4 Signs that DOMA is doomed

[WorldWatcher]

Different states can have different concealed carry rules, and people choose to go or not to go to a given state because of those rules. With marriage, why would one want to move into a state that doesnt want to support gay marriage if you are in one?

Because the States themselves have chosen to recognize Civil Marriage from other States. If a State were to choose not to recognize any Civil Marriage performed from another State I suppose that would be Constitutional.

Absolutely not: it would violate the full faith and credit clause.

No it wouldn't. States are not required to have Civil Marriage recognized in their laws at all. If a State were to choose to have no laws on Civil Marriage, there would be no laws that would need to recognize the Civil Marriage from another state.

It would work the same way it does now for same-sex couples that get a Civil Marriage in one state and move to a different State that doesn't recognize it. True, the couple is still Civilly Married as a function of law from the State they were married in, but in the new State the marriage is just not recognized.

The new State simply wipes all rights, responsibilities, and benefits from the books. No "married filing jointly" on state tax returns - everyone files as a single individual. No free transfer of property between spouses - above a "gift" threshold it becomes taxable income. The partner - who some might call a spouse - would not have medical decision making capability unless they obtained a medical power of attorney. No "assumed parentage" pertaining to fathers would exist for a child born - the father would have to adopt the child to be recognized as a legal parent. No automatic inheritance of an estate of someone's friend (i.e. spouse) dies and doesn't leave a Will. Absent a Will, and with no spouse, automatic inheritance normally goes to parents first and then siblings. State employees would not have spouses, so there would be no spouses on State employee health insurance plans , but of course if they were the legal parent of a child the child could still be on their plan. And there are probably hundreds of other examples state-by-state that have to change.

You wouldn't want the people of one state to be forced to recognize Civil Marriages that they don't want to recognize would you? If a State says "We want NO Civil Marriages" and they are forced to have them anyway by the federal government, why is that different than a State saying we don't want Same-sex Civil Marriages but the federal government shouldn't force them to recognize it because it's valid in another State?


******************************

Don't get me wrong, I'm not silly enough to think that would ever happen. It won't. I'm just saying from a theoretical standpoint, that if a State wiped all aspects of the law from it's books - then it could, if it choose, not recognize Civil Marriages from another state as it would be treating all the citizens that reside in that state the same.

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually they do. Most States do not allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriage under their State law, however they recognize as legally valid legal Common Law Marriages from another State and in addition the federal government recognizes them as valid if entered into in a State that allows for the assumption of Common Law Marriages.


>>>>

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government generally ignores common law marriages if the state you reside in does. The rule for taxes is different in that they will recognize it if the state that the marriage it originated in does.

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government will recognize common law marriages as valid for federal purposes (taxes and other purposes) if the legal Civil Marriage was entered into in a State which allows for the creation of Common Law Civil Marriages.

One example is Federal Benefits. From the Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20 Employee Benefits
§ 404.726
Evidence of common-law marriage.
(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements.

20 CFR 404.726 - Evidence of common-law marriage. | Title 20 - Employees' Benefits | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Then there is the example of Social Security Benefits to a Spouse...

Social Security follows the state laws. So, check the laws in your state. To get survivors or spouses benefits you generally must live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage. However, most states (even those that do not recognize in-state common-law marriage) will recognize a common-law marriage entered into in another state that does.

Recognizing common-law marriage​

The federal government will recognize Common Law Marriages if the State you reside in recognizes you as Civilly Married whether the marriage was entered into in that state or not. And as the Social Security Administration notes, most states do recognize Common Law Marriages (even if it's from another state). Now true, there may be a couple that don't, but in general most people will be just fine.


>>>>

Let me spell it out for you, if a same sex couple has a common law marriage from a state that recognizes both common law marriages and same sex marriages, and they move to a state that does not recognize same sex and/or common law marriages, they will lose Social Security benefits even though they will still be able to file taxes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government generally ignores common law marriages if the state you reside in does. The rule for taxes is different in that they will recognize it if the state that the marriage it originated in does.

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government will recognize common law marriages as valid for federal purposes (taxes and other purposes) if the legal Civil Marriage was entered into in a State which allows for the creation of Common Law Civil Marriages.

One example is Federal Benefits. From the Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20 Employee Benefits
§ 404.726
Evidence of common-law marriage.
(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements.

