Gay Congressman's Spouse Denied Benefits

Story from Yahoo:

BOSTON - Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government will not pay death benefits to his spouse.

Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' marriage.

Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds' case was the first of its kind known to the agency.

Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

Studds, 69, had his homosexuality exposed during a teenage page sex scandal in 1983. He died Saturday, several days after collapsing while walking his dog. Doctors said he had developed two blood clots.

Graves said Studds could have purchased an insurable interest annuity, similar to an insurance policy, which is allowed under both the civil service and federal employee retirement system and is not affected by the Defense of Marriage Act. Graves said he did not know if Studds used that option.

Pete Sepp, spokesman for the nonprofit watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, estimated Studds' annual pension at $114,337.

That would have made Hara eligible for a lifetime annual pension of about $62,000, which would grow with inflation, if the marriage were recognized by the federal government, Sepp said.

Hara, 48, declined to comment on the matter.

Gary Buseck, legal director for an advocacy group called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said Studds' case may offer "a moment of education for Congress."

"Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said.

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage after gay and lesbian couples successfully sued for the right to marry.

Studds was elected to Congress in 1972. In 1983, a 27-year-old man disclosed that he and Studds had a sexual relationship a decade earlier when he was a teenage congressional page. The House censured Studds, who revealed on the House floor that he was gay.

Voters continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1997 to become a lobbyist for the fishing industry and environmental causes.

-----------------------------------------------

I'm open to a discussion about benefits for Gay spouses but I'm more interested in exploring the parallels to recent developments with Mark Foley. I didn't realize that Garry Studds had actually had a sexual relation with a teenage paige and continued to get elected to congress. I'm having trouble understanding how he could get away with it in 1983 while Foley (who didn't even have sex with a paige) is forced to leave in disgrace. Have things changed that drastically in our morality since 1983 or are there differences that I don't understand between the two cases? If Foley had been a Democrat from Massachusetts, would the fallout have been different?

Two main differences I see in the stories:

1) Studds was a democrat.

2) Foley resigned.

Had Foley not resigned, who knows what would have happened? Had Foley been a democrat, maybe he would not have felt that he had to?

As far as Studds being re-elected, a better parallel would be if Foley had been caught abusing/assaulting (not sexually) an underage girl who had gotten an abortion, and did not resign. It's nothing to be proud of, but it plays better to his base.

Foley, regardless of how Fox News aired it, was a Republican. Hence the resignation. There was a Republican that was caught having sex with a 17 year old girl in 1983, at the same time as Studds. He also resigned.

I think if Foley had been a Democrat, we would have been asked to not judge his preferences. Which is exactly the argument that kept Studds in office for more than a decade after his scandal.

As for Studds' partner not getting his pension, I'm sure Studds had life insurance and he won't miss any meals.

here was a Republican that was caught having sex with a 17 year old girl in 1983, at the same time as Studds. He also resigned.

Actually the Republican bastion of morality remained in congress until he lost a re-election bid.

This article didn't get me upset about his partner not receiving his pension. It only reminded me of the ridiculous amountsof money that are there to be made in politics (if you already have a lot of money that is).

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Foley, regardless of how Fox News aired it, was a Republican. Hence the resignation. There was a Republican that was caught having sex with a 17 year old girl in 1983, at the same time as Studds. He also resigned.

I think if Foley had been a Democrat, we would have been asked to not judge his preferences. Which is exactly the argument that kept Studds in office for more than a decade after his scandal.

If Foley had been a Democrat then maybe his fellow party members would have rallied around him in public support instead of distancing themselves. You know, stay the course instead of cut and run.

Actually the Republican bastion of morality remained in congress until he lost a re-election bid.

Oops. Sorry, that is correct. I even knew that, and got absent minded. In the other thread, I had even written:

There is a precedent for this though. Most of you won't remember, but in 1983, Republican Dan Crane and Democrat Gerry Studds both admitted to sexual relations with 17-year-old pages. Crane with a female page and Studds with a male page. Crane apologized and was voted out of office. Studds was defiant, calling his 'relationship' consensual. He was re-elected. Gingrich called for both men to be expelled, but the rest of Congress settled for censure.

