The Federal Office of Personnel Management has no choice but to deny "spousal" benefits to the late Representative Gerry E. Studds' male lover, thanks to President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act.
The federal government has refused to pay death benefits to the spouse of former congressman Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.), the first openly gay member of Congress.Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds's estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds's 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's case is the first of its kind known to the agency.
Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and to people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.
That last bit, if actually spoken by Peter Graves, is totally ridiculous. Pensions are not "only" denied to "same-sex partners", but also to anyone who is not a spouse. Using the words "spouse" and "marriage" does not make it so.
Gary Buseck, legal director for the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said Studds's 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.
Yes, Studds' homosexual lover is being treated differently than Congressional spouses. This should not be news. Also not news: the teenage pages Studds' screwed in 1983 will not be receiving pensions either.
I suppose I should point out, though it should be obvious to my frequent readers, that I am not "homophobic" nor do I dislike gays etc. I tolerate them, but that tolerance does not mean that I have to affirm or "celebrate" their lifestyle, and it does not mean that I have to support their assertion that their relationships should be treated the same as those of normal people.
You must be afraid of them for no reason. That would be homophobic, right? I'm afraid they are trying to take 114 large out of tax funds ment for women whose men have croaked, men whose women are gone, or kids. If there is a reason, then there ain't no phobia.
Well, MW, I don't need your approval or support but, having said that, let me offer this:
The best reason for the governmental recognition of same-sex monogamous relationships is the benefits it has to society as a whole. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals aren't going to cease being homosexuals and having homosexual sex simply because it disturbs the Puritanical sensibilities of some (or even most). Recognizing that isn't an endorsement of anything, but an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. Moving forward, what gets put into law (particularly at the federal level, but also the state level) must reflect the greater good.. not just of those who share your beliefs on the matter, MW, but of everyone. Is everyone's greater good better served by the decadence of homosexual life or is it better served by homosexuals in committed and monogamous relationships? Obviously, it's the latter. So how does society as a whole, through their government, seek this greater good? Well, in the heterosexual world, benefits (and responsibilities) are given to married couples. These benefits are there to make marriage compelling because its benefit to society is significant. Such an arrangement (or one similar to it) should exist for homosexuals as well. To be sure, prosperity (both personally and that of the rest of society) doesn't exist only through marriage, but if its presence in our laws is warranted for heterosexuals, it is also at least as warranted for homosexuals.
Government recognition of same-sex couple will have no barring if homosexuals will live a life of decadence or committed and monogamous relationships. That s a personal choice and government has no role in changing that and would be hammered for any attempt to regulate it. Saying government recognition would change behavior is like saying government recognition of the evil of child molestation has stopped it, well it hasn't.
tP: Then why does marriage for heterosexuals have a place in our laws at all? Surely it's as much a personal choice for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.
It certianly isn't to prevent depraved heterosexual behavior, if a man and a woman want to dress up in leather boy scout uniforms and hit each other with ball-pen hammers while the blow the cat, any laws to support marrage won't affect that and no laws are broken and think of how much the cat enjoys it.
In either case marrage benifts and responsibilites bare no effect on the personal choices of homo and heterosexuals. Claiming that ones behavior is because of it is nothing but shifting away from personal responsibility.
Beyond that looking at what single parenthood (enabled by LBJ's War on Poverty and continued since) has done to children (especially in the inner city) society as a whole would benifit from the government encouraging that chldren be raised in a home with a mother and father, because of the direct cost incurred by society for uneducated and in some cases criminal children who become uneducated criminal adults.
Think NAMBLA.
tP: It was always my understanding that marriage is recognized by the government because it fosters the "proper" environment for the raising of children. Marriage isn't so much about "preventing" any sort of behavior in the heterosexual world, but about promoting the creation of the "proper" environment for raising a family. So any sort of benefit/responsibility construct for homosexuals wouldn't be about preventing any sort of behavior but about promoting a particular one; one that reduces the burden on society from drug abuse and STDs.
DD: Ah, yes.. NAMBLA: the favorite group touted by right-wingers such as yourself as a part of the make-a-mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill aspect of your strategy.
Mark: You wrote: "Moving forward, what gets put into law (particularly at the federal level, but also the state level) must reflect the greater good.. not just of those who share your beliefs on the matter, MW, but of everyone."
So... you'd favor recriminalizing adultery because it would be good for society? This is bogus.
The government recognizes marriage because it has no choice -- marriage predates our government or any other. Homosexual couplings have never throughout civilization been considered to be marriages, and if the government were to create such an institution it would be completely ridiculous.
Mark: No, it's the favorite group of homosexual-men-fighting-straight-oppressors-that-Left Wingers-like-the-ACLU defend in court. You can't be discriminating against NAMBA just because they want Boy Scouts for more than their cookies. Gay rights!
MW: Who's talking about "criminalizing" anything? Nice strawman.
The government has no choice? *That's* ridiculous. Did the government "have no choice" but to continue the practice of slavery in perpetuity?
DD: Since when do I have to support NAMBLA? They're a fringe "group" (assuming there's any organization to it at all.. or enough members to constitute an organization of any significance) and that's all there is to it.
Just for the record, I'm ultimately on the side of the opponents to same-sex marriage.
Though, I think that this is a stupid non-issue that neither a federal judge nor party in Congress should put on their agenda in the first place while there are bigger fish to fry. Like abortion, this issue should be left to the individual states whether it's legalized by the voters themselves or their elected legislators.
Unfortunately for the Pirate, he's still stuck in a state that'll probably legalize it first.
Actually my state voted the other way by a sizeable margin...hows that for shocking? Now in terms of the legislature, you're probably right and in the process they'd outlaw heterosexual marrages, legalize illegals and criminalize US Citizenship, private employers and private property.
Really? That's interesting.
"legalize illegals and criminalize US Citizenship"
I could see that happening in a couple decades when enough illegals move into California to turn the place into a Mexican satellite state.
reagan I have to amend your comment....
I could see that happening in a couple decades weeks when enough illegals move into California to turn the place into a Mexican satellite state.
MW wrote:
That last bit, if actually spoken by Peter Graves, is totally ridiculous. Pensions are not "only" denied to "same-sex partners", but also to anyone who is not a spouse.
You'll note that the article you quoted says:
Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.
As such, Studds and Hara were spouses.