20 CFR 404.726 - Evidence of common-law marriage. | Title 20 - Employees' Benefits | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Then there is the example of Social Security Benefits to a Spouse...

Social Security follows the state laws. So, check the laws in your state. To get survivors or spouses benefits you generally must live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage. However, most states (even those that do not recognize in-state common-law marriage) will recognize a common-law marriage entered into in another state that does.

Recognizing common-law marriage​

The federal government will recognize Common Law Marriages if the State you reside in recognizes you as Civilly Married whether the marriage was entered into in that state or not. And as the Social Security Administration notes, most states do recognize Common Law Marriages (even if it's from another state). Now true, there may be a couple that don't, but in general most people will be just fine.


>>>>

Let me spell it out for you, if a same sex couple has a common law marriage from a state that recognizes both common law marriages and same sex marriages, and they move to a state that does not recognize same sex and/or common law marriages, they will lose Social Security benefits even though they will still be able to file taxes.

No disagreement. Currently Social Security doesn't recognize ANY Same-sex Civil Marriage so where you live is irrelevant.

As to Common Law Marriage you are correct. However there are probably Common Law Marriages in EVERY state that are recognized by the state of residence.

All States recognize Common Law Marriages of some sort and only a few allow for the creation of new Common Law Marriages. Even the 5 States that proportedly have "No Common Law Marriages" have a "grandfather" date where Common Law Marriages prior to that date are still recognized. Those are:

• Georgia (1/1/1997)
• Idaho (1996)
• Ohio (10/10/1991)
• Oklahoma (1/1/1998)
• Pennsylvania (1/1/2005)

So in all 50 States there is the possibility of having a Common Law Marriage (either through that State or moving there later) and of 50 State 45 still recognize new Common Law Marriages (either through that State or moving there later).


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government generally ignores common law marriages if the state you reside in does. The rule for taxes is different in that they will recognize it if the state that the marriage it originated in does.

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government will recognize common law marriages as valid for federal purposes (taxes and other purposes) if the legal Civil Marriage was entered into in a State which allows for the creation of Common Law Civil Marriages.

One example is Federal Benefits. From the Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20 Employee Benefits
§ 404.726
Evidence of common-law marriage.
(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements.

20 CFR 404.726 - Evidence of common-law marriage. | Title 20 - Employees' Benefits | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Then there is the example of Social Security Benefits to a Spouse...

Social Security follows the state laws. So, check the laws in your state. To get survivors or spouses benefits you generally must live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage. However, most states (even those that do not recognize in-state common-law marriage) will recognize a common-law marriage entered into in another state that does.

Recognizing common-law marriage​

The federal government will recognize Common Law Marriages if the State you reside in recognizes you as Civilly Married whether the marriage was entered into in that state or not. And as the Social Security Administration notes, most states do recognize Common Law Marriages (even if it's from another state). Now true, there may be a couple that don't, but in general most people will be just fine.


>>>>

Let me spell it out for you, if a same sex couple has a common law marriage from a state that recognizes both common law marriages and same sex marriages, and they move to a state that does not recognize same sex and/or common law marriages, they will lose Social Security benefits even though they will still be able to file taxes.

I got news for you, EVERYONE loses social security benefits when a spouse dies. If you elect to get a deceased spouse's social security benefits you lose yours. If you elect to take yours, you lose your spouse's. Once you make that election you don't get to change your mind later and never get both under any circumstances. That's what makes gays so amusing when they talk about losing social security benefits. They won't, they can't, not any more than anyone else.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government will recognize common law marriages as valid for federal purposes (taxes and other purposes) if the legal Civil Marriage was entered into in a State which allows for the creation of Common Law Civil Marriages.

One example is Federal Benefits. From the Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20 Employee Benefits
§ 404.726
Evidence of common-law marriage.
(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements.

20 CFR 404.726 - Evidence of common-law marriage. | Title 20 - Employees' Benefits | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Then there is the example of Social Security Benefits to a Spouse...

Social Security follows the state laws. So, check the laws in your state. To get survivors or spouses benefits you generally must live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage. However, most states (even those that do not recognize in-state common-law marriage) will recognize a common-law marriage entered into in another state that does.

