Latest Breaking News

ChiTownDenny

(747 posts)

10. IANAL, but...

Sat Dec 15, 2018, 11:10 AM

Dec 2018

a discriminatory law was ruled unconstitutional. The discriminatory law prevented benefits that were available to those who weren't discriminated against. I can't imagine an unfavorable outcome for the surviving spouse.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rights group sues government after gay widower denied spousal benefits [View all] herding cats Dec 2018 OP

I am not sure if he has a strong enough case to be honest unless he can show the government was cstanleytech Dec 2018 #1

You cannot possibly be serious. Zenlitened Dec 2018 #2

The law says that you have to be married for nine months Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2018 #4

Exactly so they are probably going to have to prove the government was waiving cstanleytech Dec 2018 #7

Nine months stipulation? Is that because, what's that old saying about Ink Addict Dec 2018 #14

No idea why they set the limit to nine months but its what everyone has to deal with and the courts cstanleytech Dec 2018 #15

Aaaaaaand... let's think it through.., Zenlitened Dec 2018 #17

It makes no difference. They were not married for the required nine months. Period. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2018 #21

Post removed Post removed Dec 2018 #22

Actually, the law works a little differently than that. yardwork Dec 2018 #25

Apparently common law spouses can collect but only if the state recognizes common law marriages cstanleytech Dec 2018 #30

Agree. New Mexico is not a common law state, so the surviving spouse may be out of luck. Tess49 Dec 2018 #3

Aye but as I pointed out in another post if they had an official civil wedding before then the cstanleytech Dec 2018 #11

Post removed Post removed Dec 2018 #23

What special rules? Social Security applies the nine month rule to everyone. cstanleytech Dec 2018 #24

Are you being deliberately obtuse? yardwork Dec 2018 #27

Under the law, they are, now. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #32

It's still legal to fire people for saying that they are gay. yardwork Dec 2018 #33

Actually, no. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #36

You're mistaken. I'm shocked that you think this. yardwork Dec 2018 #37

Since denying them the right to marry was found to be unconstitutional mountain grammy Dec 2018 #5

Unfortunately I doubt the court will agree. Now there might be two possible chances and the first is cstanleytech Dec 2018 #8

and I'm sure you're right mountain grammy Dec 2018 #9

I suspect the courts might be willing to consider ruling in their favor if we were talking about cstanleytech Dec 2018 #12

And once again I'm sure you're right. mountain grammy Dec 2018 #13

Actually, the point you raise goes against his case. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #26

Getting married in another state or country didn't provide any benefits. yardwork Dec 2018 #31

That doesn't matter. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #34

At the time, they would not have known that getting married in another state would help. yardwork Dec 2018 #35

That's not the point I was making. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #38

Thank you for your insight and input.. mountain grammy Dec 2018 #39

You're not a lawyer, are you? Zenlitened Dec 2018 #16

No, I am not one but the issue at hand is if they married long enough for the surviving spouse cstanleytech Dec 2018 #18

The issue is far more nuanced than you suggest. n/t Zenlitened Dec 2018 #19

Only if extenuating circumstance exist such as they were married in one of the states where it cstanleytech Dec 2018 #20

It comes down to whether the Court is legally able to rule to create a just result... Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #28

I'd be worried about the consequences of this if it gets to the Supreme Court. Nt lostnfound Dec 2018 #6

IANAL, but... ChiTownDenny Dec 2018 #10

I agree that the Court will try to rule in a way that corrects the unjust result, if it can. Honeycombe8 Dec 2018 #29