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.
Prob. up there w/ the trips across for the medical care too; nickel knowledge, but something learned is always good.
And that would infringe upon my/your Rights in what way? I’m not even talking about ‘marriage’ per se (which is still a religious matter, always has and will mean one man, one women, in Christian (other) circles).
I say great, bring in the tourism $$, enjoy our great Country, its food, its locals, its peoples....its Freedom. How does a civil union, or marriage (between man/woman) effect their home Countries’ Laws?
I believe you best re-read those documents more carefully.
A/Our CREATOR, regardless if you believe in one, granted We the People inalienable Rights. Gov’t grants privileges/license (IE: might want to see what’s a top the form you filled in if/when you requested the hand of your spouse. Then go look up the definition of LICENSE before asking me where there is a Right to ‘marriage’). The Constitution merely laid out what the gov’t CAN do (A1S8 mostly) and those areas it was specifically forbidden (1st, 2nd, 3rd Amendments). Rights belong to Free individuals.
- I am NOT for ‘gay marriage’. Marriage is a religious institution; outside of gov’t purview.
- I am for removing gov’t FROM marriage *see above*
- I am for removing gov’t from social engineering (tax code, SS, Medicare, etc.)
- Gays/etc. should be able to contract (civil union); gov’t has the obligation to enforce said contracts. Said contract infringed NONE of your/my Rights.
As to your last question, and as I owe nothing to you I will answer as I damn well please, I DID voted for the Fl. Amendment. All one would need to do is READ my posts to note my standing already.
Again, the GOP is on page 100 of the instruction manual, skipping 1-99. Shrink gov’t back to its Constitutional basis; this ‘problem’ then disappears (and I mean the topic of the thread....taxpayer $$)
No, I have never served. I thought about but could not get past the idea of subverting my own identity to (maybe, blindly) following orders. But, in my job, I work with many (prob. 90% here) retired from all the branches.
‘Men would be punished’?? I may have missed where I said anything of the sort; if you can point it out again...As to there being an agenda; sure, I recognize there is one in some areas of their community. As much as the blacks have theirs, we here have our own, etc. Not saying that makes them all exclusive of one another either...just that we ALL have agendas, and not all in the same camp think the same.
I care not what the Founders ‘wanted’. What I DO care about is the verbiage/ideals in the Constitution; as it is a contract of governance SETTLED upon (even they could not come to 100% agreement amongst themselves) by some of the greatest minds of all time. Which person would you presume I point to for introspection? The Federalist? The slave owner? The adulterer? They all, as Men, have their problems...
As to your final, I believe you should READ my posting instead of spouting your conjecture upon my thought process. I am always up for a tussled debate, but I have posted my last ‘here’s my beliefs/why’ just prior to continue beating a dead horse.
Actually, many libertarians took the position the fedgov had no constitutional authority to sanction, subsidize or reward marriage. That would also mean all you big government welfare queens wouldn't get any special favors at the expense of single people, either.
I’m sorry but I had no clue who you are and had to go back to who you were and what the hell you’re on about.
I’ll just keep it short unless you ever want to meet up in JAX seeing as I;m down the road and I’ll discuss this with you anytime.
Govt has been in marriage since the founding fathers, so get used to it and stop with your liberal social crap
you never served, OK, so you have no frigging idea then how it works.
As for you not caring what the fathers wanted and you thinking we don’t get our rights based form the constitution, like oh 2nd amendment, yes it goes ot court and we have that, freedom of religion, speech, and for you keep harping about slavery , well it’s no different than debating or arguing with a full blown far left liberal as that is what they always say.
oh and as for Govt in marriage, well it make comes as shock but they have been involved for hundreds of years in this country, people who are not religious get married or do you say that they should not marry because they’re not religious and how about those with different religions?
Your bumper sticker slogans of no Govt sounds great but in the real world not real.
notice how liberals today say marriage is just religious but then ask them about how about non religious people , do they deny those getting married and yet think homosexuals should marry?
Their liberal communist agenda seeps through all the time but they try and hide it through their “we don’t want Govt but then ask them about should 12 years old girls marry, have sex with older men if they consent then I never get an answer but once and that disgusting piece of perverted crap said yes , thankfully he got banned for being a pervert and not understanding this is a conservative site not a communist site
I’ll wrap it all up into one last post:
- There’s no convincing you regardless of debate
- There is no bother to actually read what I had posted prior, nor counter-argue on the same.
