ExxonMobil Agrees To Follow Executive Order Protecting LGBT Employees

After 17 years of rejecting workplace protections for LGBT employees, the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has agreed to abide by the new LGBT workplace discrimination protections for federal employees recently signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The Eagle reports that “the Labor Department has 90 days to issue regulations for how employers must comply.” However, the company has stopped short of creating and applying LGBT protections of its own.

The AP has more:

Exxon… according to government records, won more than $480 million in federal contracts in 2013 and more than $8 billion since 2006…

The company began offering benefits to legally married same-sex couples in May 2013, a month before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which had allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

A lawsuit against the corporation is ongoing:

… Exxon is facing a same-sex discrimination complaint in Illinois. Last year, the group Freedom to Work sent the company two fictitious resumes for a job opening in Illinois. One resume had stronger qualifications, but identified the applicant as gay. Exxon Mobil responded to the lesser-qualified applicant's resume while the gay applicant received no reply.

Earlier this month, the Illinois Human Rights Commission overturned a lower body's decision to dismiss the case. Exxon has said the allegations are without merit.

President Obama Thanks Edie Windsor in the Oval Office

President Obama invited DOMA plaintiff Edie Windsor to the France State Dinner this week and thanked her in the Oval Office at a separate meeting, reports Valerie Jarrett on the White House blog:

"The thanks expressed by the President that day have been echoed by millions of Americans, including thousands of legally married couples who can now live their lives with greater justice and dignity – thanks to heroes like Edie Windsor who have been willing to stand up and fight for equality under the law."

Social Security Begins Processing Payments To Married Gay Couples

The Obama administration on Monday announced that the Social Security Administration has started processing payments to married gay and lesbian couples.

Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security, announced the changes in a statement.

“I am pleased to announce that, effective today, Social Security is processing some widow's and widower's claims by surviving members of same-sex marriages and paying benefits where they are due. In addition, we are able to pay some one-time lump sum death benefit claims to surviving same-sex spouses,” Colvin said.

The move comes roughly six months after the Supreme Court knocked down a critical provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which blocked the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples.

“We ask for continued patience from the public as we work closely with the Department of Justice to develop policies that are legally sound so we can process claims,” Colvin added.

Rick Perry Turns Petty

Last month, the Pentagon announced it would extend the same benefits heterosexual couples receive, to same-sex couples with a spouse in the armed services. Today was the first day military members could file for benefits, but according to My San Antonio, the Texas National Guard, Texas Air Guard and Texas State Guard refused to accept claims from members in a same-sex marriage.

My SSA said Alicia Butler, married in California in 2009 to an Iraq veteran, was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin today when she attempted to apply for benefits. Saying the state’s ban on gay marriage would not allow them to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, they suggested Alicia, who has a five-month old son, drive almost ninety miles to Fort Hood, which is under federal jurisdiction.

“It’s so petty. It’s not like it’s going to stop us from registering or stop us from marrying. It’s a pointed way of saying, ‘We don’t like you,” Alicia remarked.

The commander of the Texas Military Forces, Major General John Nichols, defied the Pentagon order to begin treating same-sex couples in the same manner the Texas National Guard treats heterosexual couples, saying the Texas Constitution prohibited it. The general said he wouldn’t stop gay and lesbian soldiers from collecting equal benefits, but they would have to apply at a federally run base.

Governor Rick Perry’s office backed the Texas mutiny. A spokesman for the governor said the Texas Military Forces was a state agency, and had to follow Texas law.

A survey done today by the Associated Press found at least thirteen states that do not recognize same-sex marriages were accepting requests for identification cards and benefits as ordered by the Pentagon. Besides Texas, only Mississippi is known to have defied the Pentagon directive.

Obama Administration Says It Will No Longer Defend Law Barring Gay Veterans from Spousal Benefits

The Department of Justice won't enforce Title 38, a law barring gay veterans from spousal benefits, the Washington Blade reports:

In a letter dated Sept. 4, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder notifies U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) of the change in the way the Justice Department will enforce Title 38 of the U.S. code.