Studds -- he didn't take that last name on purpose, no?

Different world in 1983 I think. The "return to puritan days" movement wasn't as strong then.

The "return to puritan days" movement wasn't as strong then.

More precisely, it was just getting organized.

As with Foley, I'd worry about the coercive aspects.

This is 2 seperate issues. One issue is whether he should have been reelected after admitting sexual relations with a 17 year old male page.

The other issue is whether a legally married man, who's marraige was later legally nullified externally, is entitled to half the pension of his husband's government pension.

The former has been beaten to death in the Foley thread. The latter is much more interesting yet I feel will quickly divide into yes and no camps.

An interesting development would have been if Studds died before the marraige was nullified. If his husband had already started recieving half of the pension, do you think they would have stopped paying once the family protection act was passed?

I guess the real compromise hear would be for domestic partners to be able to receive half of their life mate's pension too. If both parents are dead, are the offspring elgible for half the pension? Quarter the pension?

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

As for Studds' partner not getting his pension, I'm sure Studds had life insurance and he won't miss any meals.

That's not the point. I know nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was a cowardly political travesty and that Studds' husband deserves all the benefits that the spouses of others in Congress receive. If it quacks like a bigot, it is a bigot, even if it's name was Bill Clinton.

I know nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was a cowardly political travesty and that Studds' husband deserves all the benefits that the spouses of others in Congress receive.

And I believe that marriage does not, and can not consist of members of the same sex. So the idea that his lover should receive spousal support is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous when you consider the purpose of spousal support.

Marriage law is based on the asymmetrical nature of relationships between men and women. Wives typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Spousal support (and divorce laws) are intended to provide protection for the wife that chooses to focus on family instead of a career as a part of the marriage. Without those protections, she could lose decades of investment in the family when the spouse dies (or divorces her) and be left without any reasonable means of support. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through spousal support (or alimony).

What exactly is Studd's gay lover being compensated for?

The government should get out of the business of determining the legal definition of marriage. This should be a matter for contract law. We have evolved WAY past the need for medieval protections for a medieval institution.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

And I believe that marriage does not, and can not consist of members of the same sex.

Why not?

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

What exactly is Studd's gay lover being compensated for?

What is a wife being compensated for if she never chose to switch her focus from career to family?

Paleocon wrote:

The Federal government should get out of the business of determining the legal definition of marriage. This should be a matter for contract law.

Fixed that for you. Let the states decide, like has been done here. It is their responsibility and right to do this.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
I know nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was a cowardly political travesty and that Studds' husband deserves all the benefits that the spouses of others in Congress receive.

And I believe that marriage does not, and can not consist of members of the same sex. So the idea that his lover should receive spousal support is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous when you consider the purpose of spousal support.

Marriage law is based on the asymmetrical nature of relationships between men and women. Wives typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Spousal support (and divorce laws) are intended to provide protection for the wife that chooses to focus on family instead of a career as a part of the marriage. Without those protections, she could lose decades of investment in the family when the spouse dies (or divorces her) and be left without any reasonable means of support. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through spousal support (or alimony).

What exactly is Studd's gay lover being compensated for?

Your entire argument requires that we accept the premise of your first sentence. Since that is a statement of personal belief, one that I completely disagree with, it pretty much wraps up discussion of whether marriage is solely between people of opposite sexes.

Your interpretation of marriage law is likewise flawed. I have never seen a marriage law that claims to be based on this asymmetrical relationship you speak of. Maybe they're out there, that doesn't mean they are morally acceptable, which was the criteria I used in my initial statement. In fact, in our society many, many employers offer benefits to same-sex spouses. This fundamental dynamic that you claim is so entrenched in our thinking is not evident in the practices of institutions all over the country.

