McClatchy DC Logo

Uncertainty remains for same-sex couples in many states | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

National

Uncertainty remains for same-sex couples in many states

By Curtis Tate - McClatchy Washington Bureau

    ORDER REPRINT →

June 26, 2013 06:31 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to strike down the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act means that the federal government can grant a vast array of benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in at least a dozen states.

The ruling still leaves decisions on who’s married and who isn’t to the states. That creates uncertainty for same-sex couples who married in one state but live in any of at least three dozen states that don’t recognize their marriages.

At stake are more than 1,100 federal benefits, including who’s eligible for Social Security survivor’s benefits, immigration benefits, military benefits and even whether married same-sex couples may file joint tax returns. In most cases, the answer may depend on where they live.

“It’s a huge sleeper issue that’s now going to come front and center,” said Steve Sanders, an associate professor of law at Indiana University who’s followed the cases that led to Wednesday’s ruling, Windsor v. United States.

SIGN UP

Sanders and other legal experts say President Barack Obama and Congress could clarify the law. But some predict that the issue ultimately will find its way back to the Supreme Court. “There’s going to be a lot of work for lawyers,” Sanders said.

For Edith Windsor, Wednesday’s ruling is a victory. Windsor, 84, paid a $363,000 inheritance tax when her wife, Thea Spyer, died in 2009. They were married in Canada, and the state where they resided, New York, recognized their marriage. Under federal law, legally married couples are exempt from the tax Windsor paid.

With Wednesday’s ruling, the federal government owes Windsor a refund .

But it’s unclear how the law will apply outside the 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, that allow same-sex marriage. Some federal agencies might make the determination that married same-sex couples are married regardless of where they live. Others might consider as married only those who live in states where their marriages are legal.

“I’ve got to hope the people who work at these agencies have thought about this,” said Will Baude, a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University. “This is not a problem they have had to confront before.”

For tax purposes, for instance, the Internal Revenue Service looks at the state of residence when it determines who may file a joint return. If a same-sex couple were married in Connecticut but live in Kentucky, they might still have to file separately. The same couple also might not qualify for Social Security survivor’s benefits, which they’d receive in a state where same-sex marriage is allowed.

Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights group, called on Obama and Congress to make sure that married same-sex couples don’t fall through a legal crack.

"Federal recognition for lesbian and gay couples is a massive turning point for equality, but it is not enough until every family is guaranteed complete access to the protections they need regardless of state borders,” Griffin said in a statement.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., planned to reintroduce a bill to ensure that all married same-sex couples are recognized for federal purposes. Feinstein expected to have at least 41 co-sponsors for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. Fifty-three senators, including three Republicans, have publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage.

“Because of inequities in the administration of more than 1,100 federal laws affected by DOMA, it is still necessary to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA and strike this law once and for all," Feinstein said Wednesday in a statement.

“Congress is going to have to grapple with the implications of the DOMA decision,” Sanders said. “Or else the courts are going to have to step in.”

Federal workers now may apply for health and pension benefits for their same-sex spouses, but maybe not in every state. Married same-sex couples in the military can qualify for base housing, relocation assistance, family support services and veterans benefits at least in the states that allow them to marry. But members of the armed forces frequently move from state to state.

“Couples in the military who work for the federal government are going to have the most unresolved questions,” said Baude, who clerked for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

In a statement Wednesday, the Defense Department welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision and said it would consult with the White House and federal agencies on how to implement it, "as soon as possible."

"The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses – regardless of sexual orientation," the Pentagon said. "That is now the law and it is the right thing to do."

For all the uncertainties it creates, the court’s decision eliminates one: whether same-sex spouses are eligible for immigration benefits. Until the ruling Wednesday, thousands of gays and lesbians born outside the country were living in legal limbo because though they were legally married to U.S. citizens, the federal government wouldn’t allow them to apply for green cards.

The issue came up during the recent Senate immigration debate. Some Republicans threatened to withdraw their support from the bill if it included benefits for binational same-sex couples. Democrats set aside the provision, hoping the Supreme Court would resolve it.

Because immigration is a federal issue, state law won’t matter when same-sex couples apply for green cards. Lavi Soloway, a New York immigration attorney for many such couples, called the court’s ruling “clear as a bell.”

“This is a watershed moment,” he said. “It will bring gay and lesbian Americans into our immigration system.”

Related stories from McClatchy DC

national

Photos: Supreme Court rules on same-sex marriage

June 26, 2013 09:38 AM

national

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act, dismisses Prop 8

June 25, 2013 06:19 PM

politics-government

Court sides with adoptive parents in test of Native American custody rights

June 25, 2013 06:00 PM

  Comments  

Videos

Bishop Michael Curry leads prayer during funeral for George H.W. Bush

Barack Obama surprises Michelle at event for her new book ‘Becoming’

View More Video

Trending Stories

Cell signal puts Cohen outside Prague around time of purported Russian meeting

December 27, 2018 10:36 AM

Ted Cruz’s anti-Obamacare crusade continues with few allies

December 24, 2018 10:33 AM

California Republicans fear even bigger trouble ahead for their wounded party

December 27, 2018 09:37 AM

Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier

April 13, 2018 06:08 PM

Hundreds of sex abuse allegations found in fundamental Baptist churches across U.S.

December 09, 2018 06:30 AM

Read Next

California Republicans fear even bigger trouble ahead for their wounded party

Elections

California Republicans fear even bigger trouble ahead for their wounded party

By Kate Irby

    ORDER REPRINT →

December 27, 2018 09:37 AM

California Republican Party Chair Jim Brulte is sounding a warning on the GOP needing to appeal more to Asian and Latino Americans. California House Republicans don’t know how to do that.

KEEP READING

MORE NATIONAL

‘Remember the Alamo’: Meadows steels conservatives, Trump for border wall fight

Congress

‘Remember the Alamo’: Meadows steels conservatives, Trump for border wall fight

December 22, 2018 12:34 PM
Israel confounded, confused by Syria withdrawal, Mattis resignation

National Security

Israel confounded, confused by Syria withdrawal, Mattis resignation

December 21, 2018 04:51 PM
Did Pentagon ban on Guantánamo art create a market for it? See who owns prison art.

Guantanamo

Did Pentagon ban on Guantánamo art create a market for it? See who owns prison art.

December 21, 2018 10:24 AM
House backs spending bill with $5.7 billion in wall funding, shutdown inches closer

Congress

House backs spending bill with $5.7 billion in wall funding, shutdown inches closer

December 20, 2018 11:29 AM
Trump administration wants huge limits on food stamps — even though Congress said ‘no’

White House

Trump administration wants huge limits on food stamps — even though Congress said ‘no’

December 20, 2018 05:00 AM
Graham, Trump go to war over Syrian troop withdrawal

Congress

Graham, Trump go to war over Syrian troop withdrawal

December 20, 2018 02:59 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story