Some Federal Agencies Still Don't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages
By Josh Eidelson
August 28, 2014 - Businessweek
After the U.S. Supreme Court repealed key parts of the Defense of Marriage
Act last year, most federal agencies adopted gplace of celebrationh policies
under which any marriage that was legally recognized in the state where it took
place would also be recognized by federal authorities. The Internal Revenue
Service allows gay couples to file joint tax returns, the Department of Defense
extends spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons
grants equal visitation rights.
Yet there are a few federal agencies that still wonft recognize some same-sex
marriages. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security
Administration, and the Railroad Retirement Board. Each is bound by statutory
language dating back decades requiring them to defer to state laws in
determining who counts as married. In June, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote
in a memo that congressional action is required to address the gap, but
Democratic proposals to do so have stalled.
Now a group representing same-sex couples is suing the VA for its decision to
continue denying spousal benefits to gay veterans unless the state where they
lived when they wed or applied for benefits recognizes their marriages. The
federal government should not be ggiving the force of a federal prohibition [to]
these state laws that are unconstitutional,h says Susan Sommer, who directs
constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal and brought the lawsuit on
Aug. 18 on behalf of the American Military Partner Association. Those
benefits include pensions, government-backed loans, and disability pay.
A 1958 statute determines who counts as a veteranfs spouse according to
gwhere the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place
where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued.h In a June memo,
the VAfs general counsel, Will Gunn, noted that this has been the standard for
veteransf benefits since 1882, when similar wording was written into a Civil War
widowsf pension statute.
The Obama administration has already taken steps to address another
problematic provision. A 1975 amendment to the 1958 law replaced gender-specific
language such as gwidowh and gwomanh with gsurviving spouseh and gperson of the
opposite sex.h In 2013, after the Supreme Court ruling, a district court judge
in California enjoined the federal government, including the VA, from using that
gopposite-sexh definition to deny benefits to same-sex couples in the state.
Holder subsequently announced he would cease enforcement nationally.
Sommer also cites the Social Security Administrationfs decision to stop
automatically denying benefits to the children of unwed parents on the basis of
state laws as precedent for the VA to disregard discriminatory language. gCourts
started saying, eYou donft have to do that,f h Sommer says. gYou should examine
whether you think this statute, this underlying state statute, is constitutional
or not.h
The VA isnft commenting on the suit. gGenerally speaking, you wouldnft expect
administrative agencies to get out in front of the courts in terms of saying,
eThis state law is unconstitutional, wefre going to disregard it,f h says Kermit
Roosevelt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania.
Some believe the White House would likely welcome a court ruling allowing the
federal government to disregard state bans on same-sex marriage. gI suspect that
the Obama administration would not be in any way disappointed if they lose this
lawsuit,h says attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued against DOMA before the
Supreme Court.
Sommer says shefs looking at bringing a similar case against the Social
Security Administration. gI think the tides have turned,h she says. gWefre not
going back to where we once were.h
The bottom line: The federal government recognizes
same-sex marriage, but the VA and other agencies still defer to state
laws.
Eidelson is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek in Washington.