Recognizing common-law marriage​

The federal government will recognize Common Law Marriages if the State you reside in recognizes you as Civilly Married whether the marriage was entered into in that state or not. And as the Social Security Administration notes, most states do recognize Common Law Marriages (even if it's from another state). Now true, there may be a couple that don't, but in general most people will be just fine.


>>>>

Let me spell it out for you, if a same sex couple has a common law marriage from a state that recognizes both common law marriages and same sex marriages, and they move to a state that does not recognize same sex and/or common law marriages, they will lose Social Security benefits even though they will still be able to file taxes.

I got news for you, EVERYONE loses social security benefits when a spouse dies. If you elect to get a deceased spouse's social security benefits you lose yours. If you elect to take yours, you lose your spouse's. Once you make that election you don't get to change your mind later and never get both under any circumstances. That's what makes gays so amusing when they talk about losing social security benefits. They won't, they can't, not any more than anyone else.

Dad drew $1300 a month and Mom drew $700 a month.
Dad died.
Mom sure lost a lot when her social security check went from $700 to $1300 the month after Dad died.
Emphasis on DIED as social security rules and regulations are very specific and clear as long as folks take the time to educate themselves and take the time to read them.
A $400 a month increase every month sure was a lot to lose.

Social security NEVER was set up where you have an asset account somewhere with your money it and upon your death it passes to your heirs.

No one loses social security survivors benefits when their spouse dies.
Ever.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The public has already moved on to acceptance of beastiality and incest.

There you go, lying out your ass again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I got news for you, EVERYONE loses social security benefits when a spouse dies. If you elect to get a deceased spouse's social security benefits you lose yours. If you elect to take yours, you lose your spouse's. Once you make that election you don't get to change your mind later and never get both under any circumstances. That's what makes gays so amusing when they talk about losing social security benefits. They won't, they can't, not any more than anyone else.

No person looses their Social Security benefit because a spouse dies.


Take Person A and Person B who are Civilly Married and have been for the required period of time. Person A and Person B reach retirement and each draws their Social Security. Person A dies and so there are no more payments. Person B as the survivor does not loose their Social Security, (s)he continues to draw it. Person B does have an option to take an adjustment though if Person A's rate was higher because of higher hearings.

No Social Security eligble person looses their Social Security because their legal spouse dies.


>>>>

 

[alexa_decatur]

I think gay marriage should be legal in all states. Allowing a same sex couple to marry only effects that couple and their families and not in a negative way. What harm could getting rid of DOMA really do?

 

[Katzndogz]

Let me spell it out for you, if a same sex couple has a common law marriage from a state that recognizes both common law marriages and same sex marriages, and they move to a state that does not recognize same sex and/or common law marriages, they will lose Social Security benefits even though they will still be able to file taxes.

I got news for you, EVERYONE loses social security benefits when a spouse dies. If you elect to get a deceased spouse's social security benefits you lose yours. If you elect to take yours, you lose your spouse's. Once you make that election you don't get to change your mind later and never get both under any circumstances. That's what makes gays so amusing when they talk about losing social security benefits. They won't, they can't, not any more than anyone else.

Dad drew $1300 a month and Mom drew $700 a month.
Dad died.
Mom sure lost a lot when her social security check went from $700 to $1300 the month after Dad died.
Emphasis on DIED as social security rules and regulations are very specific and clear as long as folks take the time to educate themselves and take the time to read them.
A $400 a month increase every month sure was a lot to lose.

Social security NEVER was set up where you have an asset account somewhere with your money it and upon your death it passes to your heirs.

No one loses social security survivors benefits when their spouse dies.
Ever.

You just said that your Mom lost her social security benefit. Do you understand how that works. Your mother lost, in one second, everything she worked for.

I get social security. I get it from my ex husband's social security account, just like your mother lost everything she had in her account when she elected to take your Dad's benefits. I elected to take my ex-husband's benefit. In order to do that, I had to relinquish any right to receive funds from my own account - forever. I can never go back and make a claim to my own benefits. The government actually got a HUGE bonus because it gets to keep whatever I made.

Even if gays get the right to make a claim on one another's benefit when one dies, they will still lose whatever benefit they had on their own. If the surviving partner gets a larger benefit than the deceased partner there will be no increased benefits available to that survivor. In effect, gays (like heterosexuals) don't get any real benefits from social security. Although, they will be entitled to the $250.00 death benefit paid when a spouse dies.