“[I]n light of subsequent developments and my recommendation, the President has directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of Sections 101(3) and 101(31) of Title 38,” Holder writes. “Decisions by the Executive Branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare. Nonetheless, for the reasons described below, the unique circumstances here warrant non-enforcement.”

The HuffPost adds:

Holder said last year that the Justice Department would no longer defend Title 38 in court. But Wednesday’s announcement went even further, with DOJ finding that the legal basis laid out by the Supreme Court in the DOMA decision should nullify the marriage definition in the provision. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki said just last week that the spouses of gay veterans weren’t eligible for benefits because no court had found Title 38’s definitions to be unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz2dxZcIkM6

NOM Blasts IRS Policy Giving Federal Tax Recognition to Gay Married Couples Regardless of State Laws

Yesterday, it was announced that the U.S. Department of Treasury's decided to recognize gay married couples for tax purposes regardless of the state laws regarding marriage in which they reside. Prompted by the recent SCOTUS ruling on DOMA, this new policy will provide tax filing uniformity for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide.

As if on cue, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown issued a statement denouncing the change in policy, claiming it is yet another government attempt to force gay marriage on an "unwilling public."

"The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority," said Brown. "This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law....[the] Obama administration is intent on forcing same-sex 'marriage' on an unwilling public."

Yawn.

HHS: Married Gay Couples Now Eligible for Medicare Nursing Home Coverage

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced yesterday first guidance implementing the Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act. HHS will now extend medicare coverage to married same-sex couples in nursing homes.

A press release from HHS announcing the new policy reads:

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo clarifying that all beneficiaries in private Medicare plans have access to equal coverage when it comes to care in a nursing home where their spouse lives. This is the first guidance issued by HHS in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

"HHS is working swiftly to implement the Supreme Court’s decision and maximize federal recognition of same-sex spouses in HHS programs," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "Today’s announcement is the first of many steps that we will be taking over the coming months to clarify the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision and to ensure that gay and lesbian married couples are treated equally under the law."

For Now, Social Security Benefits Limited to Same-Sex Couples in Marriage Equality States

Some big, late-night news this weekend from BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner: new policy guidelines established by the Social Security Administration after the Supreme Court's invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act will limit benefits to only those same-sex couples who live in states with marriage equality. From Geidner's report:

As of Friday, a new section for “Windsor Same-Sex Marriage Claims” — named after the Supreme Court case of United States v. Windsor, which resulted in a part of the Defense of Marriage Act being struck down — was added to the Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS), which the agency describes as the primary source of information used by Social Security employees to process claims for Social Security benefits.
The claims processing instructions “allow for payment of claims” when the claimant “was married in a state that permits same-sex marriage” and “is domiciled at the time of application, or while the claim is pending a final determination, in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.”

As Geidner points out, the SSA had announced in a press release earlier late day that it would be making "some" payments to same-sex couples in valid marriages and praised the Supreme Court's ruling as a victory for fairness and equality.

In an update to his post early Saturday morning, Geidner linked to Volokh Conspiracy blogger Will Baude, who hypothesized in his own post on the legal analysis site that the SSA's decision was predicated in part on a specific statute pertaining to marital law as it applies to social security claims:

An applicant is the wife, husband, widow, or widower of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this title if the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an application.  [emphasis Baude's]

In response to the Supreme Court's DOMA decision, a majority of federal agencies--such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management--have opted to look to the laws of the state in which a couple was married as opposed to the state of the couple's residence in order to determine marital status. These determinations have taken place largely through executive review alone.

If Baude is correct, however, the SSA's hands may essentially be tied by the statute in question. That would mean any fix for the issue will likely need to be a legislative one.

