Lawrence Schacht married Russell Frink Jr. as soon as the law allowed him to do so but five months later Frink died. The New York Times reports that even though Social Security recognizes the marriage, it won't allow Schacht to collect benefits on Frink's account because the marriage lasted less than nine months.
I'm sad for Mr. Schacht but I don't know of an exception to the duration of marriage requirement that will cover his case.
Why is this new? The same things happen with "traditional" marriage all the time.
ReplyDeleteA defined benefit program must be based upon specific rules to determine eligibility. This makes it possible to determine funding needs. No matter what rule is in place, there will be those who will be behind that line that prevents eligibility. Definitions must be meaningful, or they are useless. I am reminded of the story: just because your cat has kittens in the oven, that does not make them biscuits. We may be sad for his loss, but not sad for the existence and the need for such rules for eligibility.
ReplyDeleteYes and was the marriage an attempt to defraud Social Security? Therein lies the question.
ReplyDeleteThis is a long shot, but I have seen it work. At any time did they visit a common law state that recognized same sex marriage AND held theirselves out as a married couple. If they can make a cogent argument that they contracted a valid common law marriage in another state and that marriage would be recognized under NY law, they would have a colorable claim. I have seen it work involving a marriage between a man and a women who visited South Carolina and held theirselves out as man and wife. The ALJ agreed that the state law recognized the marriage as such and awarded widower's benefits. I don't know if there any common law states that recognize gay marriage as I am sure that South Carolina does not. Like I said, it is a long shot but that is often how hopeless cases are won.
ReplyDeleteWhat you guys are all missing is "...as soon as the law allowed him to do so." They did not wait until the one guy was sick or something to game the system, they waited because they had to.
ReplyDeleteThis is tragic--these guys only missed the 9-month requirement because they did not have a legal right to marry until recently. Maybe there is some public policy argument to be made to allow what has to be a small number of similarly-situated people to get such benefits.
Sorry, but as society progresses, there will be people that miss out on all types of stuff due to poor timing. That's life, sadly.
ReplyDeleteI missed out on the Gold Rush and so many other things, too...
Anon 9:54 That is the kind of thinking that creates the exception to the exception policy that is already so prevalent in SSA. This policy isn't fair to me because my case is special. Read up on Prouty benefits, sponsored by a Vermont senator who, rumor has it, wanted Social Security retirement to be paid to his maiden aunt who did not have enough quarters for regular benefits.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with 8:05. You can't change all the inequities in society by legislation.
And even the existing policies under Windsor are already cumbersome and involve much more than a marriage certificate.
8:05 PM, I feel your angst, but mine is even worse. I grew up during the free love period and I couldn't even find any although it was so prevalent (according to the papers). Always a day late and a dollar short...
ReplyDelete