 

[Gadawg73]

I got news for you, EVERYONE loses social security benefits when a spouse dies. If you elect to get a deceased spouse's social security benefits you lose yours. If you elect to take yours, you lose your spouse's. Once you make that election you don't get to change your mind later and never get both under any circumstances. That's what makes gays so amusing when they talk about losing social security benefits. They won't, they can't, not any more than anyone else.

Dad drew $1300 a month and Mom drew $700 a month.
Dad died.
Mom sure lost a lot when her social security check went from $700 to $1300 the month after Dad died.
Emphasis on DIED as social security rules and regulations are very specific and clear as long as folks take the time to educate themselves and take the time to read them.
A $400 a month increase every month sure was a lot to lose.

Social security NEVER was set up where you have an asset account somewhere with your money it and upon your death it passes to your heirs.

No one loses social security survivors benefits when their spouse dies.
Ever.

You just said that your Mom lost her social security benefit. Do you understand how that works. Your mother lost, in one second, everything she worked for.

I get social security. I get it from my ex husband's social security account, just like your mother lost everything she had in her account when she elected to take your Dad's benefits. I elected to take my ex-husband's benefit. In order to do that, I had to relinquish any right to receive funds from my own account - forever. I can never go back and make a claim to my own benefits. The government actually got a HUGE bonus because it gets to keep whatever I made.

Even if gays get the right to make a claim on one another's benefit when one dies, they will still lose whatever benefit they had on their own. If the surviving partner gets a larger benefit than the deceased partner there will be no increased benefits available to that survivor. In effect, gays (like heterosexuals) don't get any real benefits from social security. Although, they will be entitled to the $250.00 death benefit paid when a spouse dies.

Total BS, she did not lose anything. She received the survivor benefit whichever is greater.
If what Dad had was less than hers she kept hers.
If the spouse that died makes more then the survivor's benefit increases the living spouse to that amount.
If the surviving partner legally married under the law then they get the larger of the 2 amounts as the surviving benefit.
Just as I indicated to you in my earlier post.
NO ONE has ever received any other benefit other than the larger benefit so your post is without merit.

 

[Katzndogz]

Dad drew $1300 a month and Mom drew $700 a month.
Dad died.
Mom sure lost a lot when her social security check went from $700 to $1300 the month after Dad died.
Emphasis on DIED as social security rules and regulations are very specific and clear as long as folks take the time to educate themselves and take the time to read them.
A $400 a month increase every month sure was a lot to lose.

Social security NEVER was set up where you have an asset account somewhere with your money it and upon your death it passes to your heirs.

No one loses social security survivors benefits when their spouse dies.
Ever.

You just said that your Mom lost her social security benefit. Do you understand how that works. Your mother lost, in one second, everything she worked for.

I get social security. I get it from my ex husband's social security account, just like your mother lost everything she had in her account when she elected to take your Dad's benefits. I elected to take my ex-husband's benefit. In order to do that, I had to relinquish any right to receive funds from my own account - forever. I can never go back and make a claim to my own benefits. The government actually got a HUGE bonus because it gets to keep whatever I made.

Even if gays get the right to make a claim on one another's benefit when one dies, they will still lose whatever benefit they had on their own. If the surviving partner gets a larger benefit than the deceased partner there will be no increased benefits available to that survivor. In effect, gays (like heterosexuals) don't get any real benefits from social security. Although, they will be entitled to the $250.00 death benefit paid when a spouse dies.

Total BS, she did not lose anything. She received the survivor benefit whichever is greater.
If what Dad had was less than hers she kept hers.
If the spouse that died makes more then the survivor's benefit increases the living spouse to that amount.
If the surviving partner legally married under the law then they get the larger of the 2 amounts as the surviving benefit.
Just as I indicated to you in my earlier post.
NO ONE has ever received any other benefit other than the larger benefit so your post is without merit.

You really don't understand do you? Your mother received the greater of the benefit available to her or her husband. You got that right. Then you stop.

Suppose this was a gay couple. One would be entitled to the greater of the two benefits. Which might be their own! They don't lose anything. Married or not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Here is an ideal example of the level of ignorance.

Social Security Benefits Denied To Same-Sex Couples, Costing Thousands: Report

This gay man is facing financial devastation because he lost the social security benefit of $1,100 a month that his "husband" contributed. The two were making it on the combined benefits of them both. What this man doesn't realize is that if he received the $1,100 a month from his husband's benefit he would lose whatever contribution he was making from his own benefit and be no better off than he ever was.

