The Social Security Administration (SSA) has recently been wondering "whether the Defense of Marriage Act ... would prevent the Commissioner of Social Security ... from providing the non-biological child of one member of a Vermont civil union with social security benefits on account of that individual’s relationship with the child." Amazingly varied family relationship questions arise all the time at Social Security. Social Security's Office of General Counsel issues opinions on these questions several times a month. But, Social Security bounced this question to the Attorney General. I have never seen this before.
The Attorney General's response:
You wonder what Alberto Gonzales would have said.
The Attorney General's response:
We conclude that it would not [prevent the child from receiving the benefits. Although DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] limits the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law, the Social Security Act does not condition eligibility for CIB [Child's Insurance Benefits] on the existence of a marriage or on the federal rights of a spouse in the circumstances of this case; rather, eligibility turns upon the State’s recognition of a parent-child relationship, and specifically, the right to inherit as a child under state law. A child’s inheritance rights under state law may be independent of the existence of a marriage or spousal relationship, and that is indeed the case in Vermont. Accordingly, we conclude that nothing in DOMA would prevent the non-biological child of a partner in a Vermont civil union from receiving CIB under the Social Security Act.
8 comments:
"You wonder what Alberto Gonzales would have said."
I'm sure something other than this BS. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel needs to be waterboarded.
Another reason why full marriage rights for all gay and lesbian couples is so important - then things like this wouldn't BE a question.
People need to get their heads around the difference between civil rights and religion issues.
Yeah let the good times roll in Sodom and Gomorrah. Can't smoke cigarettes, but OK for two guys or gals to smoke each other. Founding fathers are probably spinning in their graves.
I guess things won't be complete until Barney Frank or Larry Craig is elected president.
Wow,this brought the homophobes out of their caves, didn't it?! As the DOJ opinion pointed out, this is really a simple question, rather easily answered under the SSAct.
Maybe another reason why marriage should be only a religious institution, not a civil one--it all about the benefits, now.
Privatize marriage.
I vote for privatizing religion. I believe Gay and Lesbian people are born that way, but, even if it is their choice, so what?.
And btw: isn't a person's religion always a choice? I say if you find yourself becoming a bigot chose something else.
I never thought I'd say this, but bravo to the SSA.
Now if Jr's two Dads or Moms split up will the benefits stops, because that's what happens to the stepchildren of normal parents.
Post a Comment