Obama admin will give homosexuals spousal benefits - even when their ‘marriages’ weren’t legal
 |
| Pro and anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the California Supreme Court holds a session in the to determine the definition of marriage (Strauss v. Horton cases). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The Obama administration has announced last week that it will
award federal benefits to several homosexuals who were “married” - although the
states in which they lived did not recognize the marriages at the time.
Lambda Legal, which was arguing in federal court for Social
Security spousal benefits for two homosexuals who had “married” illegally
before the court ruling in June and since had both been widowed, announced last
Thursday.
Lambda Legal`s Susan Sommer said the change “could right a wrong
for hundreds of same-sex spouses” married in the 11 states where same-sex
marriage was illegal before June.
“You couldn’t call this a capitulation,” said Peter LaBarbera,
head of the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. “This is
the Obama administration bending over backwards to give the LGBT lobby whatever
it asks for.”
The decision by the Justice Department gives
homosexuals all the federal benefits heterosexual married couples enjoy under Social Security, although the “marriage”
was illegal in the states in question.
LaBarbera said that there was technically a possibility that the
Republicans could, if they won the next election, still reverse Obama’s
pro-homosexual decision in this case and others – “but I don’t hear Republican
leaders saying they will do this.”
“I am afraid the homosexual lobby is making all the gains in can
now because it is confident the Republicans won’t undo them,” he said.
Some Republicans
are even saying it is time to “move on” and give up on the same-sex “marriage” issue.
“But this is
what they said after Roe v. Wade,” said LaBarbera, referring to the landmark
1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. “They said the abortion
fight was lost and we should move on.”
Instead, the pro-life movement found ways to whittle away at the
decision and to restrict abortion in spite of it. “State governments have got
to stand up to the Supreme Court,” he argued.
The outcome for same-sex partners covered by private extended
health plans is unclear. According to Todd Solomon, a benefits expert with
McDermott Will & Emery, “Based on the court’s ruling today, there is simply
one type of spouse.”
But Solomon told the At Work blogsite this applied only to
employees enrolled in “arm’s-length” plans. For bigger companies who “self
insured|” -–covered their employees’ and partners’ claims out of general
revenue—the Surpreme Court ruling’s impact was unclear.
He predicted years of litigation would have to occur to resolve
the matter.
“Traditional, heterosexual marriage is what sustains culture and
nations,” LaBarbera said. “Government policy should support traditional
marriage, not radical experiments.”