Would be a chuckle to meet up somewhere/time local...some TEA Party/Fair-Tax rally, who knows....wish ya well regardless.
D.D., out....of this thread.
don;t know who you are, could not even remember talking to you and had to go way back to see what you were on about.\\\\\
vica versa on what you said and as for see you, great me a note as I go into JAX every week.
And how’s that workin’ out for you now that the Obama administration has decided that two legs are good, but four legs are bad?
Again - they are wrong. The federal government has the power to regulate spousal visas. Not the states. By granting spousal visas - which I warned Obama would do the instant DOMA got shut down, Obama could attack every state’s laws.
Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from the same ‘liberaltarians’ who were opposed to DOMA apparently aren’t opposed to gay spousal visas. Odd that. It’s almost like they support giving the shaft to social conservatives if it advances social liberalism.
Exactly. Hue and cry when conservativism stands up for itself. Complete and utter silence when liberalism marches on.
I'm not asking Uncle Sugar for any favors, so it's a non-event for me, but thanks for asking!
Again - they are wrong. The federal government has the power to regulate spousal visas. Not the states.
You can cite the specific part of Article 1, Section 8 that gives fedgov the power to sanction, regulate and grant favors upon the institution of marriage, right? I'm guessing that would be no, since it's not there
By granting spousal visas - which I warned Obama would do the instant DOMA got shut down, Obama could attack every state’s laws.
Again, where in Article 1 Section 8 does he have the power to sanction or regulate the institution of marriage? If he did, people would be filing for divorce in federal court. How many divorces get outside the county level?
let me ask you a couple of questions out of curiosity .
Do you support homosexual marriage, polygamy and other kind of marriage?
Are you saying no Govt in marriage and if so then are you aware judges the Govt used to marry the pilgrims and founding fathers and others going all the way today?
If Govt is out then should they also scrap laws for sex age, incest and animals?
I ask because every time I ask this I never get an answer so maybe you could answer that
And I know you Cafeteria Constitutionalists like to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you choose to believe in instead of all of it (kinda like the liberals. You guys should go bowling sometime. You have more in common than you think). But show me where in Article 1, Section 8 where the federal government is given the power to regulate marriage. Until you can find it, go have a drink, calm down, and argue this from the state level because you have nothing to stand on otherwise.
there is your problem , you can’t address what I asked.
Who decides in a divorce, the pastor has no law to make one take the kids, or the house, shall we have anarchy on marriage because in a liberal communist view anything goes get Govt out of it?
Do you support homosexual marriage, do you support getting rid of laws for sex age limits?
You can always pick and announce parts of what you like but I ma asking you for YOUR VIEWS of which you seem to unable to answer.
Should we get rid of drug laws too?
Could we have drug stores next to schools, shall we let a woman marry her dog?
What about two non religious people who cannot find a religious pastor, shall they not be married , would you deny them that so called right?
Right now you keep saying the same thing to the other poster and sounding like a broken record.
I don't know how many times I have to lay out my view on drugs, but what the hell. I want to see Walmart and Target competing to deliver the highest quality meth for the lowest price. And if the local government wants to put a drug store next to a school, good for them. Unless I have a kid going to that school, what right do I have to say boo about it?
Your problem seems to be that you can't live unless someone in that fever swamp on the Potomac is taking your money and telling you what to do. The rest of us prefer to be treated like grown ups.
so you want anarchy but you can’t grasp that and if it were up to you ten you would have no problem getting rid of incest, sex age laws and other sick twisted perverted crap
As for you guys, then sort it out and as for bug Govt ten I suggest you check out rule 26 under the communist rules because all you are doing it shouting for communism, not that you can understand that nor could you even admit that , much like anarchy
ping to 96, seems a liberal got confused what this site is about and is advocating, drugs, drug stores next to schools and homosexual, polygamy etc
So insisting the federal government live within article 1, section 8 is anarchy to you. Here is another word for you today that you are also unfamiliar with: Dictionary. Go look up anarchy before you embarrass yourself further. Your ignorance makes it’s own gravy.
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.