Skip to comments.Labor Dept: Same-Sex Spouses Must Receive Benefits Regardless of State Laws
Posted on 09/19/2013 4:42:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On September 18, the Obama Labor Department announced that married same-sex couples must receive the same pensions, 401(k)s, health plans, and employee benefits as heterosexual married couples, regardless of whether they live in one of the 37 states where same-sex marriage is illegal.
"This decision represents a historic step forward toward equality for all American families," said Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. "I have directed the department's agency heads to ensure that they are implementing the decision in a way that provides maximum protection for workers and their families."
The Labor Department said its interpretation "provides a uniform rule of recognition that can be applied with certainty by stakeholders, including employers, plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
More Federal takeover...TAKE BACK STATE’S RIGHTS. The Revolution is coming, folks.
Is Thomas Perez ready to be fired for this?
“Your puny states! What does it matter?! We have all the power! HaHaHaHaHaHa!”
Go for an Article V amendment convention first.
Just wait till bestiality is made a legal form of marriage.
I want to be around when some govt employee asks if his wife (an Ass/Donkey) can get the same benefits as a man and wife couple.
Actually I want to have a videocamera when that happens.
The guy could also say, my Ass is equal to your wife, and has two more legs, to boot.
I could go on for years on the potential of human-animal marriage esp. since we have the second example residing in the White House today.
The first example was Ted “The Cape Cod Orca” and which ever wife he had besides his groupies.
Stop me before I go on! NOT!
“There goes the 10th Amendment.”
I wish that a Governor would tell the Feds to “shove off, or come and arrest me.”
Watching Obama handle Syria and something about watching the Fed cops handle Boston has convinced me that, if you want to succeed in breaking away from the Feds, the time is right now.
Long Live The King!!
Calling all Virginians.....
Guess which way McAwful will go on this.....
Obama: all gay, all the time.
how about no
feds you are not our bosses
but but but it’s all in the name of marriage equality or others could say no Govt , freedom
Tolerance -> Acceptance -> Compliance
10th Amendment much?
Add “Celebrate” to that movement.
“Just wait till bestiality is made a legal form of marriage.”\
You’re seeing an example of it in the white hut.
Which one is the human?
Great, pay them out of Democrat party savings.
So is this saying that private employers have to give the same benefits to same-sex “spouses” as to genuine husbands and wives?
Anything else is a lie and an abomination. Doesn’t matter who says it’s not. This is spitting at God’s natural laws of creation.
It seems that the states no longer have any rights to govern themselves under the monster obamanation, might as well dump them all and begin again. Starting with DC and all liberal states, worthless, evil and hellbent monsters that hate themselves and all mankind.
I believe this is a violation of the 10th Amendment....
The q0th Amendment???
Never mind. I just figured out you meant the 10th Amendment.
Who died and made him king?
I have a feeling companies are going to drop their 401k plans.
I’m glad I’m at an age that none of this crap is really going to affect me. And I don’t give a damn about the following generations of liberals. I do feel for those who are against this kind of thing and worry about their grandkids.
You’ve got that right. Fedzilla is placing itself as god and demanding obedience to its lies and crimes against nature and perversion of the language and culture.
Isn’t the beast system obvious enough for people yet?
I don’t understand how a 401k can be affected by marriage. Straight or otherwise.
Yup, that's exactly how I read it. At first I thought it was just for DoL employees, but it looks like it's a nationwide edict applying to ALL employers.
I'm guessing that if they force employers to do this, then government should force them to cover "live-in"partners...those not legally married but have lived together for over 5 years or so. Same difference, IMO.
The dykes and coprophiliacs have made great headway returning civilization to the standards of Sodom.
At this point, if they’re going to go down this road of recognizing same sex marriages and long-term cohabitation (as you suggest) they should at least apply some of the more onorous consequences of marriage to them as well. Like the marriage penalty.
I actually wonder if non imposition of the marriage penalty, etc, for same sex marriages recognized as legit by the DoL would be grounds for a challenge under the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment ...
It is even more twisted than this reads. I got the notice for my company yesterday. It actually spells out that I have to accommodate gay married couples, regardless of whether my state recognizes the marriage, and specifically tells me not to recognize other forms of relationship such as a civil union or long term co-habitation, which may be recognized by the state. So it is a direct encouragement for a gay couples to become married, even if they aren’t on the militant edge that is pushing for that. It is purely a drive to get the marriage numbers up so the “institution” of gay marriage is mainstreamed. The lengths to which these fascists will go to push their agenda is unbounded.
I have a feeling companies are going to drop their 401k plans.
Highly unlikely. If it were only underlings who utilized 401k’s, you might have a point. But managers, directors, and upper management have been contributing for years to their companies’ 401k’s. They’re not going to want to dismantle the plans.
I dont understand how a 401k can be affected by marriage. Straight or otherwise.
I believe it comes into play with the beneficiary rules.
there’s a good deal of spitefulness involved too. This is the Obama Admins way of throwing the middle finger for Perez’ confirmation filibuster.
I hadn’t thought about this consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision when it found a portion of DOMA to be unconstitutional.
Basically, the Supreme Court decision told the feds that the states had the right to marry whomever they wanted and the feds could not ignore the rights of the states. Therefore, if California said you were legally married, then you were legally married for federal purposes too.
So... the feds can’t “unmarry” a legally married couple when it comes to imposition of federal law.
ERISA is federal law. It sets certain requirements for qualified plans such as 401k’s. Spouses have certain rights according to ERISA. Since it is federal law, the feds have to recognize legally married spouses which includes same sex couples. What this announcement from the Department of Labor is saying is that when a legally married couple moves to a state which does not recognize their marriage, they are still married in the eyes of the original state and, therefore, in the eyes of the feds. Moving to a different state does not “unmarry” them. The states which don’t allow same sex marriages can still ignore those couples for state purposes, but they don’t have a say over how the feds treat them. At least that’s my reading of what took place.