Social Security begins processing retirement claims for same-sex spouses

The Social Security Administration (SSA) said Friday it has begun processing, and paying, some retirement spouse claims for married, same-sex couples.

But the SSA also noted that it is limiting payment of claims only to those married in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and who are living in a state that recognizes same sex-marriage.

Couples who were married in one of the 13 states (or District of Columbia) where same-sex marriage is legal, but reside in another state, will have their claims held until the agency makes a final decision in their case, or obtains more guidance from the Justice Department.

The agency’s action comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages, leading to couples being denied federal benefits.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, said in a statement that in the coming weeks and months, the SSA “will develop and implement additional policy and processing instructions” as it works with the Justice Department to implement changes resulting from the ruling.

“I encourage individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits to apply now, to protect against the loss of any potential benefits. We will process claims as soon as additional instructions become finalized,” Colvin said.

Pentagon to Offer 10 Days Paid Leave for Gay Service Members to Travel to States Where They Can Marry

According to a Defense Department memo obtained by the Associated Press, the Pentagon is ready to extend benefits including housing and health care to the same-sex spouses of service members. However, rather than providing benefits to declared gay partners who are not married (which was in an earlier plan) the new plan would offer up to 10 days of leave to gay service members so they can travel to states where they may marry legally.

The AP reports:

While no final decisions have been made, the memo from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to top defense leaders would reverse an earlier plan that would allow the same-sex partners of military members to sign a declaration form in order to receive limited benefits, such as access to military stores and some health and welfare programs.

"As the Supreme Court's ruling has made it possible for same-sex couples to marry and be afforded all benefits available to any military spouse and family, I have determined, consistent with the unanimous advice of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the spousal and family benefits far outweigh the benefits that could be extended under a declaration system," Hagel wrote.

The plan is scheduled to take effect by the end of August.

U.S. Consulate in Amsterdam Issues First Visa to Gay Spouse

John Kerry's pronouncement on Friday that the U.S. would immediately begin treating visa applications from same-sex couples in the same manner as those from heterosexual couples led to this historic event yesterday.

From the U.S. Consulate General, Amsterdam's Facebook page:

Mr. Francois Conradie is moving to New York, and visited the U.S. Consulate General in Amsterdam for his L2 visa interview on Friday. Today, he was surprised by Consul General Berry, who presented him with the printed visa placed in his passport. This is the first derivative visa we have had the privilege of issuing to the same-sex spouse of a visa applicant in Amsterdam since the U.S. Supreme Court's repeal of DOMA.

Have a great trip Mr. Conradie!

SCOTUS Ruling Revives Federal Challenge To Oklahoma's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The battle for marriage equality has begun to escalate in the Sooner State, following the Supreme Court's gutting of section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor, according to The Oklahoman. A 2004 challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage has been in a holding pattern for over a year while the federal court in Tulsa waited for the outcome of several high profile gay marriage cases including Holingsowrth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. The couples who first brought the suit, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin and Susan Barton and Gay Phillips, are challenging not only Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage but also a crucial part of DOMA not addressed in the Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling, the section that "allows states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states."

Via The Oklahoman:

The high court's decision last month in a gay marriage case “provides clear and explicit guidance for concluding Oklahoma's marriage ban violates both (the couple's) fundamental right to marry, and the exercise of liberties inherent in such fundamental right,” according to a legal brief filed Monday in the case...

Don Holladay, the attorney representing the couples, filed a motion urging [U.S. District Judge Terence Kern] to render a final judgment in regard to the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down by the Supreme Court.

However, the Justice Department, despite having stopped defending DOMA in Court, has asked to respond to Holladay's motion and Judge Kern has given the DOJ until Aug. 23 to submit their response. In his petition Holladay has also asked that the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in overturning section 3 of DOMA, primarily that it violated due process and equal protection, should be applied in deciding whether to overturn Oklahoma's state-wide ban on gay marriage:

“Only a constitutional removal of Oklahoma's marriage ban ... will provide same-sex couples in Oklahoma all the federal benefits and responsibilities that are available now in 13 states and the District of Columbia."

An overturn of Oklahoma's ban on gay marriage would come as a coup just months after the state's House of Representatives held a vote affirming marriage as being between one man and one woman, causing half of the House's Democrats to walk from the floor.

Senate Committee Advances Benefits Bill For Gay Troops And Their Spouses

The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs advanced a new package of bills recently that would effectively ensure full benefits go to gay troops and their spouses. The package, collectively known as the Charlie Morgan Act, would change the existing definitions of spouse in U.S. code concerning benefits for troops. The portion in question is known as Title 38, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman independently of the mostly-defunct "Defense of Marriage Act". 

According to the Washington Blade, the bills carry the name of Charlie Morgan, a guardsman from New Hampshire who was a plaintiff against DOMA on behalf of herself and other gay troops. She did so while battling terminal breast cancer, and sought to secure benefits for her spouse before succumbing to the disease. Unfortunately, Morgan passed just months before the death of DOMA, but her name lives on with the newly-advanced bill. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), chief sponsor of the bill, told the press:

"Every individual who serves in uniform should have access to the benefits they’ve earned. Charlie served on the front lines for our country, but because of her sexual orientation her family has been wrongfully being denied many of the same benefits given to those who stood beside her."

The Charlie Morgan Act also comes, in part, from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's promise to deliver full benefits to gay troops and their spouses after the Supreme Court gutted DOMA. Benefits in question include compensation for disability and the right to be buried in a military cemetery. With Title 38 in place, it is unclear as to whether such benefits can be extended to same-sex spouses. If passed, the Charlie Morgan Act would effectively put all doubts to rest. According to Shaheen, it is not so much a new piece of legislation so much as an extension of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court last month. 

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA was a victory for the belief that all Americans are to be treated equally under the law, and I am pleased the Veteran’s Committee has built on the landmark progress we’ve seen for marriage equality. I hope the full Senate will move forward on the Charlie Morgan Act so that finally no spouse, child or family is denied benefits they have earned and deserve.”

NY To Refund Estate Taxes Paid By Same-Sex Couples Prior To DOMA Ruling

Those familiar to the case that gutted DOMA, Windsor v. United States, know that the suit was prompted by the over $300,000 in extra estate taxes that Edie Windsor was forced to pay as the result of her deceased spouse being a member of the same sex. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Windsor's favor, the state of New York is offering refunds to anyone else who might have found themselves in her situation. 

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the refunds Tuesday, citing the Supreme Court decision to render DOMA unconstitutional. Said refunds apply to any same sex couple considered legally married in the state of New York who were forced to pay any extra estate taxes as the result of DOMA. At present, the state has not made any estimates of exactly how much tax money will need to be repaid. 

Upon the announcement, Cuomo expressed his personal support of the refunds:

"This financial compensation is one more step toward justice for Edie Windsor, and all of the men and women who confronted similar indifference at a time of deep personal loss."

According to the Daily Journal (via AP)...

"A refund must be claimed within three years of the tax return or two years after the tax was overpaid. More information is available through the state's Taxpayer Information Center at 518-457-5387."

Pennsylvania Has First Gay Wedding As County Defies Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Pennsylvania is currently the only Northeastern state with a same-sex marriage ban on the books. Although you would never know it if you were to attend the wedding of Alicia Terrizzi and Loreen Bloodgood, or apply for a marriage license in Montgomery County, just outside of Philadelphia. Terrizzi and Bloodgood are one of two couples who have been granted marriage licenses in the county after it decided to defy Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban. The country Register of Wills has also said that he will approve any other same-sex couples applying for a marriage license.

