Spouse of the late Rep. Studds denied federal benefits because he lacks a vagina

[Gentle Giant]

And another reason why civil unions are not equal to legal marriage.

Studds's spouse 1st to be denied U.S. death benefits because he's gay
By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | October 17, 2006

BOSTON --For the first time, the federal government is denying death benefits to the spouse of a congressman because he is gay.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., who became the first openly gay member of Congress when his homosexuality was exposed during a teenage page sex scandal, died early Saturday. He was 69. In 2004 Studds married Dean Hara, 48, after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.

Hara, unlike the spouses of other members of Congress who have died, won't be receiving any portion of Studds' estimated annual $114,337 pension. The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks the federal government from recognizing the 2004 marriage between Studds and Hara.

Peter Graves, a spokesman for U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program under federal law, said same sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage related benefits.

He said Studds is the first case of its kind as far as the office could determine.

"Our office could not think of a similar situation having occurred," he said.

Graves said Studds had other options. He could have had an insurable interest annuity, similar to buying an insurance policy, which is allowed under both the civil service and federal employee retirement system and does not come under the restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act. Graves said he didn't know if Studds used that option.

Under the federal law, pensions can only be denied to those convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

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

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

Hara declined immediate comment on the benefits.

Studds died several days after he was admitted to the hospital after falling unconscious on Oct. 3 because of what doctors at Boston Medical Center later determined was a blood clot in his lung, Hara said. Studds regained consciousness and seemed to be improving, but his condition deteriorated because of a second blood clot, leading to his death on Oct. 14.

Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the denial of benefits is an inequity that exists in federal law that was enacted in 1996 in "an era of fear and trepidation of gay marriage" when it appeared Hawaii might allow same-sex marriage.

Buseck said the death of Studds may bring the issue closer to home for Congress.

"This is maybe a moment of education for Congress," he said. "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."

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state couldn't deny marriage licenses to same sex couples under the state constitution. The ruling paved the way for the first gay marriages in Massachusetts the following year.

Massachusetts is the only state to allow same sex couples to marry, although there is a push to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. Thousands of gay couples have married since it was ruled legal.

Studds was first elected to the congressional district that represents Cape Cod and the Islands, New Bedford, and the South Shore in 1972, and quickly became known for his work to protect the marine environment and fishing industry.

In 1983, a 27-year-old man stepped forward to disclose that he and Studds had had a sexual relationship a decade earlier when he was a teenage congressional page. The U.S. House of Representatives censured Studds, who revealed on the House floor that he was gay.

The voters even in his conservative district back home continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1997 to become a lobbyist for the fishing industry and environmental causes.

[Monte Smith]

I'm glad that tax payer money is not being wasted on death benefits for a Congressman who had sex with pages. The money should be withheld due to the infamy of the Congressman, no comment on the status of his later relationships. Still, as there is no federal law legalizing the innovation of gay matrimony, this can't come as a suprise to Stubbs' latterday partner, that he is denied federal money. He could never have expected it.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I'm glad that tax payer money is not being wasted on death benefits for a Congressman who had sex with pages.

How about if it was consensual and the kid was over the age of consent? I think Foley, for example, will try to make the case that while his behaviour was unethical, his actions were still legal. I wouldn't be suprised at this since the creep wrote the laws he was suspected of violating. Were there any ethics rules that came out of the Gerry Stubbs/Phil Crane scandal? If so, how did Stubbs manage to keep his pension?

[Monte Smith]

Stubbs kept his pension by not resigning and by being re-elected.

Originally Posted by Clay Fink

I think Foley, for example, will try to make the case that while his behaviour was unethical, his actions were still legal.

I suspect that this will be his precise legal argument, and it will be bolstered by the fact that his alledged actions are speech and not sex. Definitely unethical, hard to say if illegal.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Still, as there is no federal law legalizing the innovation of gay matrimony,

What you call innovation, I call evolution.

[patricia]

Just a thought. I know that there are stalking laws in CA, the land of the celebrity.

Are there similar laws against stalking in Washington DC, or in Florida, where Foley seems to have staked out his quarry and waited until they were of legal age before pouncing on them?

He seemed to have been well aware of the legalities of approaching the young men while they were under-age.
So, years of stalking, culminating in his approach of the staked out young men when there was little danger of his being prosecuted for anything.

That took planning and plotting, which is really creepy.

That would, at least here in Canada, put him in danger of, if he were convicted, being incarcerated as a dangerous offender, much like a rabid dog.

I don't think that anyone is arguing, as far as I know, that Foley was conducting statutory rape, or pedophila, given the age of the pages, or has even been accused of engaging in any physical assault.

But, he certainly seems to be a malevolent force, bolstered by his access to the pages and the seeming indifference to this of those who could have reined him in immediately, but didn't.
..................................

Sorry for the digression. But, wouldn't that make the Stubbs case different from the Foley one in that in the Stubbs situation there was no stalking over several years, as there was in the current case?

[Gordon B]

Here's an article from the Crooked Timber blog.

When Bill Clinton signed the (offensively-named) Federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the looming issue was the possibility that the Hawaiian Supreme Court would legalize same-sex marriage. (In 1993, the court ruled that the state needed to show a compelling interest in order to prohibit same-sex marriage.) Since the Constitution requires that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” it seemed that same-sex marriages recognized by one state would have to be recognized by the others. The Act explicitly exempted states from such a requirement. As I remember it, this was the focus of the debate.

But the Act has another implication that I don’t remember being discussed very much. It denies benefits to legally recognized same-sex spouses of federal employees. (There are currently around 1.9 [oops: million, of course] federal civil servants. I don’t know whether this prohibition applies to the additional 10.5 million individuals who are government-funded contractors or grantees.) This includes former members of Congress:

The federal government has refused to pay death benefits to the spouse of the late Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress.

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