Posted on 07/12/2013 1:16:40 PM PDT by jazusamo
The Social Security Administration announced Friday that it would begin accepting benefit claims related to same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court in June found the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. It ruled that the federal government cannot treat same-sex marriages approved by some states any differently than heterosexual marriages.
The ruling affects more than 1,000 federal regulations affecting everything from tax breaks to entitlement benefits.
Prior to the ruling, an individual in a same-sex marriage was unable to claim survivor benefits from Social Security when a spouse died and a couple was unable to claim a 50-percent Social Security marriage bonus to their retirement benefits. .
“The President has directed the Attorney General to work with other members of his Cabinet to review the recent Supreme Court decision and determine its impact on Federal benefit programs – including benefits administered by Social Security – to ensure that we implement the decision swiftly and smoothly,” Social Security Administration spokesman Mark Hinkle said.
He said the agency was working with the Justice Department to revise its regulations.
“We are taking claims now from individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits. We will process these claims as soon as we have finalized our instructions,” Hinkle said.
The DOMA ruling could end up reducing the federal budget deficit even though there will likely be an increase in Social Security spending. Most high-income married couples face a tax penalty when filing tax returns jointly.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last looked at the issue in 2004 and has not done so since. CBO said at the time that allowing gay marriage could reduce the deficit by up to $10 billion over the following ten years.
CBO’s report predicted that most same-sex marriage would feature couples where both individuals qualify for Social Security benefits independently. Such couples would not receive the 50-percent spousal bonus and therefore would not trigger increased spending in that category.
Just wait until these crazies start acknowledging marriage to donkeys and sheep, and then we can pay survivors’ benefits to donkeys and sheep....just great!!!
I am aware that gov’t, at all levels, does not follow the Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution might be flawed, but at best, it only lays out a few things the Fed. gov’t is allowed to do; the individual Citizen being whom holds Rights.
I’m so tired of the (L) = anarchy routine. Put it on the shelf w/ Roberts and the NSA black-mail, its tired and wore out. Never was it used nor brought up.
I’m all for not messing w/ the institution of marriage. Gov’t should have NO say/part; it’s a religious matter. Nor does gov’t have any say/part in the contract between other Citizens (civil unions).
I care not that gov’t has been in the process since the founding. They also owned slaves, had State sanctioned churches, etc. Most, if not all, original laws were quite racial in their start (to keep the races apart)
Socialist w/out taxes? Ah, to re-enable one the consequences of ones own actions; why, that’s positively ‘socialist’; why if gov’t were not there to tell them what/where to do.... /s
what utter rubbish , again where in the constitution does it state that homosexuals can marry and what rights did they now have?.
If the funding fathers thought that men were going to marry men based on their feces fecal sex then they would have put a stop to it and give it a rest with your communist slogans or words of “well we had slavery “ when talking about homosexuals
They can marry the opposite sex just as I can, I can’t marry the same sex in my state FL and where you have moved to .
Govt has been involved since the founding of this country and who decides who gets the kids, who can get married when they have different religions, how about no religion, judges have been marrying since the pilgrims so your left wing line of “ Govt should not be involved” is a cop out
what you want is anarchy to suit your life, to suit your pals and then never pay any taxes.
How do you like living here now you moved south? Does the laws here go with your views or are you looking like so many who move here to change our laws?
you said
============================================================My understanding of the Constitution might be flawed, but at best, it only lays out a few things the Fed. gov’t is allowed to do; the individual Citizen being whom holds Rights.
yes to marry homosexuals is not one of them is it?
You problem is that now homosexuals are recognized off the Govt then they are now in the military, sharing showers, rooms, sleeping bags with normal men, I’m sure if you have served you’d understand that right and if we had no laws then we’d be getting what you want.
anarchy.
rule 26, communist rules of 1963 look it up because you are preaching communist crap and certainly no conservative, hell you are more liberal than most liberals I know from around the country as they don’t even want this sham
Why? The Constitution does not grant Rights; but A1S10C1 does state a non-imparting of contracts.
I concur some religions state marriage as ‘man and wife’. There IS a 1st A. Right to practice ones’ religion; some of those being NON-Christian. It is your Reynolds vs. U.S. that shows gov’t, again, NOT following the Constitution; their whole argument against bigamy (IE: human sacrifice) being a straw-man (the sacrifice being denied Life, Liberty...).
Marriage tourism? Sorry, I’m not following what *I* have allowed in your last statement. As for any Fed. gov’t control, unless it’s in A1S8, there is NO authority granted.
Being on this board, I thought you’d at least understand the Constitution does not grant Rights. Are you one whom is ‘owed’ SS/Medicare as well? Either the Constitution means what it says, or it is worthless.
It appears, too, you missed the point I’m not discussing MARRIAGE, but civil unions/contracts. If one group of people shall have any preference/benefits, ALL persons should be afforded the same.
I never brought up, nor do I support anarchy. I enjoy the Laws and way of life here in Fl; otherwise, I would not still be here. I do think, though, it still has a WAYS to go before being an independent State from the grasp of the Federal leviathan.
