Labor Dept: Same-Sex Spouses Must Receive Benefits Regardless of State Laws

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | September 19, 2013 | Wynton Hall

[tanknetter]

At this point, if they’re going to go down this road of recognizing same sex marriages and long-term cohabitation (as you suggest) they should at least apply some of the more onorous consequences of marriage to them as well. Like the marriage penalty.

I actually wonder if non imposition of the marriage penalty, etc, for same sex marriages recognized as legit by the DoL would be grounds for a challenge under the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment ...

[carolinadad]

It is even more twisted than this reads. I got the notice for my company yesterday. It actually spells out that I have to accommodate gay married couples, regardless of whether my state recognizes the marriage, and specifically tells me not to recognize other forms of relationship such as a civil union or long term co-habitation, which may be recognized by the state. So it is a direct encouragement for a gay couples to become married, even if they aren’t on the militant edge that is pushing for that. It is purely a drive to get the marriage numbers up so the “institution” of gay marriage is mainstreamed. The lengths to which these fascists will go to push their agenda is unbounded.

[ConstantSkeptic]

I have a feeling companies are going to drop their 401k plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Highly unlikely. If it were only underlings who utilized 401k’s, you might have a point. But managers, directors, and upper management have been contributing for years to their companies’ 401k’s. They’re not going to want to dismantle the plans.

[ConstantSkeptic]

I don’t understand how a 401k can be affected by marriage. Straight or otherwise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe it comes into play with the beneficiary rules.

[tanknetter]

there’s a good deal of spitefulness involved too. This is the Obama Admins way of throwing the middle finger for Perez’ confirmation filibuster.

[ConstantSkeptic]

I hadn’t thought about this consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision when it found a portion of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

Basically, the Supreme Court decision told the feds that the states had the right to marry whomever they wanted and the feds could not ignore the rights of the states. Therefore, if California said you were legally married, then you were legally married for federal purposes too.

So... the feds can’t “unmarry” a legally married couple when it comes to imposition of federal law.

ERISA is federal law. It sets certain requirements for qualified plans such as 401k’s. Spouses have certain rights according to ERISA. Since it is federal law, the feds have to recognize legally married spouses which includes same sex couples. What this announcement from the Department of Labor is saying is that when a legally married couple moves to a state which does not recognize their marriage, they are still married in the eyes of the original state and, therefore, in the eyes of the feds. Moving to a different state does not “unmarry” them. The states which don’t allow same sex marriages can still ignore those couples for state purposes, but they don’t have a say over how the feds treat them. At least that’s my reading of what took place.