Here is the lie that gays believe.

In opposite-sex couples who have been married for a certain length of time, survivors are entitled to collect an amount equal to the deceased’s benefits.

They just aren't told that if they collect the deceased's benefits they lose the right to collect their own.

No wonder they feel so cheated.

 

[Gadawg73]

You just said that your Mom lost her social security benefit. Do you understand how that works. Your mother lost, in one second, everything she worked for.

I get social security. I get it from my ex husband's social security account, just like your mother lost everything she had in her account when she elected to take your Dad's benefits. I elected to take my ex-husband's benefit. In order to do that, I had to relinquish any right to receive funds from my own account - forever. I can never go back and make a claim to my own benefits. The government actually got a HUGE bonus because it gets to keep whatever I made.

Even if gays get the right to make a claim on one another's benefit when one dies, they will still lose whatever benefit they had on their own. If the surviving partner gets a larger benefit than the deceased partner there will be no increased benefits available to that survivor. In effect, gays (like heterosexuals) don't get any real benefits from social security. Although, they will be entitled to the $250.00 death benefit paid when a spouse dies.

Total BS, she did not lose anything. She received the survivor benefit whichever is greater.
If what Dad had was less than hers she kept hers.
If the spouse that died makes more then the survivor's benefit increases the living spouse to that amount.
If the surviving partner legally married under the law then they get the larger of the 2 amounts as the surviving benefit.
Just as I indicated to you in my earlier post.
NO ONE has ever received any other benefit other than the larger benefit so your post is without merit.

You really don't understand do you? Your mother received the greater of the benefit available to her or her husband. You got that right. Then you stop.

Suppose this was a gay couple. One would be entitled to the greater of the two benefits. Which might be their own! They don't lose anything. Married or not.

EVERYBODY GETS THAT including gay folks if they are allowed to marry.
NOW, a gay partner does not qualify for the survivor benefit if it is larger.
Get it now? If a gay partner dies now and they make more than the other one as the surviving one did not work much and kept the home then they have NO SURVIVOR'S BENEFIT to access the larger amount because under the law NOW they are not a widow or widower.
DOMA PREVENTS married same sex couples who have paid into the system their entire working lives from receiving vital Social Security protections as other married couples do.

 

[Gadawg73]

Here is an ideal example of the level of ignorance.

Social Security Benefits Denied To Same-Sex Couples, Costing Thousands: Report

This gay man is facing financial devastation because he lost the social security benefit of $1,100 a month that his "husband" contributed. The two were making it on the combined benefits of them both. What this man doesn't realize is that if he received the $1,100 a month from his husband's benefit he would lose whatever contribution he was making from his own benefit and be no better off than he ever was.

Here is the lie that gays believe.

In opposite-sex couples who have been married for a certain length of time, survivors are entitled to collect an amount equal to the deceased’s benefits.

They just aren't told that if they collect the deceased's benefits they lose the right to collect their own.

No wonder they feel so cheated.

So you favor same sex marriage to correct this wrong and are for DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional.
Good news! Glad to see you acknowledge this injustice and are for making it right.

 

[Katzndogz]

Total BS, she did not lose anything. She received the survivor benefit whichever is greater.
If what Dad had was less than hers she kept hers.
If the spouse that died makes more then the survivor's benefit increases the living spouse to that amount.
If the surviving partner legally married under the law then they get the larger of the 2 amounts as the surviving benefit.
Just as I indicated to you in my earlier post.
NO ONE has ever received any other benefit other than the larger benefit so your post is without merit.

You really don't understand do you? Your mother received the greater of the benefit available to her or her husband. You got that right. Then you stop.

Suppose this was a gay couple. One would be entitled to the greater of the two benefits. Which might be their own! They don't lose anything. Married or not.

EVERYBODY GETS THAT including gay folks if they are allowed to marry.
NOW, a gay partner does not qualify for the survivor benefit if it is larger.
Get it now? If a gay partner dies now and they make more than the other one as the surviving one did not work much and kept the home then they have NO SURVIVOR'S BENEFIT to access the larger amount because under the law NOW they are not a widow or widower.
DOMA PREVENTS married same sex couples who have paid into the system their entire working lives from receiving vital Social Security protections as other married couples do.

