Federal legislation would give gay couples equality in Social Security

[ruggerson]

God bless Jerrold Nadler!

April 11, 2006

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid29434.asp

Federal legislation would give gay couples equality in Social Security

Legislation introduced in the U.S House of Representatives last week would amend the Social Security Act to afford same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as others who pay into Social Security. The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term "permanent partner" to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms "husband" and "wife," which are already present in the legal code.

"Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to," said Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who authored the bill. "The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry—but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all."

Nadler's bill does not address same-sex marriage but does provide gay and lesbian couples with some of the benefits married couples enjoy under the Social Security system. Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do.

"I've heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don't want to discriminate against the LGBT community," Nadler said. "If they truly don't want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it. Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as married couples, and they deserve the same Social Security benefits as everyone else."

(more)

[burrowowl]

1. Would be a good thing

does it cover relatives living together in old-age, like 2 sisters, etc.

[Jersey Ginny]

2. It would give me added peace of mind for my partner and kids

I have to try to earn more and have more life insurance to compensate a little bit for the social security problem. Thanks for offering this legislation.

[xchrom]

3. woo-hoo -- nadler rocks!

:woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock:

this is great -- no, it's not marriage equality -- but it will be a great benefit for some now.

that of course is providing it passes.

[SoCalDem]

4. THIS, my friends, is why republicans don't want same sex marriage

They pretend that it's about "values", but it's ALWAYS about money.. If single people die at or near 65 (or whatever they ages limits awill be), "their" share of SS goes back into the pot.. If they are married, their surviving spouse can (or at least used to be able to) claim the higher of the amounts (theirs or their spouse's) ..

The republicans are always about money, no matter what they say.. even the abortion issue is about money.. The government doesn't want to PAY for abortions for poor women. Rich women always have had access to safe abortions, even when they were illegal..

Same for immigration.. They are ready to stir up the populace with the philosophical, religious and electoral effects of immigration, but it's still about money.. They don't want to PAY for services for undocumented workers, and they want their pals to be able to pay them little more than slave wages..

The war is about money..Oil money for their pals and sweetheart contracts too..

It's always about money
..they're just too cowardly to come out and say it

[Poland]

7. Flawed Logic

"The republicans are always about money, no matter what they say.. even the abortion issue is about money.. The government doesn't want to PAY for abortions for poor women. Rich women always have had access to safe abortions, even when they were illegal.."

Abortions are cheap (a lot cheaper then welfare). I think by this logic Republicans would favor paying for abortions for poor women.

[baby_mouse]

8. Not unconvincing point

certainly would be interesting to look at some sums.

[Robb]

19. I would argue

While abortions are cheaper than welfare, no welfare and no abortions is cheaper still.

[1932]

9. so true. For conservatives, it's about making people work harder for less.

If it gives employers cheap labor and employees fewer choices, they're all for it because it makes money for their benefactors -- the large corporations which underwrite their political campaigns.

That applies to abortions as well -- if it gives people control over their own lives and reduces desperation...

[ninkasi]

5. It's about time

for gay or lesbian couples to be treated the same as the rest of us. How can the government demand that they pay taxes, but refuse to recognize their relationships? To me, the whole issue of GLBT equality boils down to equal treatment and protection for all citizens.

For the religious fundies who are unable to accept gays, I can only say that the law does not require that you enter into a gay or lesbian relationship. You have every right to live as a heterosexual. Your lifestyle, however, should not infringe on another couple's different lifestyle. It's incredible to me that bigoted and narrow minded people are willing to believe that gays or lesbians deliberately choose a particular lifestyle, especially one which is so attacked by the same bigoted people.

What would be the point of a person going through sometimes, the painful acceptance of their own sexuality, and in some cases the ostracizing of their own families, just because...why? I have very dear friends who are gay, and some who are lesbian, and except for a very few, they all went through a great deal of grief getting their families to accept them.

One man, who died several years ago, was almost kept away from his mother's bedside as she lay dying, because his father couldn't accept his son's painful decision to live the life he was born to. The rejection was a constant wound to him, and haunted him through his own final illness. The one bright spot in his life, according to him, was the unconditional acceptance and support of the people he worked with, who provided him with the vacation time (switched by people with seniority), and air tickets, as well as the money, to visit his mother as she was dying.

For the last couple of months of his life, which were spent in a hospice, we visited him, tried to cheer him up, and remained by his side.

After all of the babbling of right-wing haters, it comes down to this...do you accept other people, who are in no way affecting, or harming you life, or not? If you try to impose your beliefs on them, what gives you that right? I am so very tired of these haters, and their spiteful ways of inflicting wounds on people who only want to live their lives in peace.

[Poland]

6. "Same-Sex" Pairs, Homosexuality Not Required

This will allow any two people to call themselves "permenant partners" simply so they can receive benefits. You don't have to be homosexual. You will see singles and widows in nursing homes paired off randomly as "permenant partners," their genders and their sexuality being irrelevent, in order to receive greater benefits.

[Ellen Forradalom]

10. Not at all different from gays in the services

marrying one another for cover and benefits. Or green-card sham marriages. Or trophy wives marrying rich old men. No sexuality, hetero or otherwise, required there either.