Also, do you truly believe that same-sex marriages or other same-sex relationships are purely symmetrical? Do you not believe that one member of a relationship can naturally take on a nurturing role AND be a male? The several stay-at-home dads (both heterosexual and homosexual) that I know would probably take issue with that assumption. If the Right want to caricature homosexual relationships, whatever, but they should stop using caricatures to craft bad policy.

Marriage law is based on the asymmetrical nature of relationships between men and women.

No, marriage law is based on the idea that the State should conduct a background check on couples before they are married to prevent illegal marriages. In the past, this was used to prevent miscegenation and the mixing of religions, as well as to prevent bigamy and give the families involved time to object. Currently, it also includes checking for recessive genetic markers for disease, as a protection for society, as well as checking legal status and the like.

Just like laws against the desperately Abolitionist...no, wait, sorry Communist practice of breeding down the White race into mongrelhood, I think society's horror of homosexual marriage will change over time as people realize that it's not a choice, and gay people have a right to be happy and also benefitted under the law for jumping through the hoops.

Were I religious, I could also argue that marriage is God's business, not man's. There's also a Libertarian argument against marriage law. Bagga, I choose you!

What exactly is Studd's gay lover being compensated for?

Supporting him throughout his career, just as a female wife would have done. It's a pension benefit that is normally extended to Congressional spouses, unless the Congressman was a traitor to the US, or was gay. It's like they can't decide which is worse, but that alone shows the idiocy of these kinds of rules. He can participate in governance despite being gay, but his partner doesn't get the same benefits a hetero partner would have, and why? Simply, solely because of sexual orientation.

The government should get out of the business of determining the legal definition of marriage. This should be a matter for contract law. We have evolved WAY past the need for medieval protections for a medieval institution.

The state is involved in marriage because the it asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from, and independent of, the interests of the parties themselves. Legally, marriage means that government limits or prescribes various aspects of the relationship, especially the relationship with the children that may result from their union.

I have never seen a marriage law that claims to be based on this asymmetrical relationship you speak of.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws about marriage accumulated over the centuries based on our experience with male and female relationships. There is no reason why those laws should be transferred to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of heterosexual relationships.

Also, do you truly believe that same-sex marriages or other same-sex relationships are purely symmetrical? Do you not believe that one member of a relationship can naturally take on a nurturing role AND be a male? The several stay-at-home dads (both heterosexual and homosexual) that I know would probably take issue with that assumption.

They say hard cases make for bad law. That's because the hard cases are exceptions, and making a general rule based on the exception is bound to create problems. The general rule of marriage is a man and a woman joining together to create a family suitable for children. And if one person stays home to be the homemaker, it is usually the woman. Arguing that not every marriage produces children doesn't invalidate the general assumption. Just because some women are breadwinners and some men are homemakers, doesn't invalidate the general assumption.

If the Right want to caricature homosexual relationships, whatever, but they should stop using caricatures to craft bad policy.

And the Left should stop trying to legislate to the exception.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
If the Right want to caricature homosexual relationships, whatever, but they should stop using caricatures to craft bad policy.

And the Left should stop trying to legislate to the exception.

Which side fills the ballot with anti-gay marriage legislation? Which side wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? If you want to talk about legislating to what you call "the exception" (also know to some as "American citizens"), start there.

Many moral victories in the legistlative history of our country have won *in spite* of the notion that you espouse (e.g. Voting Rights Act, 13th-15th Amendments), and we can only hope that the same moral clarity will someday possess Congress.

Supporting him throughout his career, just as a female wife would have done.

Did the lover give up a career to raise their children? I missed that part of the story. Or are you arguing that 'moral support' is all that is required to receive compensation?