The two licenses come just one day after Montgomery County officials announced that they are willing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples yesterday. Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes, an independently elected Democrat, told reporters that he wishes to be "on the right side of history and the law." He also cited Windsor v. United States, the Supreme Court case that gutted DOMA, as well as the ACLU's current suit in federal court to overturn Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban, a case that Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has announced that she will not defend. Hanes told reporters that he was actually willing to grant the first same-sex marriage license in Pennsylvania's history one day prior, but that the couple applying decided to withdraw their application after speaking with lawyers from the ACLU.

Molly Tack-Hooper, a spokesperson for the ACLU, noted that this is not the first time that a county has defied a state's same-sex marriage ban:

"We know how it has played out in a few other states; we don’t know how it might turn out in Pennsylvania. Gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses in Montgomery County should be aware that there might be uncertainty about the legal statuses of those marriages for a while because unfortunately in other states, governments have later invalidated the marriages."

It is not yet clear whether the same thing will happen to these two couples. Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett has not yet announced whether he will defend the lawsuit, and has refused to comment thus far. Hanes also maintains that "I have no knowledge of anything prohibiting me from doing it. If another couple came to me I would treat them exactly the same. I would approve it." The American Family Association of Pennsylvania did offer an opinion, however, written by president Diane Gramley, and addressed Hanes directly.

“Montgomery County’s Register of Wills is an attorney, thus should know the law, and as an elected row officer he has sworn to uphold the law. Apparently he is following the lead of Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has said she would not defend Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act even though the job she was elected to fill includes defending the laws of the Commonwealth. If he can’t uphold the law and issue marriage licenses only to those who can legally marry in Pennsylvania, he needs to tender his resignation.”

County Commission Chairman Josh Shapiro told the press that "marriage equality will come to Pennsylvania. He says it's just a question of how long it will take." He also said that he is willing to defend Hanes' decision in court. Meanwhile, Alicia Terrizzi told reporters that she and her new spouse, Bloodgood, were not looking to be pioneers by getting married. Instead, they "simply want to take advantage of the opportunity offered by Montgomery County officials."

Missouri Supreme Court To Review Same-Sex Partner Benefits Case After DOMA Ruling

This past February, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments challenging a state law banning same-sex marriage. The case was brought before the court after Kelly Glossip, partner to deceased Missouri State Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, was denied the survivor benefits granted to opposite-sex couples under Missouri Law.

While is is still not clear if the court will make a ruling on the case, it has asked for attorneys on both sides to file written arguments in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down Section 3 of DOMA, which dealt with benefits to married couples (including death and inheritance benefits) among other issues. Attorneys for Glossip have already submitted their arguments. They contend that the state's denial of benefits violates the state's equal protection clause, much in the same way that DOMA did so with the U.S. Constitution. State attorneys have until July 29th to submit theirs.

According to Beaumont Enterprise, Glossip's case was initially dismissed from Cole County Circuit Court before being appealed to the state's supreme court. While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision dealt entirely with separate, federal laws...

"Glossip's attorneys contend in their recent court filing that there is a similar discriminatory principle in Missouri's law that denies benefits to same-sex couples who are legally unable to marry in Missouri."

Missouri's constitution does have a same-sex marriage ban on the books, in addition to an equal protection clause. This case is also not the first to use the SCOTUS' recent ruling to challenge anti-gay legislation at the state level. Previously, a federal district court in Michigan cited Windsor v. United States when blocking a state law that would bar employment benefits to same-sex couples. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently declined to hear a similar case over the denial of same-sex partner benefits in Arizona.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz2ZvHnUcJl

Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize marriage of dying gay man

In a big move, but not a surprising one (I’d argue), a federal judge in Ohio has ordered the state to immediately recognize the recent marriage of a gay Ohio couple in Maryland.

One of the two men is terminally ill, and now in hospice care, but they raised they were able to raise enough money to fly a private jet to Maryland last week, where marriages of gay people are legal, and get married on the tarmac (the dying partner in a hospital bed) before immediately flying back to Ohio.

