The patchwork of marriage laws and marriage equality states has caused quite a bit of confusion and more than a few problems for gay folks. That is because most federal benefits are based on the state that a couple is married in for the (federal) benefits. However, other benefits have residency requirements (that the state the couple resides in must recognize their marriage). Such is the case for these spousal benefits for veterans. An amendment was introduced to correct the problem, and of course the GOP controlled House panel rejected it.
From The Washington Blade:
A panel in the Republican-controlled U.S. House on Wednesday rejected a measure that would have enabled veterans with same-sex spouses to receive partner benefits wherever they live in the country. By a 12-13 vote, the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs failed to pass an amendment from Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) along the lines of the Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act, legislation that would change Title 38 of the U.S. Code to ensure the flow of spousal benefits to gay, lesbian and bisexual veterans.
Introducing the amendment, Titus said the measure was intended to end an injustice affecting thousands of veterans who are being denied crucial benefits based on their sexual orientation and state of residence. “This inequality for those who wore the uniform of the United States armed forces and their families is unacceptable,” Titus said.
Although the vote was a largely along party lines with Republicans voting “no” and Democrats voting “yes,” Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.), a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, was the only Republican who broke with his party to vote “yes” on the amendment.
Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) said he opposed the amendment because it would interfere with states that have enacted laws related to marriage.
“Deference to the state is not motivated by hostility, it is motivated by adherence to the Constitution,” Miller said. “As such, I believe that it is not appropriate to usurp the states’ power to democratically define marriage for their citizenry — not for personal belief, and not for bureaucratic convenience.”
In his remarks, Miller invoked a recent federal court decision upholding Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage as evidence that state laws are still standing that restrict marriage to one man, one woman. That decision upholding Lousiana’s marriage ban is one among more than 35 other rulings that have overturned prohibitions on same-sex marriage in other states.
Many of these men and women have fought to protect this country, yet they do not receive the same benefits that their heterosexual counterparts do? It's just shameful!
The American Military Partners Association Responds:
"The ability of our nation’s veterans, no matter their sexual orientation, to access their earned benefits should be an issue that transcends partisan politics,” said Dr. Lori Hensic, AMPA Director of Research and Policy. “We are incredibly disappointed, and it’s a sad reflection on the state of our Congress when our elected officials cannot put aside their differences to end this discrimination." The amendment introduced from Representative Titus (D-Nev.) would have changed the language in Title 38 that forces the Department of Veterans Affairs to look to the place of residency when determining the validity of the marriage, rather than the place of celebration."
via
JMG