Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(28,448 posts)

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

Sat Dec 15, 2018, 01:33 PM

Dec 2018

are unlikely to change it as its not their place to write the laws its just their place to try and make sure the laws that are written are within what the Constitution allows.

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