The men, Jim Obergefell, and his ailing husband, John Arthur, sued the state of Ohio to require them to list them as married on Arthur’s impending death certificate.  The federal judge granted the couple a temporary restraining order, forcing the state to file the death certificate correctly.

More importantly, the judge mentioned the recent Supreme Court DOMA decision as part of his justification for granting the TRO.  (The case will still have to go to trial.)  More from Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed:

Looking at Ohio’s bans on recognizing same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio, Black concluded, “The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.”

Welcome to the post-Windsor world.

I really think the court granted us nationwide gay marriage in all but name.  Yes, the way they did it requires us to go state-by-state and strike down individual state-DOMA laws, but that was the genius of the court’s decision.  They paid homage to the notion that the court shouldn’t upend the “democratic experiment” taking place in the states, while at the same time coming up with a decision that basically leaves the states no wiggle room to say “no” to marriage equality for gays once the state DOMAs are challenged.

So yes, it will take longer for us to get marriage in 50 states – thus a nod to the notion that the court shouldn’t change everything nationwide immediately – but at the same time, they pretty much guaranteed that we’ll win.  And this Ohio ruling is quite possibly the first evidence of that fact.

House Republicans Give Up On Gay Marriage Fight

After spending more than $2 million defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a number of cases, House Republicans announced Thursday they would no longer defend the law in a case before the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts citing The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, BuzzFeed reports. The announcement came via a legal filing from the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a group controlled by House Republicans. In the case in question, McLaughlin v. Panetta, servicemembers challenged not only section 3 of DOMA, but also, "Title 38 of the U.S. Code regarding veterans’ benefits that define 'spouse' as 'a person of the opposite sex.'" In their filing, the BLAG lawyers state:

"The Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013), 2013 WL 3196928 (U.S. June 26, 2013). The Windsor decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this case. While the question of whether 38 U.S.C. § 101(3), (31) is constitutional remains open, the House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute. Accordingly, the House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant."

Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker of the House, John Boehner, weighed in with a curt, "The document from the legal team speaks for itself." HRC President Chad Griffin noted the stunning nature of the Republican reversal, stating, "After millions of taxpayer dollars wasted defending discrimination, it’s a historic sign of the times that the House leadership is dropping its pointless quest to maintain second-class status for lesbian and gay couples." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for House Republicans to drop their involvement in the remaining cases to which they are a party defending DOMA and similar statutes. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told BuzzFeed: 

"The Supreme Court’s ruling is clear. Rather than trying to delay justice for particular married gay and lesbian couples and their families, Speaker Boehner should immediately file motions to end House Republicans’ involvement in the remaining cases and stop spending taxpayer dollars to defend unconstitutional discrimination."

Civil unions not the same as marriage when it comes to federal benefits

Same-sex couples in a civil union will not be eligible for most federal benefits now available to married, same-sex couples. In a series of memos released last week, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that same-sex or other couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs,” although any existing benefits provided to domestic partners “will remain intact.”

The announcement means that the federal government will treat civil unions differently than legal same-sex marriages.

The action by OPM follows the June 26 decision by the Supreme Court which ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. That section of DOMA prohibited the government from recognizing same-sex marriage for purposes of federal benefits programs.

In a memo to federal benefits administrators, John O’Brien, OMP’s Director for Healthcare and Insurance, outlined changes in the status of federal benefits as a result of the DOMA ruling, noting that guidelines will apply to all federal workers, regardless of whether they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage.

That means same sex couples living anywhere in the U.S. will qualify for federal-employee benefits as long as they hold marriage licenses from any of the 13 states or the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal.

The Supreme Court ruling and announcement by OPM invalidate the often used argument by lawmakers opposed to same-sex marriage that civil unions offer the same benefits as marriage, without the title.

Currently, Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey allow same-sex civil unions.

 

OPM acknowledged Tuesday that treatment for benefits of same-sex couples and domestic partners outside the federal workforce, including with Social Security, tax and veterans’ benefits have not yet been established.

