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 ...
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!"
Jack.
Exactly
Signed by President Clinton.
Looks like The Secretary denied any knowledge of this marriage.
The bereaved is the widower. He was the husband
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!
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?
Great post.
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.
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.
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.
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.