“Marriage tourism? Sorry, I’m not following what *I* have allowed in your last statement”
Where people come all over the world to get American citizenship + their gay marriage.
See, what you don’t get is your policies have very real-world negative consequences.
Though marriage is not a Right per se, it is also not something the gov’t is free to interject upon.
Aside from the 15th Amendment (voting being one of those non-Rights), could you not concur that the Voting Rights Act is NOT Constitutional?
The parallels are the same. Unfortunately, as to marriage, the gov’t has granted some benefits/privileges to one group and not to all.
Now, as your problems w/ men (of all colors, orientation, creed) in the military: if ANYONE harasses another, based on more or more of the above, they should be tossed in the clink or kicked out. But to think while in a foxhole, the guy next to another is gay is going to be a ‘problem’ I think you’re in need of a rectal-cranium inversion procedure.
I already know most of the planks of Communism are alive and well here in the U.S. It was many a year of Dem control, and their GOP cohorts, that allowed our Republic to become the Banana Republic it currently seems to be. It is, by far, not my reading of the Constitution that has allowed it to become so; the word are easily read and the powers given limited and few.
If people wish to immigrate to the U.S., legally, I’m all for it....bring the best and brightest that we can find.
That people would wait in line for YEARS to enjoy the Liberty and Freedom of our Republic is astounding.
But to think they’d wait that long just to ‘civil union’ (again, marriage is wholly a religious matter, even more removed from the gov’t prying eye)? So what? IF we were following the Constitution, there would be no ‘bennies/privledges’ to worry about bestowing that current straight married couples are ‘allowed’.
Instead of noting the basics of this issue are the extra-Constitutional Laws/programs/etc. that our Fed/States now practice, you and rest are worried about what’s growing out in left field (IE: eyes not on the plate). Aside from other matter related to unions/marriage (namely children), civil unions would constitute NO harm upon you or your Rights in any way, matter nor form.
I’m saying, what you get are folks from all over the world who come to get your gay marriage and then leave. Gay marriage is actually, and has been shown in Canada to appeal more to folks from abroad than actual canadian citizens.
Betcha you didn’t know that. The same thing will happen to the US and has already started (thanks 0!)
WTF are you on abut so now the constitution does not give us any rights.
\The reason why the founding fathers gave us the constitution was to give us rights, you know like 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, freeing slaves etc.
It was to give us rights away from Govt and again you have ignored twice now the reason why homosexuals push their agenda,
again rule 26 communist rules from 1963, and again I asked you before where does it state in the constitution to have a right for homosexuals to marry.?
As for staying in JAX and this state, then are you for the constitutional amendment we passed for marriage in this state or do you think homosexuals should marry?
simply yes or no would suffice.
have you ever served?
your view that men would be punished is pure B/S and either you are naïve about what the homosexual agenda is about or you are clearly supporting it by ignoring what is going on around you.
Also again I say this to you, do you think really, honestly think that the founding fathers would have wanted to see two men marrying or two women marrying, getting kids, telling other kids in the schools and on TV that their homosexual ways are good and then pretend to be married?
You clearly think homosexuals should marry and then that means all people should marry, polygamy OK with you, what about incest, hey why stop there, why not have no sex age law when it comes to consenting adults or do you stop there and why if so?
\Also we have rights, from the constitution, freedom of religion, it is the job of the homosexuals to destroy that and if you have forgot about that or you are naïve about that or just don’t care.
Freedom of religion , freedom of speech clearly lets millions to say to homosexuals no we do not approve but because some dopes support the homosexuals agenda then we are here now seeing constitutional rights being taken away
I am not sure we want an honest answer to that last one. yuck
gay marriage is gov interjection
exactly, it must be bliss to think the homosexuals agenda is alright and the usual bumper sticker is “well Govt should not be in this”
The bigger picture is not marriage, that is a step towards destroying the first amendment and to ignore that only has helped to destroy this country even more but then again we know this, the communists back in the day knew this, Putin knows this as he used it as a weapon and the homosexuals know damn well too.
Sadly liberaltarains seem stuck on stupid when it comes to this and can’t understand they are more to the left than most Dems
EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY.
This is not all about marriage, this is about an agenda to destroy the country, the family, the first amendment and those claiming about who cares about them or no Govt is truly ignorant and has been living in their own selfish world.
Liberaltarians will never understand that they are more left than most liberals and just want anarchy because they want their own little selfish world where they can’t pay taxes and want to do anything they want and have sex with what ever
As I age, it becomes more and more appealing to me to live with another woman, claim her as my ‘bride’, but still have my Good Thing going ‘on the side’ with my man.
I mean, seriously! We are living in Upside Down World! The fraud and abuse this will bring, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, is just mind-boggling!
So, I’m gonna git me some of my tax dollars back one way or another! *SNORT*
I hear you on the upside down world. Even with the continuing progression by many with the lack of moral character it's still unbelievable to me.
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.