quote:The U.S. Department of Justice ruled Tuesday that the Social Security Administration must recognize the children of same-sex couples, including their relationship with non-biological parents, even though the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents the government from recognizing or providing benefits to those couples.
Baby steps, baby steps, but in the right direction. Yay! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Very reasonable, but I must say I don't understand how it works legally. Isn't the Justice Department basically contradicting a law, here? An unjust law, surely, but still.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The benefits are for the children, not the parents.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Very reasonable, but I must say I don't understand how it works legally. Isn't the Justice Department basically contradicting a law, here? An unjust law, surely, but still.
This quote explains it pretty well:
quote:Although DOMA limits the definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for purposes of federal law, the Social Security Act does not condition eligibility for [benefits] on the existence of a marriage or on the federal rights of a spouse in the circumstances of this case; rather, eligibility turns upon the State’s recognition of a parent-child relationship, and specifically, the right to inherit as a child under state law. . . . A child’s inheritance rights under state law may be independent of the existence of a marriage or spousal relationship.
Conditioning of federal legal analysis on state relationships is normal. For example, state definitions of property ownership control in federal theft proceedings.
More obviously, the existence of a marriage itself is based on state law. That the federal government has enacted an exception the original rule doesn't take away from the basic principle.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)