From The Advocate:
A federal court ruled Friday that the Social Security Administration’s blanket denial of Social Security survivor’s benefits to same-sex spouses who were prevented from marrying is unconstitutional.
The ruling came in the case of Helen Thornton, a resident of Washington State who sought to claim survivor’s benefits based on her 27-year relationship with Marge Brown, who died in 2006, six years before same-sex couples in the state had the right to marry. Brown had a more extensive work record than Thornton, who supplements her own modest Social Security income by taking care of animals, notes a press release from Lambda Legal, which represented Thornton along with attorneys from the firm of Nossaman LLP.
Thornton applied for the benefits in 2015, shortly before she would have been eligible to receive them at age 60. But the SSA turned her down because she and Brown had not been legally married, even though state law prevented them from marrying. She filed suit in 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On Friday, a judge in that court, James L. Robart, ruled that denial of the benefits violated the U.S. Constitution. He also certified the case as a national class action, meaning others who have sought the benefits and been denied simply because they were unable to marry their partner will have an avenue to claim them. ...
19 comments:
Why doesn't SSA just pay eveyone a benefit? That would certainly help even the playing field. Just change it from retirement and disability to a "federal income". Then raising the cap on the taxable wages would take the money from the "haves" and distribute it to the "have nots".
@10:42
Because Congress defines what SSA's purpose is. It's not SSA's call. What you are describing is universal basic income, a program I'm not against, but that's not SSA's purpose under the Social Security Act.
@11:14 am
This is 10:42...and I agree with you completely. I don't beleive in a universal basic income, but I do know nthat if we eer have one, SSA will be tasked with distributing itto the masses.
Why should widow/widowers get benefits at 60 when wage earners have to wait to 66. The whole concept of widow/widowers benefits for people at current retirement age is outmoded. If all the people living together were declared married there would likely be a net loss of income from government due to loss of SSI.
anon@11:48am,
Because benefits are paid according to the Social Security Act as passed by Congress.
BTW, you are wrong. A wage earner can retire as early as age 62 for age-reduced benefits. A widow/widower filing for age-reduced benefits can file as early as age 60.
The whole reason for the existence of benefits for widows/widowers is the income disparity between partners in a marriage.
If you don't agree with the concept of benefits to widows/widowers, please feel free to lobby your congressman. I'm sure they'll be VERY receptive.
@10:42 - these people werent allowed to be married. If they prove they otherwise lived like a married couple for the requisite time period, why shouldnt they get the same benefits everyone else gets?
Snidely acting like this is some gift/handout misses the point.
@4:58 - it's 10:42 again. I don't disagree with you either but then that's kind of my point. SSA has not recognized common law marriage since like 1991 or something. So, if we open it up to recognize same sex couples livung "as married", cool, no issues with that but open it up to anyone living together as a married couple. Eventually it becomes like a snowball rolling downhill.
SSI recognizes people holding out as married, and reduce the benefit amount because of it.
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501152
If the law can broaden the definition of marriage for giving people less money, they should broaden it to the same definition for giving people money as well.
Serious question...I read the linked article and maybe I missed it. How is there proof they would have ever gotten legally married? I know it said they had the "intent" on marrying but the state didn't allow it. Is there some kind of documentation I suppose or maybe the lawyers just talk to a bunch of people who knew them and gather statements? People can and often have all kinds of "intentions" but for whatever reason never follow through with the action. Obviously I'm no attorney.
@7:05 AM
I presume you're trying to ask how this couple would prove that they intended to get married, despite having not actually wedded. The answer is, as you suggested, likely through statements and, perhaps, documentation showing that they intended to marry. I know it sounds unusual to non-lawyers, but the law constantly requires people to "prove" things that can't, in the colloquial sense, be proven as fact. For example, certain criminal statutes require the prosecutor to "prove" the claimant had a specific motive for doing something (i.e., to prosecute for murder as opposed to involuntary manslaughter).
This is why the law incorporates what are called "burdens of proof," so that folks do not need to prove something is absolutely 100% true, but instead need only show that the thing they are trying to "prove" is "more likely than not" true, or that there is "no reasonable doubt" the thing is true. It's also why lawyers (at least those who aren't ignorant or disingenuous) get cringe when people complain that the evidence proving something is "merely circumstantial." Most things in life can't be proven with 100% certainty, and things like intent can usually (or always, if you really think about it), only be proven by circumstantial evidence. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent us from making the necessary decision to enforce our laws.
