Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Death Benefits for Studds's Spouse
Washington Post ^ | October 18, 2006

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: silkpurse; sowsear

1 posted on 10/18/2006 5:23:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

that's rich!


2 posted on 10/18/2006 5:25:13 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Studds got the gold mine, Hara got the shaft. Literally. LOL


3 posted on 10/18/2006 5:26:43 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Peter "Graves"-ha ha. This is something else that's Bush's fault!


4 posted on 10/18/2006 5:27:26 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How proud do you imagine this guy's family was that their son was "married" to a congressman?

The mind reels.


5 posted on 10/18/2006 5:28:23 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I guess he's going to have to suck for his supper from now on


6 posted on 10/18/2006 5:29:58 PM PDT by Armigerous ( Non permitte illegitimi te carborundum- "Don't let the bastards grind you down")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
LOL! Peter Graves.

"Stop calling me Shirley."

7 posted on 10/18/2006 5:30:26 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I guess they'll auction off the butt plugs on Ebay since his husband can't have them.


8 posted on 10/18/2006 5:31:36 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (How to win over terrorists? KILL them with UNKINDNESS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


9 posted on 10/18/2006 5:31:52 PM PDT by uptoolate (Their 'innocent' civilian is their next suicide bomber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


10 posted on 10/18/2006 5:33:21 PM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

PWNED!



...though ya gotta wonder if this would have happened if the flamers hadn't tried to call their relationships "marriage".


11 posted on 10/18/2006 5:33:22 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The guy should have had his pension taken away from him for sodomizing a 17-year old page!!!


12 posted on 10/18/2006 5:35:53 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
is the bereaved (and broke) a widow or a widower?

I don't really want to know.

13 posted on 10/18/2006 5:36:08 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rod1

Clinton signed it but only on the condition that it took effect on January 21st, 2001.


14 posted on 10/18/2006 5:36:32 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

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."


15 posted on 10/18/2006 5:38:56 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Put Ham on Five and hold the Mayo


16 posted on 10/18/2006 5:41:16 PM PDT by Holicheese (Beerfest could be the greatest movie ever made!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This is the lebenteenmillionth post of this story today, and every single time the same mistakes are made in responding to it.

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.

17 posted on 10/18/2006 5:43:32 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Studds=distinguished

Foley=disgusting
18 posted on 10/18/2006 5:46:11 PM PDT by synbad600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore

You're right! Graves is the "Ever see a grown man naked?" guy.


19 posted on 10/18/2006 5:46:30 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
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.

One slight caveat. If the federal employee dies on the job, then his wife does "inherit" his pension.

20 posted on 10/18/2006 5:46:33 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kabar

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.


21 posted on 10/18/2006 5:49:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

"Do you like Gladiator movies?"

"Do we have a clearance, Clarence"

"Give me a vector, Victor!"


Jack.


22 posted on 10/18/2006 5:51:35 PM PDT by Jack Deth (Knight Errant and Disemboweler of the WFTD Thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Exactly


23 posted on 10/18/2006 5:52:16 PM PDT by Kaslin (No matter what the left says. G.W. Bush will be remembered as the best president of this century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds's marriage

Signed by President Clinton.

24 posted on 10/18/2006 5:54:02 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management,...

Looks like The Secretary denied any knowledge of this marriage.

25 posted on 10/18/2006 5:54:11 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

The bereaved is the widower. He was the husband


26 posted on 10/18/2006 5:55:47 PM PDT by Kaslin (No matter what the left says. G.W. Bush will be remembered as the best president of this century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No Death Benefits for Studds's Spouse

Because.

They

are

Both

Boys.

Dammit.

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!

27 posted on 10/18/2006 6:01:06 PM PDT by Gorzaloon ("Illegal Immigrant": The Larval form of A Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


28 posted on 10/18/2006 6:01:12 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon
HEY!

Great post.

29 posted on 10/18/2006 6:02:46 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
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.

No, no you got it wrong Studds was the wife, and Hare was the husband

30 posted on 10/18/2006 6:02:48 PM PDT by Kaslin (No matter what the left says. G.W. Bush will be remembered as the best president of this century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


31 posted on 10/18/2006 6:05:05 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
she gets a dependent's annuity

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.

32 posted on 10/18/2006 6:07:39 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
LOL! Peter Graves.
"Stop calling me Shirley."

Or more appropriately here...

"Have you ever been in a cockpit, son? Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"

33 posted on 10/18/2006 6:07:42 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kabar

And on into a level of complexity that makes the federal taxcode look like child's play.


34 posted on 10/18/2006 6:08:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Dean shouldn't feel so bad, the gerbil didn't get anything either...


35 posted on 10/18/2006 6:10:12 PM PDT by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


36 posted on 10/18/2006 6:11:09 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


37 posted on 10/18/2006 6:22:42 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
HEY!

Great post.

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.

38 posted on 10/18/2006 6:25:22 PM PDT by Gorzaloon ("Illegal Immigrant": The Larval form of A Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and to people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

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.

39 posted on 10/18/2006 6:26:15 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


40 posted on 10/18/2006 6:27:22 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

"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."

41 posted on 10/18/2006 6:31:25 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The federal government has refused to pay death benefits to the spouse...

Does that mean that Studds' spouse actually applied for benefits? Does that mean that Studds had set up the appropriate accounts for his spouse?

42 posted on 10/18/2006 6:41:05 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Why is this even a story? The federal government doesn't recognize same sex unions. Maybe, if the democrats win the House, the Senate and the presidency, this will change. More likely, liberal/Democrat federal judges, who've already fabricated a constitutional right to sodomy, will look into the Constitution and declare that unnatural unions repugnant to the wholesome imagination are sacrosanct under our founding document. But we are not there. Yet. Elections matter.
43 posted on 10/18/2006 6:41:57 PM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

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.


44 posted on 10/18/2006 6:42:08 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: synbad600

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?"


45 posted on 10/18/2006 6:52:42 PM PDT by carola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This is not a "spouse". This is a catamite (butt-boy).

Catamites are not eligible for pensions.

46 posted on 10/18/2006 6:53:20 PM PDT by LibKill (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"LOL! Peter Graves. "Stop calling me Shirley."

"So, I put on my tangerine lip gloss, and met him at the door. I was one lucky woman..."

47 posted on 10/18/2006 7:05:06 PM PDT by redhead (Valley Trash: The beer of champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I've seen several headlines referring to him as Studd's 'husband.'


48 posted on 10/18/2006 7:06:56 PM PDT by Retired Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
BTW, I think they are trying to change the law so that lawmakers convicted of felonies will lose their pensions as well.

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.

49 posted on 10/18/2006 7:22:12 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds's marriage
Signed by President Clinton





Without a doubt, President Clinton's greatest accomplishment and legacy. Shows there is some good in all administrations.


50 posted on 10/18/2006 7:30:52 PM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson