Federal Judge ... Ruling Changes ... Retirement Plans

[Suradit69]

Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies’ Retirement Plans

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Monday ordered that a private company’s retirement plan be interpreted to include coverage for the same-sex wife of a woman who had worked for the company as the “surviving spouse” under the plan.

Judge C. Darnell Jones II, a federal judge in Pennsylvania, reached his decision by applying the recent Supreme Court ruling opening the door for federal recognition of married same-sex couples to an existing federal law that provides tax benefits for private companies’ retirement plans that meet the federal standards, called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Jones noted that ERISA was aimed at “establish[ing] national uniformity among [employee retirement] benefit plans,” and then examined the impact of the Supreme Court’s June decision in United States v. Windsor striking down the federal ban on recognizing gay couples’ marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act on so-called “ERISA-qualified plans.”

“Prior to the Court’s decision in Windsor,” he wrote, “under the plain language of ERISA, the [tax] Code, and the Plan at issue in this case, qualified retirement plans were under no obligation to provide benefits to same-sex Spouses. Following the Court’s ruling, the term ‘Spouse’ is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in ‘otherwise valid marriages.’

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-says-doma-ruling-changes-private-companies-ret

[LeCharivari]

Regrettable that, like the Obama administration, he's ruled out such benefits for those in civil unions.

Regardless of the future of civil unions there appears to be no legal reason for this exclusion and every moral reason for their inclusion, and it looks like playing politics at the expense of human rights (or, more specifically, gay rights).

[Jingthing]

Civil unions are a historical relic in the USA. Everyone knows that.

[sustento]

Civil unions are a historical relic in the USA. Everyone knows that.

How many states have civil unions available at the moment?

[Jingthing]

It's irrelevant. The recent legal rulings were about MARRIAGE. Marriage equality is the GOAL. American gays have moved on. It's the messy time of transition now but going back to fighting over something LESSER is totally absurd and actually would be damaging to the actual goals.

For the few states with civil unions, the ACTUAL real important thing American gay activists will be working on is changing those state laws (and many others) towards MARRIAGE.

This obsessing over this historical relic is totally not happening in the U.S. and for good reasons.

This messy/transitional time is messy enough. Worrying about the relic (civil unions) would make it even worse. Again the rulings that were relevant were specifically about MARRIAGE.

The American movement is organized and has tactics and a strategy. Going backwards is not part of that strategy.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

It's irrelevant. The recent legal rulings were about MARRIAGE. Marriage equality is the GOAL. American gays have moved on. It's the messy time of transition now but going back to fighting over something LESSER is totally absurd and actually would be damaging to the actual goals.

For the few states with civil unions, the ACTUAL real important thing American gay activists will be working on is changing those state laws (and many others) towards MARRIAGE.

This obsessing over this historical relic is totally not happening in the U.S. and for good reasons.

This messy/transitional time is messy enough. Worrying about the relic (civil unions) would make it even worse. Again the rulings that were relevant were specifically about MARRIAGE.

How many states have civil unions available at the moment?

[Jingthing]

Again, the U.S. has moved/is moving on and the DIRECTION it's moving on in is NOT about civil unions!

This burst of legislative movement, coupled with increasing numbers of polls showing majority support for same-sex marriage, makes it is easy to forget that until recently, this debate—and many public opinion polls—included civil unions as a viable third option. Now, many states that, like Illinois, legalized civil unions in the past decade appear to moving toward same-sex marriage.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/05/remember_civil_unions_the_shif044797.php

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

To expand on this, as advocacy of civil unions in the USA has now shifted to be a right wing idea, the idea of promoting civil unions in existing states or even encouraging new states to adopt civil unions INSTEAD of same sex marriage is the province of the American RIGHT WING. So the fact that Obama and the gay rights advocates he communicates with are not interested in promoting this secondary relic is exactly the correct way to proceed for people who are REALLY interested in continued progress towards gay rights in America. You see, if the recent supreme court rulings were relating the same to civil unions that would be a REGRESSIVE incentive. It would clearly encourage current civil unions states NOT to upgrade to marriage with the federal implications that civil unions do not have. It would encourage the majority of states with neither same sex marriage or civil unions to more strongly consider the civil union option. You see the recent rulings WERE a victory for same sex marriages in same sex marriage states. The civil union people did NOT lose anything with the ruling. They just didn't WIN anything like the marriage states did. It's not surprising that politically right wing people who are desperate to put the brakes on the amazingly rapid progress of gay marriage rights in the USA would be grasping at the civil union option. But just like the opponents of legal gay marriage the right wing civil union pushers are on the wrong side of history, and really no longer remotely even RELEVANT to the American political discussion anymore. Cheers.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Civil unions are a historical relic in the USA. Everyone knows that.

How many states have civil unions available at the moment?

Five, sustento. Gay rights for those with civil unions appear to have been thrown under the bus.

[Jingthing]

Civil unions are a historical relic in the USA. Everyone knows that.

How many states have civil unions available at the moment?

Five, sustento. Gay rights for those with civil unions appear to have been thrown under the bus.

That's a spin that actual gay activists in the U.S. don't buy into. It's a right wing spin that presumes civil unions have a future in the USA when they clearly don't. They are second rate. Gay Americans intend to be FIRST CLASS citizens. Separate but equal is not interesting or acceptable to American values. That is what we learned from the black civil rights movement. Again those in civil unions have the same rights (limited) they had before the supreme court rulings. Their move now which is clearly to actual American gay rights activists is to work towards UPGRADING the laws in those states, and that is indeed part of the larger movement that is happening.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Civil unions are a historical relic in the USA. Everyone knows that.

How many states have civil unions available at the moment?

Five, sustento. Gay rights for those with civil unions appear to have been thrown under the bus.[/quot

10 percent of the states ? and I wonder what the population of those 5 states are ? is that the true barometer of America and are they just dreaming holding on to a dream with their parades and lobbyists will score a goal.

I think it's relevant to discuss civil unions it's not a bad word nor a relic IMHO I fear it may be as good as it gets for them but it clearly shows they are so far behind certain counties.

[Jingthing]

Oy vey. Anyone following recent news would know about the massive progress towards gay MARRIAGE that has occurred in the USA. Civil unions are old hat. A number of states already have gay marriage, now they are FEDERALLY recognized, MANY more states due to pass such marriage laws in the next decade or two. But the real endgame is that there is a SETUP now for an eventual even more important case that will compel ALL states to make gay MARRIAGE legal. Bothering with preserving a two pronged system actually represses this movement. That's why gay activists and Obama are not interested in civil unions anymore.

The USA is not that far behind anymore. Any gay American can now at least MOVE to gay marriage state and have a fully legal MARRIAGE, recognized federally. Over time this will become the majority of states as public opinion is now strongly for legal gay marriage. U.S. people aren't interested in civil unions anymore. We're set up to win the entire thing with gay marriage. Playing backwards games is a losing idea.

Having civil unions with federal recognition would clearly SLOW DOWN the time towards a total win. States would have the argument we can do civil unions, they are good. No they are not good. The only decent option now is MARRIAGE.

I can see non-Americans not understanding the peculiarities of the American system, but you can be sure, the U.S. is ALREADY way beyond civil unions being all we get.

Obsessing about civil unions in the American context is a debate in a TIME WARP. It's a debate about the PAST.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Since I don't live in America and never will I guess it doesn't matter either way for me, it would just be nice to know they either have civil unions or marriage available across the entire country and not catching up to the rest of the civilised world. I admit everything takes time and more power to them if they reach the goal.

[Jingthing]

Since I don't live in America and never will I guess it doesn't matter either way for me, it would just be nice to know they either have civil unions or marriage available across the entire country and not catching up to the rest of the civilised world. I admit everything takes time and more power to them if they reach the goal.

That's insulting. Most of the world has NO gay marriage or gay civil unions. The USA is not a leader but has made amazing progress in a few short years. Like I said ANY American gay can now if they care enough be fully gay married in their state, and federally, but they might have to move to another state. I know it's fashionable to diss America but we don't deserve it on this. Not with leaders like Hillary Clinton lobbying to the world that gay rights is human rights.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's irrelevant. The recent legal rulings were about MARRIAGE. Marriage equality is the GOAL. American gays have moved on. It's the messy time of transition now but going back to fighting over something LESSER is totally absurd and actually would be damaging to the actual goals.

For the few states with civil unions, the ACTUAL real important thing American gay activists will be working on is changing those state laws (and many others) towards MARRIAGE.

This obsessing over this historical relic is totally not happening in the U.S. and for good reasons.

This messy/transitional time is messy enough. Worrying about the relic (civil unions) would make it even worse. Again the rulings that were relevant were specifically about MARRIAGE.

The American movement is organized and has tactics and a strategy. Going backwards is not part of that strategy.

To expand on this, as advocacy of civil unions in the USA has now shifted to be a right wing idea, the idea of promoting civil unions in existing states or even encouraging new states to adopt civil unions INSTEAD of same sex marriage is the province of the American RIGHT WING. So the fact that Obama and the gay rights advocates he communicates with are not interested in promoting this secondary relic is exactly the correct way to proceed for people who are REALLY interested in continued progress towards gay rights in America. You see, if the recent supreme court rulings were relating the same to civil unions that would be a REGRESSIVE incentive. It would clearly encourage current civil unions states NOT to upgrade to marriage with the federal implications that civil unions do not have. It would encourage the majority of states with neither same sex marriage or civil unions to more strongly consider the civil union option. You see the recent rulings WERE a victory for same sex marriages in same sex marriage states. The civil union people did NOT lose anything with the ruling. They just didn't WIN anything like the marriage states did. It's not surprising that politically right wing people who are desperate to put the brakes on the amazingly rapid progress of gay marriage rights in the USA would be grasping at the civil union option. But just like the opponents of legal gay marriage the right wing civil union pushers are on the wrong side of history, and really no longer remotely even RELEVANT to the American political discussion anymore. Cheers.