@10:42/7:00
SSA still recognizes common law marriages, it just varies by state because common law marriage requirements vary by state. I suspect there was a change in a state's laws in 1991 banning common law marriage (that's pretty common historically, only less than a dozen states still have common law marriages, although all states must recognize another state's common law marriage if the couple moves), SSA no longer recognized common law marriages from that state and that's what you are thinking of. For example, Ohio got rid of common law marriage in 1991.
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200305060
As to whether anyone living together could be considered a married couple, that's already a risk because a couple holding themselves out as married can in fact disqualify SSI recipients from benefits, but actually I don't think that in turn qualifies them for marital-based benefits. Which is incredibly unfair.
SSI "holding out" is aimed at paying a dollar amount to a household based on parity with what is paid to a married couple on SSI. The concept is completely different from qualifying as a legal spouse. This court decision is a great step in the right direction. Unfortunately, folks who inquired of SSA about same-sex spousal benefits in the past, but were dissauded from filing an application when told SSA did not recognize them, will not reap the benefits of this court decision.
@12:11
Why wouldn't they? Can't they claim the had the "intent" to marry but were restricted from doing so by either the state they lived in or the federal goverment? Isn't that what was ruled unconstitutional?
How about paying benefits to people who intended on making the max every year but just couldn't for some reason? Or apply Government Pension Offset to people who received benefits before the offset because later the law was changed to offset non covered pensions? At least with GPO a law was passed, not a court finding something no one else could fine in the last 200+ years.
@8:46
1. Benefits are paid to people who were not able to make the "max." If you mean everyone should get the maximum in benefits, no. Your benefits are based on the amount you paid in. Eligibility, however, is already not an open-and-shut case, as benefits are paid retroactively one year.
2. That's an oddly specific complaint about the GPO. I'm not aware of the circumstances in which the GPO statutes were passed, but I suspect imposing a retroactive penalty against people who already were receiving non-offset benefits would be a violation of the ex post facto clause.
3. As far as I know, the first court to address the constitutionality of a ban on same sex marriage was the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1971 when they found it did not offend the US constitution, and that was overruled by the US supreme court in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. So that's 44 years, not over 200.
I'm not 8;46 lol
So since that was overturned, wouldn't the iintent to marry be applied to any applicable claims for the last 44 years prior to the decision now that it's been ruled uncontitutional?
That would bury SSA for sure.
And his first point about the max makes sense. His point was, if we're going to pay out based on "intent" and not actual evidence like a marriage certifcate, why couldn't someone argue that logic for all kinds of situations? I intended ot earn $200,000.00 tis year but my employer cut out overtime, not my fault.
@2:48
People do argue intent in all kinds of situations and it's a valid argument. The reason it doesn't extend to calculation of benefits is because your benefits are calculated by specific formulas set in statute, based off actual earnings, not intended earnings. If Congress had left it open to interpretation, then maybe, but they did not.
As to whether applying an intent to marry to the last 44 years of claims would bury SSA, probably not. First, in theory I wouldn't limit it to 44 years as I believe the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans was predicated on the 5th amendment. That would mean it would extend back to the founding. However, in actuality, this won't impact a lot of claims. Benefits still can only be paid back 1 year prior to application by statute. Also, survivor's benefits paid to a widow or widower requires more than just marriage, it requires the recipient not be eligible for a higher benefit based on their own number, the recipient be over the age of 60 (or 50 and disabled), the marriage must have lasted a sufficient duration, etc.
So we aren't paying out based on intent, we are allowing claims to be filed based on intent, in an extremely small segment of claims. They could still be validly denied for any number of reasons.
Re intent--common law marriages are recognized based on the intent of the parties to marry. 100 or more years ago it was not uncommon to live in areas where there was little access to a judge, minister, priest, rabbi, etc to marry a couple. Common law marriage allowed the couple to live together until they could legally tie the knot. There are few places in America where it is difficult to get married. So the question re intent is this--how much intent does a common law couple have to marry if they say live together 10 years, 20 years, 44 years? And how would you measure intent to marry among same sex couples when it was not legal?
@ 2:48 PM
"And his first point about the max makes sense."
Not it doesn't. It was a childish snipe premised upon an illogical comparison. The issue addressed by the court involved the individual's inability to get married, and thus qualify for benefits, due to the unlawful violation of her constitutional rights. Being unable to earn $200,000 per year because your employer doesn't give you enough overtime to earn that much does not, in any way, result in an inability to qualify for benefits due to a violation of your constitutional rights.
Post a Comment