Okay, you don't have a clue.

Do you think that the man in the article would not have the financial devastation he is suffering if he received the $1,100 in survivor's benefits but had to relinquish his own? Since he's getting $1,900 a month now, his benefits might be larger than his deceased partner's.

The argument that gays someone will be financially ruined if they don't get survivor's benefits is a fallacy. It is designed solely to engender some sort of sympathy where none is warranted. Should they get survivor's benefits? Okay, give it to them. There are plenty of vehicles to use to give them those benefits. Children get survivor's benefits all the time and they aren't married to the decedent. Just give them the benefit. Say that a valid civil union for ten years (which is the length of time a survivor has to be married to collect benefits) is sufficient to establish a right to social security benefits. That's settled.

It just won't solve the problem of a loss of income.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here is an ideal example of the level of ignorance.

Social Security Benefits Denied To Same-Sex Couples, Costing Thousands: Report

This gay man is facing financial devastation because he lost the social security benefit of $1,100 a month that his "husband" contributed. The two were making it on the combined benefits of them both. What this man doesn't realize is that if he received the $1,100 a month from his husband's benefit he would lose whatever contribution he was making from his own benefit and be no better off than he ever was.

Here is the lie that gays believe.

In opposite-sex couples who have been married for a certain length of time, survivors are entitled to collect an amount equal to the deceased’s benefits.

They just aren't told that if they collect the deceased's benefits they lose the right to collect their own.

No wonder they feel so cheated.

That's not what the article said. The article said that Burrows received about $1,100 a month less then he would have compared to a different-sex couple if he'd been able to draw societal security survivor benefits in the same way.

Let's extract some numbers from the article

Mr. Burrows monthly SS check, let's call it $1,500 (his monthly income is $1,900, but part of that is a small pension from the husbands employer).

The amount of difference that Mr. Burrows would have received was about $1,100 per month.​

Taking the above we can estimate that the deceased husband was receiving about $2,600 per month. (A not unreasonable amount, my benefit is projected at $2,100 a month and I'm nowhere near the higher limit of wage earners.)

Mr. Burrows, if his legal Civil Marriage was recognized the same as different-sex Civil Marriages, then Mr. Burrows would receive his own Social Security ($1,500) + Survivor Offset ($1,100). If his legal Civil Marriage was recognized equally then his annual Social Security would total $31,200. However because the federal government discriminates based on the gender of married couple then his annual Social Security is $18,000. He is fact drawing $13,200 less per year then an woman whose husband died and was in the same situation.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Here is an ideal example of the level of ignorance.

Social Security Benefits Denied To Same-Sex Couples, Costing Thousands: Report

This gay man is facing financial devastation because he lost the social security benefit of $1,100 a month that his "husband" contributed. The two were making it on the combined benefits of them both. What this man doesn't realize is that if he received the $1,100 a month from his husband's benefit he would lose whatever contribution he was making from his own benefit and be no better off than he ever was.

Here is the lie that gays believe.

In opposite-sex couples who have been married for a certain length of time, survivors are entitled to collect an amount equal to the deceased’s benefits.

They just aren't told that if they collect the deceased's benefits they lose the right to collect their own.

No wonder they feel so cheated.

That's not what the article said. The article said that Burrows received about $1,100 a month less then he would have compared to a different-sex couple if he'd been able to draw societal security survivor benefits in the same way.

Let's extract some numbers from the article

Mr. Burrows monthly SS check, let's call it $1,500 (his monthly income is $1,900, but part of that is a small pension from the husbands employer).

The amount of difference that Mr. Burrows would have received was about $1,100 per month.​

Taking the above we can estimate that the deceased husband was receiving about $2,600 per month. (A not unreasonable amount, my benefit is projected at $2,100 a month and I'm nowhere near the higher limit of wage earners.)

Mr. Burrows, if his legal Civil Marriage was recognized the same as different-sex Civil Marriages, then Mr. Burrows would receive his own Social Security ($1,500) + Suvivor Offset ($1,100). If his legal Civil Marriage was recognized equally then his annual Social Security would total $31,200. Hover because the federal government discriminates based on the gender of married couple then his annual Social Security is $18,000. He is fact drawing $13,200 less per year then an woman whose husband died and was in the same situation.



>>>>

Exactly.