More and More Gay Couples are Eligible For Social Security Benefits

 

Th/e baby boomers were and still are the largest amount of babies born in this generation. The boom started after WWll and continued until the end of 1959-62 or so. What was happening? Well people started having sex and having baby. You had a long period of time on Wall in which the sexes were separated and then right after that you had the Korean War when the North invaded the south which was backed by the US.

Viet-nam was a bowling pot also taking a lot of men. There are many reason for the amount of babies born but you can compare what was happening in the world. For the men to go to war without knowing if they be back they would marry and tried to have the girl pregnant. Those in most cases were fast wedding. The soldiers did not want to leave the girls without benefits so marrying they could collect their Social security benefits. 

That still in place.But now you have gay couples and the same thing apply wether there is war or not. If one of the couple dies the other one chooses which benefits they would like either theirs or their husbands if theirs is lower. Since there were a lot marriages when it was made legal now at the age of retirement for the boomers.  Adam Gonzalez

BRIAN NAYLOR

   npr.org

More same-sex couples will now be able to receive Social Security survivors benefits. 

Previously, the surviving spouse or partner was eligible only if the couple had been married for nine months, although earlier bans on same-sex marriage made that time frame impossible to meet.

Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group, filed a pair of class action lawsuits on behalf of two couples in 2018 seeking to overturn the requirement. Lower courts had ruled in favor of the couples, but those decisions were appealed by the Trump administration. The Biden administration had taken no action on the cases. 

But Lambda Legal says the Justice Department and the Social Security Administration on Monday dropped their appeals.

"The relief of today's action by the federal government is almost palpable," said Lambda Legal senior counsel Karen Loewy in a statement. "For decades, same-sex couples paid into social security, just like different-sex couples. The difference was, only one group always had the freedom to marry, leading to gross inequalities that continued to linger. Today, that differential and discriminatory treatment conclusively ends, and surviving same-sex partners and spouses can securely access the benefits that they are owed and that can be essential to their continued health and safety.” 

Lambda filed suit on behalf of Helen Thornton, who the group says sought survivors benefits after her partner of 27 years, Marge Brown, died in 2006, before same-sex couples in the state of Washington were legally able to marry.

The other suit was filed on behalf of Michael Ely, who married his partner of 43 years, James "Spider" Taylor after Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was overturned in 2014. Taylor died six months later.

In the Lambda statement, Thorton said, "Marriage equality came too late for many of us, but it was not too late to fix this problem involving survivor's benefits. I hope everyone who has been harmed by this problem, but never dared to apply for benefits, understands that this development is a game-changer. The pathway is now finally open to everyone."

Ely said, "I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my chest. One of Spider's final hopes was that I would be able to access these benefits. I can finally breathe a sigh of relief that these benefits are now finally secure, not only for me but for everyone else who found themselves in the same boat."

The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request for comment. 

The Justice Department would not comment but pointed to a letter then-acting Solicitor General Brian Fletcher sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last month, stating that DOJ would not appeal the lower courts decisions.

However, it added, "The Department continues to believe that the nine-month duration-of-marriage requirement for widow's and widower's insurance benefits is constitutional, and the Department will defend the constitutionality of that requirement in the future. Nonetheless, the Department has concluded that continued litigation of that question is not warranted in the particular circumstances presented by these cases and has instead agreed to a settlement."