Just like laws against the desperately Abolitionist...no, wait, sorry Communist practice of breeding down the White race into mongrelhood, I think society's horror of homosexual marriage will change over time as people realize that it's not a choice, and gay people have a right to be happy and also benefitted under the law for jumping through the hoops.
Many moral victories in the legistlative history of our country have won *in spite* of the notion that you espouse (e.g. Voting Rights Act, 13th-15th Amendments), and we can only hope that the same moral clarity will someday possess Congress.

I think you both fail to comprehend the difference between discrimination against people vs. discrimination against actions. Any man can marry a woman. That is an action. A man marrying another man is an action as well. Laws discriminate against actions all the time. Race is not a part of the definition of marriage, therefore saying a black man cannot marry a white woman is discrimination against people, which the Constitution prohibits.

Hmm. Choosing a religion is an action. Is it okay to discriminate against that?

Robear wrote:

Were I religious, I could also argue that marriage is God's business, not man's. There's also a Libertarian argument against marriage law. Bagga, I choose you!

I can't resist when you turn on the Bagga signal. If marriage was a personal contract (some sanctioned by churches, some not) then none of this would be a problem. As Robear stated above, marriage law was only instituted to prevent interracial, etc. marriage. It's 2006, we should be beyond that mindset.

** escapes into darkness **

Hmm. Choosing a religion is an action. Is it okay to discriminate against that?

Normally your inflammatory or derogatory comments are much easier to interpret, but this time I'm not sure what you are asking.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

I think you both fail to comprehend the difference between discrimination against people vs. discrimination against actions. Any man can marry a woman. That is an action. A man marrying another man is an action as well. Laws discriminate against actions all the time. Race is not a part of the definition of marriage, therefore saying a black man cannot marry a white woman is discrimination against people, which the Constitution prohibits.

I think I comprehend it quite well, thanks.

The Constitution prohibits that now, but it took what you refer to as "legistlating to the exception" to put those protections in place. Voting is an action too, and it took legislation to ensure that it was an action available to everyone -- even the "exceptions".

You still haven't told me how you square your argument that the Left is "legislating to the exception" with the whole anti-gay marriage plank of the Republican Party's platform. Is that not legislating to the exception?

I think it was conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan who stated that even if the state has a compelling interest to affect the outcome of certain unions, the fact of the matter is that the horse is already way out of that barn as a result of the legalization of divorce. The codification of divorce has already done many many more times the damage to the institution of marriage than homosexual marriage can ever do. Even if we are to believe the highly overestimated figure of 10% of the population (which I personally think is bunk), how would gay marriage in any way damage society's ability to ensure heterosexual unions?

Would it force homosexuals into heterosexual marriages that produce children? Would more people "catch" homosexuality? Would the existence of homosexual unions make heterosexual couples even less likely to take the institution seriously than they already do (reference Britney Spears' 12 hour marriage)?

How does the "protection of marriage" argument have legs (crossed or open)?

The Constitution prohibits that now, but it took what you refer to as "legistlating to the exception" to put those protections in place. Voting is an action too, and it took legislation to ensure that it was an action available to everyone -- even the "exceptions".

The 14th Amendment isn't legislating to the exception. Jeb Bush signing a law for the Terri Schivo case was legislating to the exception.

You still haven't told me how you square your argument that the Left is "legislating to the exception" with the whole anti-gay marriage plank of the Republican Party's platform. Is that not legislating to the exception?

It is a specific topic that has broad support and is a wedge issue. The DOMA should be sufficient, and it was legislation to prevent the exception from becoming the rule.

The codification of divorce has already done many many more times the damage to the institution of marriage than homosexual marriage can ever do.

That is a red herring argument.

When people fail as parents, does that threaten the institution of parenthood? When we talk about parents failing their children, we discuss ways to improve parenting, not redefining parenthood. The failures of some marriages don't threaten the institution of marriage any more than failing parents threaten parenthood. It is the redefinition that is the threat.

Also, you presuppose that every divorce constitutes a failure in the marriage. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. What about a couple that is married for thirty years and have successfully raised their children to be responsible adults? When they drift apart, do you think of their marriage as a 'failure'? Are they threatening marriage?

