can challenge wills, but wills do not control the contractual provisions which are part of pensions and insurance polices and determine who gets the $$$ from them .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks for the info, I wasn't sure
And that's why it's bogus that he can't get the pension. Aren't insurance premiums usually higher than pension premiums too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Yes...and if the Gay couple has not made the right legal
arrangements they could have built a life of luxury and wealth together and the blood realitive can come and take everthing away from the spouse..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L A Woman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. that is fucking outrageous
I hope he fights that. Honestly, I think even in this sometimes twisted country, most Americans would be in favor of giving him the benefits.

On a side note, I was at the 1993 march on washington and he spoke. Very eloquent man. He will be missed, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. This is total bullshit.
Edited on Tue Oct-17-06 10:20 PM by Hepburn
Studds' spouse deserves to have his pension rights enforced. You know what really bugs me on top of all of this??? Foley gets his pension and, if he is actually in rehab, his medical benefits are paying for this. But the freaking feddies cannot pay Studds' spouse. GMAFB!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Duke Cunningham gets to keep his too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yep...
...and that pissed me off, too. If someone is convicted of criminal conduct in the course of performing any job, the pension and the rest of the benefits should be lost. And...this goes double for any job where someone is paid with money from us taxpayers.

I just don't get this at all: Here is Studds' spouse who DESERVES the money from his deceased spouse's federal employment ~~ and there sits convicted criminal Duke the Puke Cunningham who will get his pension for being the biggest thief in the history of the US Congress and doing this at the taxpayers' expense.

Talk about shit being bass-ackwards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. OT - I *love* that graphic!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. I hope people remember this during the upcoming elections.
After the 2004 elections, I was appalled at some of the grossly homophobic responses made by posters here. I was also angry that some would say the gay marriage issue was "too much, too soon." Well, folks, this is why the time is NOW for equal marriage laws, not civil partnerships, you see how well that has panned out. It is not good enough that one state has marriage laws, all of them should have them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhollyHeretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I could not believe all the people here who are willing to
Edited on Wed Oct-18-06 06:18 AM by GreenJ
tell people to wait for their civil rights, "it's not a good time." People's lives are getting affected right now, but I guess they are supposed to sit quietly and accept it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Amen to that
It really pisses me off :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. I literally almost left DU because of those threads
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. I remember them
They were awful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. I'm glad you didn't
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. Echoes of inter-racial marriage problems from 50+ years ago.
When many states had different laws on what races could / could not marry each other.

Death has a way of bringing relatives out of the woodwork looking for money. Back then, family members of the deceased might try to get the marriage annulled and leave the widow with nothing. Insurance companies would do the same thing, "sorry, you're marriage wasnt recognized by the state you lived in, we wont pay you anything."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Loving vs. Virginia was 1970
Not even 50+ years ago.

That's why I'm so disappointed and angry about how certain African-Americans are so violently anti gay rights. The interracial marriage laws are within our lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
20. This is just wrong. Graves is entitled to money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Not by law - DOMA!!!
Bush could not do anything about that even if he wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
24. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks to all those who supported DOMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
27. A whole bunch of spouses and partners of gay federal employees are denied
these benefits. Studs is far from being the only one. Good if it makes people realize that, but the governement did not do anything wrong there.

DOMA was voted by a lot of Democrats as well as republicans and signed by a Democratic president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
29. This is *so* wrong
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
31. This exposes the REAL reason they oppose gay marriage - $$$$$$$$$
They don't really give a rat's ass about this as a "moral" issue, they see it as impacting the bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-19-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Ain't that the truth!
n/t
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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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