OPM has given legally married same-sex couples until August 26 to apply for federal-employee benefits and two years to change their status for retirement benefits.

Dad's Open Letter to Son on Marriage Equality Goes Viral

A straight father's open letter to his young son regarding last week's landmark Supreme Court rulings has gone viral, and it's easy to see why.

His four-year-old boy clearly has no concept of the Supreme Court or the significance of its decisions, as Brian Gresko of The Babble points out.

The bigger question is whether the SCOTUS striking down DOMA and dismissing Prop 8 will be seen as a watershed moment when he does get it.

It's a touching letter about what a father hopes will be a teachable moment someday, and emblematic of his desire for our children to inherit a better world.

Read what Gresko has to say below:

Dear Felix,

Your mom and I put off taking you for a blood test because, honestly, we figured you didn't really need it, that the doctor's concerns about the level of lead in your body were the routine kind of doctor's orders we could ignore.

Doc has since corrected us of that misconception, stressing the importance of the blood test. (And we wonder where your stubbornness comes from.) Ok, point taken. So, at least a year late, this morning we walked in to get your blood work done just as the waiting room television cut to the steps of the Supreme Court Building, where the announcement came that the Court had ruled 5-4 to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring the law baring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

You're four-years-old as I write this. You seem to react to adults who make good eye contact, speak with animation, get down to your level to talk to you, and ask you questions that you understand and then listen to your answers. You click with men, you click with women, and as far as I can remember you only asked once about why one of your best friends has two mommies. When I told you that couples come in all combinations - woman and woman, man and woman, man and man - you nodded and that was that. No big deal.

So sitting with you in the waiting room, I had one of those moments of double-ness that parents sometimes have, as I thought about the news and what it meant, watched the happy reactions from the crowd of marriage equality supporters, and wondered what celebration might be going on in other parts of New York City, all while talking with you about the upcoming blood test and reading you a story. I didn't explain what was happening on the television, and you didn't ask. I figured the time will come soon enough - probably too soon for my liking - when you'll be aware of the politics around sex and gender and sexual orientation.

Or maybe you won't. Hopefully, these issues will be moot in seven years time, or ten years, whenever you become aware of your sexual self (let's go with ten years, eh?) and begin to find other people compelling in ways that will, at first, probably seem strange or mysterious. (For example, I didn't notice girls had legs till eighth grade. Before then, I'm not sure how they got around, their mobility was no concern of mine. Suddenly, when springtime came and the skirts came out, their long, skinny, graceful limbs became vitally important. And yet I had no idea why. I just found them… fascinating. I knew they were key characters, I just hadn't figured out what the story was about yet.) Maybe you'll read about today's decision in a history book and it'll sound like a long time ago, the Dark Ages, when certain couples could marry and certain couples could not. You'll feel comfortable pursuing whatever kind of partnership interests you, no matter the person's gender, or color, or race, or class, or belief system, or whatever, and live in a country in which you can join in the legal state of matrimony with that lucky person.

I hope that by then American society will have a better understanding of what I saw all so plainly today. That if you prick our skin, the same red blood flows through all of our veins. These differences in appearance and behavior and belief in many ways are trivial, surface. How you treat other people, your stewardship of our planet and society and yourself as a functioning, contributing human on Earth, matters so much more than who you'd like to date, have sex with, or marry. As Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly put it, "You've got to be kind."

Other than that? Have fun, kid. And while this marriage thing sure ain't easy - in fact, I don't wish it on anyone who doesn't feel ready, 100% sure they want to make their commitment into a socially recognized, legal bond - I'm happy knowing that if, one day, you think you're ready to take the plunge, you can do it with whomever the hell you want. And I'll be right there (unless you decide to elope like your mom and me decided, which is totally cool too), cheering you on and wishing you well, no matter whose hand you're holding when you say "I do."

Love ya kid,

Dad.