Gay married couples not eligible for veterans benefits

[Newsjock]

Source: Washington Blade

Gay married couples won’t be able to receive federal veterans benefits afforded to straight couples despite the court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, according to a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that was obtained Tuesday by the Washington Blade.

In a letter dated Aug. 14, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki says the Obama administration has determined that gay veterans won’t be able to receive the federal benefits of marriage because of Title 38, a portion of the U.S. code governing veterans benefits that defines spouse in opposite-sex terms independent of DOMA.

“Certain provisions in title 38, United States Code, define ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ to refer only to a person of the opposite-sex,” the letter states. “Under these provisions, a same-sex marriage recognized by a State would not confer spousal status for purposes of eligibility of VA benefits. Although the title 38 definition of ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ are similar to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision at issue in United States v. Windsor, no court has yet held the title 38 definitions to be unconstitutional.”

Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery.

Read more: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/08/27/breaking-gay-married-couples-wont-eligible-veterans-benefits/

[iandhr]

1. Someone has to file suit against this.

And hopefully the Justice department will refuse to defend this section of the law again.


The Windsor case did not strike down the whole law.

[X_Digger]

7. Correct.. one case at a time, challenging one section of law at a time.

It's not a 'one-shot wonder' to get all the discriminatory laws off the books, unfortunately.

[iandhr]

12. Progress has always been slow

The Winsor case was a big win but there is still more work to do.

[X_Digger]

13. That's typical of civil rights issues, yep.

Some folks tend to forget that even after other cases (Loving, Roe, Brown), progress involved piling on case after case building on the precedent.

[EC]

2. Then the wording needs to be changed.

I'm feeling like this is just being obtuse. I'm sure they can figure something out without going to court.

[Jim Lane]

5. A bill to change the wording would die in the House -- but then we paint the GOP as anti-vet.

Then someone takes it to court and wins, so we get the result we want anyway, with some political gain along the way.

What's that you say? My strategy fails if the House Republicans act like sensible adults? Well, I'm willing to take that chance.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Dear Centrist and Right Straight folks....stop being obtuse aholes and just get over it.

Equal is equal and as long as this sort of bullshit hairsplitting to find a way to discriminate crap ends there is no fucking standing for back patting or congratulating mealy mouthed political figures.
As long as you folks are discriminating against anyone, you discriminate against us all and you will not be allowed to forget it no matter how much you whine and cry and say sanctity and call us all your cheap little names.

[nomorenomore08]

8. +1

Hard not to see people as the enemy when they hem and haw and equivocate over one's basic human rights...

[valerief]

4. Yes, but "opposite sex" could be opposite from the "traditional" spousal sex, not

opposite from the spouse's sex. But that would mean straight couples would lose out.

[YOHABLO]

6. When you take the oath .. you are entitled to all the benefits that straight people receive.

This is bull and we all know it and I hope someone smart enough will challenge this .. perhaps if we got rid of most of the GOP in the house and establish a majority of Dems we could get something done in this country. A spouse is a spouse is a spouse.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. That's BULLSHIT!

One more fucking hoop for us to jump though!

[warrant46]

11. It certainly is

In light of the last Supreme Court case especially. Regressive and evil.

It is also very short sighted and panders to the same old prejudices that continue to whip up that narrow minded base of the GOP.

[blkmusclmachine]

10. No change.