To say that the success of the institution of marriage is defined by permanence is simplistic. Of course I think easier divorce laws are bad for society, but there are marriages that provide a stable family environment and produce happy children that end and there are permanent marriages that don't.

I think that the very fact that so many people who do divorce later remarry shows that divorce, while not ideal, doesn't undermine the concept or the institution of marriage, even for those that are divorced.

conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan

Conservative? No. South Park Republican? Yes (for some reason, I think he is even the one that coined that phrase)

Even if we are to remove the divorces that do not affect children, one must at the very least concede that the codification of divorce has indelibly altered the institution of marriage in a way that homosexuality can not. It is also true that an increasing number of modern marriages are ones in which children are not part of the equation at all. If the nature of this societal prescription is to ensure the protection of children in a parental environment, what business does the government have regulating the relationships of people who either intend or are biologically incapable (eg: older or post-vasectomy hetero couples) of producing children?

It seems to me that the "protection of marriage" is a bucket without a bottom.

one must at the very least concede that the codification of divorce has indelibly altered the institution of marriage in a way that homosexuality can not.

Divorce has been around for as long as marriage has. I assume you are talking about the simplification of divorce and the rise of no-fault divorces starting about 40 years ago?

It is also true that an increasing number of modern marriages are ones in which children are not part of the equation at all.

Only in Europe and Blue states.

If the nature of this societal prescription is to ensure the protection of children in a parental environment, what business does the government have regulating the relationships of people who either intend or are biologically incapable (eg: older or post-vasectomy hetero couples) of producing children?

Again, you are talking about legislating to the exception. If you look to Europe for guidance, you'll see that as the procreation rates have declined, so have the numbers of marriages. So for those that decide not to have children, they don't seem to bother getting married, which only strengthens my argument that the purpose of marriage is the creation and raising of children.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Divorce has been around for as long as marriage has. I assume you are talking about the simplification of divorce and the rise of no-fault divorces starting about 40 years ago.

yes.

Only in Europe and Blue states.

Possible, but unproven. What we do know statistically though is that the divorce rate and remarriage rate is far higher in Red States than Blue ones. Texas alone has nearly 50% more divorces than New York per capita. This is pretty representative across the board and is not the worst disparity by a long shot.

Again, you are talking about legislating to the exception. If you look to Europe for guidance, you'll see that as the procreation rates have declined, so have the numbers of marriages. So for those that decide not to have children, they don't seem to bother getting married, which only strengthens my argument that the purpose of marriage is the creation and raising of children.

If the purpose of marriage (and more importantly, the purpose of the government's interest in it) is the creation and raising of children, why is there simply no mention of this in the legal code of it? It would seem to me that a Conservative would want to define the government's power to that which directly affects the interest it wishes to affect. It would appear to me that an elderly hetero couple who have neither the intention or ability to have children should not be afforded the benefits of marriage if that is truly the intention of the government's involvement. Anything else would seem a violation of equal protection.

If nothing else, you gotta admire Johnny for taking on what appears to be the entirety of P&C all by himself.

I struggle with this debate. I will admit something inside of me finds it hard to accept the concept of gay marriage. It just feels wrong. Marriage, as Johnny said, should be between a man and a woman with the goal of procreation. Thats how it has always been.

But what if you are gay? I firmly believe that it is not a concious decision somebody makes, and I believe modern science pretty much supports that conclusion. Do we deny that person the same benefits we are granted under the law? I gotta admit I want to answer 'yes' to that question. At the same time, something tells me I'm being a real ass by doing so. I think if I can somehow manage to seperate the sanctity of marriage in a religious sense from the institution of marriage in a legal sense, I would be fine with gay marriage. I just have a hard time doing so.

One thing is for sure, better to be gay here than in the Middle East. I have a friend from Egypt and its flat out dangerous to be openly gay in many of those countries.