[Poland]

11. True

But think of all the same-sex college roomates, young adult roomates. Right now there is at least a general assumption of romantic involvement that embarasses many away from "marrying" to share benefits. If you set up some kind of gender neutral, sexuality neutral (it has to be because of the 4th amendment) situation it will just become financially silly to ever not be "married" - you will see columns by Suzie Orman telling you to "marry" your roomate - since after all "marriage" makes no assumptions anymore of gender or romantic interest. This I think is the redefinition of marriage you see complained about so much. And today with no-fault divorce, pre-nups etc. it is very easy to keep property/income etc. seperate for these "marriages" of financial convienance. Two young roomates "marry benefits" and continue to date the opposite gender, then when one gets engaged one "divorces" immediately into their "romantic marriage" while the other tries to "divorce" directly into their next "benefit marriage." Roomates with good health insurance plans will be a hot commodity.

[libnnc]

12. uhhh, I seriously doubt grannie and aunt fannie

will try to goose the system on this one. :eyes:

This would make my life alot less stressful. My partner's been worried about my not getting any of her SS benefits for a long time. We've been together almost 15 years now. 'Bout time we were treated like the tax paying citizens that we are.

[Poland]

13. Why not?

Would the benefits you want so badly be less valuable to a poor widower? Why on earth wouldn't she marry the lady dying in the hospital bed next to her (and why wouldn't the dying Women agree (?) she paid taxes all those years, why not let someone enjoy the benefit she earned)?

They wouldn't have to say they were lesbians, they could just say they were best friends and the one wanted to help take care of the other.

[libnnc]

14. So the fear of somebody getting something for nothing

will keep you from supporting a measure that would be a small step forward for so many others?

That's real mature.

[Poland]

15. What something for nothing?

That is very exclusionary of you. There isn't any "something for nothing" involved in my example. Why shouldn't two platonic friends who love each other (or don't for that matter) be able to get married and share SS benefits? They've paid taxes like everyone else.

I didn't say I wouldn't support it, I'm just pointing out the other consequences.

[Puglover]

16. You seem to be good at

pointing out the "other consequences". How about pointing out an idea to avoid them.

[Poland]

17. A Few Ideas

Repeal the 4th amendment, I don't think you want that.

Make divorce much more difficult, I don't think you want that.

Those are the only ones I've been able to think of. Can you think of any?

Can you answer the question in my last post? Why shouldn't they have that right also? If you don't have any good answer then why would you want to prevent it?

[Puglover]

20. Quite frankly

I'd love to see divorce made more difficult. Some straight folks seem see marriage as a very throw away thing.
I don't understand how repealing the 4th amendment would help but whatever.
Quite frankly speaking as a gay man in a committed relationship now 15 years old I'm sick and fucking tired of paying taxes like you and everyone else in this country and not being afforded the same civil rights. It's not about gay marriage it's about civil rights. Any church can refuse to marry anyone they don't want to marry.
I work for an airline. For my partner to fly on passes as my spouse we simply had to register and prove that we live at the same address. It could be as simple as that. And if Aunt Fanny and Uncle Carl want to do the same so be it. I'm over being treated as a 2nd class citizen. And if this causes some problems along the way that's the way it goes. How many m/f have marriages of convenience?

[Poland]

22. I agree

Divorce should be much more difficult... unfortunately that just isn't very likely. No-fault divorce is a curse but most people don't recognize that. Most people want divorce to be easy. Feminists will never go for it, they will recall the days when people were "trapped" in abusive/unfulfilling marriages.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Yup--blame the feminists!

Of course, you are right to fear this proposal. Next thing you know, people will be wanting to marry their pets.

There goes the Sanctity of Marriage!

[Poland]

27. Knee Jerk?

Did I say anything about pets? Nope. Why don't you try reading the question I asked in my previous post and thoughtfully answering the question.

As for your knee jerk reaction to my Feminism comment - its just the truth. Feminists have argued for a long time that marriage needs to be easy. Don't blame ME for that FACT.

[Ignis]

29. Verily, this man doth speaketh for all feminists!

As for your knee jerk reaction to my Feminism comment - its just the truth. Feminists have argued for a long time that marriage needs to be easy. Don't blame ME for that FACT.

Please provide some feminist sources for your claim--sorry, your FACT--that "easy marriage" is a tennant of modern feminism. All this time I thought feminists were concerned with equal employment rights, equal pay for equal work, etc.

Thanks much, and enjoy your stay. You will not be forgotten, Poland!

Edit: Oops, he was already tombstoned. I always miss out on the fun!

[Puglover]

28. What you are doing is making a very good argument for gay marriage.

Do you support that?

[saigon68]

18. the pope will never go for this.

[Puglover]

21. Fuck the Pope.

:)

[Bridget Burke]

23. Sorry, he's not my type.

He could be yours. (Not that anything is wrong with that.)

[saigon68]

25. Not what I meant

The pope would never love the immorality of the whole thing

[Puglover]

26. I like em a teensy weensy bit younger Bridget.

:evilgrin: