2008 Woodie Awards
Former gay congressman's spouse ineligible for benefits
Christine Rochelle
Issue date: 10/26/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
The first openly gay member of Congress, Gerry Studds, died early this month and the state of Massachusetts refuses to pay death benefits to his spouse.
In 2004, the state legalized gay marriage and soon after Studds married his partner Dean Hara. Yet, the federal government considers Hara ineligible to receive Studds' estimated $114,377 annual pension. If he was eligible, he would have received about $62,000 a year during his lifetime.
While the marriage was legal, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize the marriage. Same-sex spouses are seen as ineligible to receive any marriage benefits, along with people convicted of espionage or treason.
The issue at hand here is complicated and the first of its kind and it is tragic that Hara is being thrown into the spotlight during his grieving time. If nothing immediate can be done to ensure that Hara is given what he has a right to, and then a change should be made for future cases.
Similar to Foley, Studds had a sexual relationship with a teenage congressional page and then later admitted that he was gay. The scandal broke in 1983 and Studds was continually elected into office until his retirement in 1997.
Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, said that Studds should have purchased the option of an insurable interest annuity which is not subject to restriction under the Defense of Marriage Act. (www.mlive.com)
The Defense of Marriage Act, of DOMA, was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 in response to the possibility of a state legalizing same-sex marriages. First, "No state need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state." The second part states, "The federal government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."
Therefore, even though the marriage is recognized by Massachusetts, it does not have to be recognized by another state and more importantly the federal government. Way to go, Bill. The democrats don't even have the right to point fingers at the conservatives for this bright idea (I wonder what Hillary would say).
Gary Busek, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said that the debate of Studds' case may educate the members of Congress.
"Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said. (www.topix.net)
Massachusetts at the very least should make it their priority to settle the matter, considering that in the future they may be in the same situation with another gay congressman.
Only then will Hara feel the true meaning behind the words, "for liberty and justice for all."
In 2004, the state legalized gay marriage and soon after Studds married his partner Dean Hara. Yet, the federal government considers Hara ineligible to receive Studds' estimated $114,377 annual pension. If he was eligible, he would have received about $62,000 a year during his lifetime.
While the marriage was legal, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize the marriage. Same-sex spouses are seen as ineligible to receive any marriage benefits, along with people convicted of espionage or treason.
The issue at hand here is complicated and the first of its kind and it is tragic that Hara is being thrown into the spotlight during his grieving time. If nothing immediate can be done to ensure that Hara is given what he has a right to, and then a change should be made for future cases.
Similar to Foley, Studds had a sexual relationship with a teenage congressional page and then later admitted that he was gay. The scandal broke in 1983 and Studds was continually elected into office until his retirement in 1997.
Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, said that Studds should have purchased the option of an insurable interest annuity which is not subject to restriction under the Defense of Marriage Act. (www.mlive.com)
The Defense of Marriage Act, of DOMA, was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 in response to the possibility of a state legalizing same-sex marriages. First, "No state need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state." The second part states, "The federal government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."
Therefore, even though the marriage is recognized by Massachusetts, it does not have to be recognized by another state and more importantly the federal government. Way to go, Bill. The democrats don't even have the right to point fingers at the conservatives for this bright idea (I wonder what Hillary would say).
Gary Busek, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said that the debate of Studds' case may educate the members of Congress.
"Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said. (www.topix.net)
Massachusetts at the very least should make it their priority to settle the matter, considering that in the future they may be in the same situation with another gay congressman.
Only then will Hara feel the true meaning behind the words, "for liberty and justice for all."
Be the first to comment on this story