Log in

View Full Version : US congressman's husband denied pension



TC
18th October 2006, 18:43
Gay congressman's spouse denied benefits
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_...studds_benefits (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_go_co/studds_benefits)
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 17, 9:49 PM ET

BOSTON - Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government will not pay death benefits to his spouse.

Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' 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' case was the first of its kind known to the agency.

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

Studds, 69, had his homosexuality exposed during a teenage page sex scandal in 1983. He died Saturday, several days after collapsing while walking his dog. Doctors said he had developed two blood clots.

Graves said Studds could have purchased an insurable interest annuity, similar to an insurance policy, which is allowed under both the civil service and federal employee retirement system and is not affected by the Defense of Marriage Act. Graves said he did not know if Studds used that option.

Pete Sepp, spokesman for the nonprofit watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, estimated Studds' annual pension at $114,337.

That would have made Hara eligible for a lifetime annual pension of about $62,000, which would grow with inflation, if the marriage were recognized by the federal government, Sepp said.

Hara, 48, declined to comment on the matter.

Gary Buseck, legal director for an advocacy group called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said Studds' case may offer "a moment of education for Congress."

"Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said.

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage after gay and lesbian couples successfully sued for the right to marry.

Studds was elected to Congress in 1972. In 1983, a 27-year-old man disclosed that he and Studds had a sexual relationship a decade earlier when he was a teenage congressional page. The House censured Studds, who revealed on the House floor that he was gay.

Voters continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1997 to become a lobbyist for the fishing industry and environmental causes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another example of why recognition for gay marriage is a meaningful and relevant. The anti-gay-marriage crowed on the self-identified Left would seem to ignore the practical, material consequences of states refusing to recognize gay marriage in the current system in their effort to reject marriage on principle.

Black Dagger
18th October 2006, 18:51
Originally posted by TC
The anti-gay-marriage crowed on the self-identified Left would seem to ignore the practical, material consequences of states refusing to recognize gay marriage in the current system in their effort to reject marriage on principle.


Yeah, you're right TC.

I and all the queers i know are so cut up about not getting a slice of our partners six figure, tax-funded pension :rolleyes:

But yeah, those stupid lesbian/gay/bi activists/commies/lefties are too caught up with wanting legal equality for ALL queer relationships, i mean, why don't they drop that crap about relationship recognition for All, stop criticising bourgeois queers (seriously, i can't believe some people actually bring class into this! Horrors!) and start supporting the institution of marriage? After all, marriage is good for society, the economy (marriage is a huge money-maker for lots of companies hoorah!) and good for families - that is the materialist, communist position.

Dr. Rosenpenis
18th October 2006, 18:58
TC, I frankly don't understand why you believe that gays in the US should have legal marriage rights, but they shouldn't have the right to join the military.

chimx
18th October 2006, 19:09
black dagger: why do you define marriage as a political/legal institution instead of a social institution?

Black Dagger
18th October 2006, 19:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:09 AM
black dagger: why do you define marriage as a political/legal institution instead of a social institution?
It's both, but most of the material benefits of marriage are derived from its status as a political/legal institution.

Although, i'm not sure if i entirely understand what you mean?/your question? Did my answer suffice?

chimx
18th October 2006, 20:23
so then you think pension plans are legal/political institutions, and not social institutions?

apathy maybe
23rd October 2006, 02:49
Well I think they are. Pensions come from the government yes? They are based around law and money. They are a legal institution.

Black Dagger
23rd October 2006, 05:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 05:23 am
so then you think pension plans are legal/political institutions, and not social institutions?
Like i said before my posts in this thread were wiped...

Marriage is and to a lesser extent, pension plans are, social institutions, as well as being legal/political institutions. But the point is, the primary material benefits, and in many cases the social benefits derived from these institutions are the result of their nature as a legal institution.

The status of marriage as a legal/political institution is its foundation, without this basis it would not have the same level of social prestige or value, as it currently holds. Indeed this prestige has eroded over time, but the material benefits of marriage are what maintain its prominence, and these benefits are derived largely from its nature as a legal/political institution.

What i'm saying is that instead of only pushing for the recognition of another form of 'marriage', we should push for legal equality for all relationship types, something that will benefit all queers (and non-queers as well) and not just those who fit in, or wish to fit in to our current social norms, i.e. married monogamous couples with children.

Both the queer and non-queer 'communities' have a wealth of relationship and family structures that move beyond the idea of orthodox monogamous couple or monogamous couple with children - the focus on 'marriage rights' denies this diversity.

Why should married couples receive special privileges not afforded to people in other relationship types?

That only serves to maintain the privilege of marriage as an institution, the privileging of monogamous couples and the privileging of nuclear familes.

We should be trying to undermine the 'special' (i.e. legally/socially/materially privileged) nature of marriage, not stengthening it by extending this privilege to the section of the queer population who desire it.

Focusing on 'marrige rights' is not a meaningful way to achieve equality for all queers and non-queers, or to achieve (legal or otherwise) equality of social relationships. It is 'equality' only for couples who wish to marry.

It serves to reinforce, to maintain the hegemony of a specific type of relationship (and following from this, nuclear family structure), whilst simultanesouly denying legal equality for 'non-traditional' relationship or family strucutures, be they queer or hetero.

In so doing it renders the people engaged these relationships and structures materially and socially inferior. As they are denied the material benefits and the social/cultural recognition that is derived from legal equality.