This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/gay-military-veterans-will-receive-benefits
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Same-sex spouses in the military will receive full benefits despite federal law | Same-sex spouses in the military will receive full benefits despite federal law |
| (14 days later) | |
| The Obama administration said Wednesday it will stop enforcing a law that blocks benefits to partners of military veterans in same-sex marriages. | The Obama administration said Wednesday it will stop enforcing a law that blocks benefits to partners of military veterans in same-sex marriages. |
| In a letter to congressional leaders, Attorney General Eric Holder said that a provision in federal law on benefits to veterans defines "spouse" to mean a person of the opposite sex. He says that definition leaves out legally married same-sex couples, and runs afoul of a June supreme court ruling. | In a letter to congressional leaders, Attorney General Eric Holder said that a provision in federal law on benefits to veterans defines "spouse" to mean a person of the opposite sex. He says that definition leaves out legally married same-sex couples, and runs afoul of a June supreme court ruling. |
| The court declared unconstitutional a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act which restricted the words "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions. Holder says that like the Defense of Marriage Act, the provision in the veterans benefits law has the effect of placing lawfully married same-sex couples in a second-tier marriage. | The court declared unconstitutional a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act which restricted the words "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions. Holder says that like the Defense of Marriage Act, the provision in the veterans benefits law has the effect of placing lawfully married same-sex couples in a second-tier marriage. |
| "Decisions by the executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare," Holder told Congress. "Nevertheless, the unique circumstances presented here warrant non-enforcement." | "Decisions by the executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare," Holder told Congress. "Nevertheless, the unique circumstances presented here warrant non-enforcement." |
| He said the supreme court's conclusion that Doma imposes a stigma on same-sex marriages "would seem to apply equally" to the veterans' benefits law. Holder noted that after the supreme court's decision, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives withdrew from a pending lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision. | He said the supreme court's conclusion that Doma imposes a stigma on same-sex marriages "would seem to apply equally" to the veterans' benefits law. Holder noted that after the supreme court's decision, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives withdrew from a pending lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision. |
| President Barack Obama directed the executive branch to cease enforcement of the provision, Holder wrote. | President Barack Obama directed the executive branch to cease enforcement of the provision, Holder wrote. |
| Last week, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that a lesbian veteran and her spouse should be entitled to disability benefits, given the supreme court's recent ruling. | Last week, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that a lesbian veteran and her spouse should be entitled to disability benefits, given the supreme court's recent ruling. |
| A district judge, Consuelo Marshall, said that federal law defining a spouse as a person of the opposite sex is unconstitutional since the high court's decision to allow legally married gay couples the right to healthcare benefits. | A district judge, Consuelo Marshall, said that federal law defining a spouse as a person of the opposite sex is unconstitutional since the high court's decision to allow legally married gay couples the right to healthcare benefits. |
| Although the supreme court did not directly address the constitutionality of the veterans' benefits provisions, the reasoning of the opinion "strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional", Holder wrote. | Although the supreme court did not directly address the constitutionality of the veterans' benefits provisions, the reasoning of the opinion "strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional", Holder wrote. |
| The Justice Department has been tapped by the White House to ensure that couples in same-sex marriages receive all federal benefits to which they are entitled. The Social Security Administration says it has started processing spousal retirement claims for same-sex couples and paying benefits. Last week, the government said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. | The Justice Department has been tapped by the White House to ensure that couples in same-sex marriages receive all federal benefits to which they are entitled. The Social Security Administration says it has started processing spousal retirement claims for same-sex couples and paying benefits. Last week, the government said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. |
| Many of the changes are relatively easy to make because they involve federal regulations, but the veterans' benefits present a more difficult issue because that prohibition is part of federal law. | Many of the changes are relatively easy to make because they involve federal regulations, but the veterans' benefits present a more difficult issue because that prohibition is part of federal law. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version