"The recent legal rulings were about MARRIAGE" . ... . "Again the rulings that were relevant were specifically about MARRIAGE"

I can't help getting a sense of deja vu here as this has been discussed at some length already - the SCotUS rulings left a lot of questions unanswered, particularly upholding Section 2 of DOMA, and the place of civil unions was open to interpretation. The Obama administration decided specifically to exclude them - their choice.

"It (supporting civil unions) would encourage the majority of states with neither same sex marriage or civil unions to more strongly consider the civil union option."

Agreed - but isn't that a GOOD thing for the people in those States, or don't they matter?

As 35 States have legislated against gay marriages but only 19 of those have legislated against civil unions, that's 16 States where civil unions are clearly more acceptable, where those with out-of-state civil unions could have had their civil unions recognised NOW following the SCotUS ruling, and where civil unions would undoubtedly be approved before gay marriage. Gays in those States are now being forced to wait unnecessarily for their slice of the equal rights cake for nothing more than political profit.

"The civil union people did NOT lose anything with the ruling. They just didn't WIN anything like the marriage states did."

Agreed - but that's a bit like saying that if two men fall into a cess pit and between them one manages to get out its fine for him to leave the other one behind while he goes off to have a shower and clean himself up because the other one isn't any worse off. Just so one party can make political points from it and some gay activists can say "we've won, now we've got it all" at some time in the future the interests of gay couples in 31 of the 50 States are being put on hold.

[Jingthing]

Here are the stats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

30 percent of U.S. population live in marriage rights states.

11 percent of U.S. population live in other rights states

The rest no rights.

The clear trend is for more and more states to go into the marriage rights column. Projections are very optimistic based on opinion polls. Some states will never vote for gay rights of ANY kind, such as Alabama. To make the U.S. 50 state gay marriage legal is going to involve another supreme court case or cases.

Politics? Duh! Yes. That's how we've gotten so far so fast. Visibility and politics.

Debating with people who are obsessed with something Americans are totally beyond is in my view a total waste of my further time, so just saying I personally will not be responding ever again to people obsessing about USA civil unions, because I know better, I know that path is over, and I know the American people and movement knows it is over too. In my opinion of course. It would be a RELEVANT debate if we were in a time machine in the past but alas we are not.

Obviously the civil union option remains relevant in OTHER countries, such as Thailand.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Again, the U.S. has moved/is moving on and the DIRECTION it's moving on in is NOT about civil unions!

This burst of legislative movement, coupled with increasing numbers of polls showing majority support for same-sex marriage, makes it is easy to forget that until recently, this debate—and many public opinion polls—included civil unions as a viable third option. Now, many states that, like Illinois, legalized civil unions in the past decade appear to moving toward same-sex marriage.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/05/remember_civil_unions_the_shif044797.php

As I pointed out the last time you quoted this article, your edited quote is not a reflection of what the full article says, which is that this is an "assumption" and that "the empirical evidence does not bear this out" - namely, that the civil unions vs gay marriage debate is very much a real one, NOT just "right wing spin":

"In 2004, civil unions were significantly more popular than same-sex marriage, with roughly one-third (32%) of the public voicing a preference for this option, while approximately 1-in-5 (21%) supported same-sex marriage. ....

As a result, most public opinion polls a decade ago also included civil union measures, either as the middle option in a three-part question or as a standalone question separate from same-sex marriage. As the public debate over same-sex marriage changed, however, advocates on both sides increasingly emphasized a binary choice of support for or opposition to same-sex marriage. .... In response, some polling firms such as ABC News and Quinnipiac have stopped asking about civil unions, with the assumption that opinion was polarizing into two opposing camps.

But are attitudes really polarizing among the public? If so, we would expect an evacuation of the civil union category as the culture war battle lines became more brightly drawn. The empirical evidence, however, does not bear this out. While opposition to any legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships has declined by nearly 20 points over the last nine years (from 44% in 2004 to 26% in 2013 in a three-part question), support for civil unions has fallen by only eight points (from 32% in 2004 to 24% in 2013). In fact, PRRi's most recent survey (April 2013) found that roughly as many Americans support civil unions (24%) as say that there should be no legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples relationships (26%).

[LeCharivari]

Of the 35 countries which currently have gay marriage or a civil union giving financial, legal and immigration equivalency only two (Spain and Canada) went the direct gay marriage route. Spain did so after civil unions were legal in 12 of the 17 Regions and Canada did so after gay marriage was legal in all Provinces and Territories.

Maybe that's how they got so far so fast.

[Jingthing]

The USA's progress has been massively faster than the vast majority of Americans ever thought possible, including gay activists.

It now has federally recognized gay marriage at the federal level and among Americans under 30 MASSIVE support, so that is the future for sure.

Each country is different.

It is NOT a speed contest.

Americans are used to civil rights struggles taking DECADES. Our culture, politics, and government is very unique, not always in a good way. It is what it is.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Today same sex MARRIAGE became legal in Rhode Island and Minnesota.

The mainstream press coverage is all about the celebrations.

Not one word about civil unions.

When it is covered at all, it is about the continuing efforts to UPGRADE the small number of civil union states to FIRST CLASS marriage.