Skip to comments.No Death Benefits for Studds's Spouse
Posted on 10/18/2006 5:23:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
BOSTON, Oct. 17 -- The federal government has refused to pay death benefits to the spouse of former congressman Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.), the first openly gay member of Congress.
Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds's estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds's marriage.
Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds's case is the first of its kind known to the agency.
Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and to people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Studds got the gold mine, Hara got the shaft. Literally. LOL
Peter "Graves"-ha ha. This is something else that's Bush's fault!
How proud do you imagine this guy's family was that their son was "married" to a congressman?
The mind reels.
I guess he's going to have to suck for his supper from now on
"Stop calling me Shirley."
I guess they'll auction off the butt plugs on Ebay since his husband can't have them.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
I bet somebody is in the doghouse again.
Wait didn't Bubba sign that law in 1996?
Why it all Clinton's fault. Good grief.
I am just certain the Boston Globe and NY Times will be all over that aspect of the story tomorrow.
...though ya gotta wonder if this would have happened if the flamers hadn't tried to call their relationships "marriage".
The guy should have had his pension taken away from him for sodomizing a 17-year old page!!!
I don't really want to know.
Clinton signed it but only on the condition that it took effect on January 21st, 2001.
This article talks about death benefits, and the man responsible is named "Peter Graves"! Referring to the actor Peter Graves is also funny. By the way, it was Leslie Nielsen, not Peter Graves, that said, "Stop calling me Shirley."
Put Ham on Five and hold the Mayo
First of all, NOBODY gets to inherit anybody else's federal pension ~ not even a spouse. However, a pensioner can forego 10% of his pension to set up a dependent's annuity which will pay up to 55% of the normal amount of the pension.
However, the only people who can qualify are spouse, former spouse, dependent child, and, or a retarded or disabled child (of any age) ~ and if the pensioner doesn't do that these people GET NOTHING.
You're right! Graves is the "Ever see a grown man naked?" guy.
One slight caveat. If the federal employee dies on the job, then his wife does "inherit" his pension.
No, his wife doesn't "inherit" his pension. What happens is she gets a dependent's annuity since the system assumes that if you said nothing, that you meant to get the annuity.
"Do you like Gladiator movies?"
"Do we have a clearance, Clarence"
"Give me a vector, Victor!"
Signed by President Clinton.
Looks like The Secretary denied any knowledge of this marriage.
The bereaved is the widower. He was the husband
How long are we to endure this Media Fiction? That anyone would even consider that it was needed to "define Marriage", given that the dictionaries already have!
this is surely more than I want to know, so please consider not answering at all...but how does one tell who the "husband" is?
No, no you got it wrong Studds was the wife, and Hare was the husband
Speaking of a federal employee who drops dead on the job ~ not Studds. He was murdered by the DNC before he had a chance to be questioned by the FBI.
Which is based on the employee's pension computation as long as the employee had at least 18 months of creditable service. And depending upon a number of factors including court orders, former spouse(s) are also entitled to a share of the pension/annuity. FERS and CSRS handle this in similar but different ways.
Or more appropriately here...
"Have you ever been in a cockpit, son? Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
And on into a level of complexity that makes the federal taxcode look like child's play.
Dean shouldn't feel so bad, the gerbil didn't get anything either...
I hope the packers really push for his little boyfriend to get the benefits due a real spouse...
...because it will go a long way to helping us get the Federal Marriage Amendment passed.
I heard a report on CNN and they, very naturally, referred to this person as Studds' "husband". It rolled off of their lips as natural as water off a ducks back. I cannot adapt my mind to the notion of "husband-husband" contract.
Thanks..it was only because I could not find the graphic for "Captain Obvious"!
*sigh* Explaining to obvious that everyone knows, ONLY because the MSM keeps saying, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Can we, huh?"
If they left it alone, it would die out, and people would laugh at it and it would be forgotten.
I even know GAYS who think it is a stupid fiction, and they feel it will cause backlash, and weaken progress to some articles of partnership alternatives.
Actually, under federal law, pensions are only GRANTED to qualified retirees and their spouses.
I'm guessing Graves supports gay marriage, and that's why he worded his statement to sound like gays are the only people "denied" pensions, along with criminals.
BTW, I think they are trying to change the law so that lawmakers convicted of felonies will lose their pensions as well.
Another BTW, I think a retiree's SPOUSE would get a spouse pension even if the spouse WAS convicted of espionage or treason, but I'm not positive about that.
I knew it. As soon as even one state allows gays to be "married", the door was opened for all gay "spouses" to demand federal benefits that married people get. A tidal wave of law suits is coming.
"Sorry Peter that you are not getting my $114,337 a year. But things are not as bad as you think - - you are still alive, and I am in Hell."
Does that mean that Studds' spouse actually applied for benefits? Does that mean that Studds had set up the appropriate accounts for his spouse?
They are already here.
Watch the homosexual lobby is now going to push this specific instance because of the congressional connection.
Was studds respected by his collegues? The homosexual lobby will try and do the anecdotal push on this BS.
Yes, isn't it amazing that the MSM is playing this as a sob story in light of what they have been doing on the Foley story? Studds gets to boink a page, be reelected five times, retire at his leisure, marry and now it is so sad that his husband won't get any of his pension. Meanwhile, the MSM wants anyone who had any inkling that Foley liked young men to resign or be kicked out of Congress. Really amazing.
I wonder what people would have thought had Brian Ross delivered an honest story on Foley. "It has been learned that Congressman Mark Foley of Florida exchanged lewd IM messages with an 18-year-old former page." The response would have been, "Uh, okay, so what?"
Catamites are not eligible for pensions.
"So, I put on my tangerine lip gloss, and met him at the door. I was one lucky woman..."
I've seen several headlines referring to him as Studd's 'husband.'
There is precedence for this. I was told (and later confirmed by reading the statute) that Illinois state workers who retire can lose their pension if they are convicted of a felony in their retirement. Other states may have similiar laws.
the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds's marriage
Signed by President Clinton