General Questions, Retirement, Survivors

Supreme Court Decision Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

July 9, 2015 • By

Court gravel laying in front of a rainbow flagOn June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in all states. As a result, more same-sex couples will be recognized as married for purposes of determining entitlement to Social Security benefits or eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments.

Since a previous Supreme Court decision in 2013, the Social Security Administration has been able to recognize some same-sex marriages and non-marital legal same-sex relationships for purposes of determining entitlement to or eligibility for benefits. We also consider same-sex marriage when processing claims for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Marriage may affect your SSI eligibility or payment amount.

We’re working closely with the Department of Justice to develop and implement policy and processing instructions to implement the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court decision. As we have additional information, we’ll update our website and issue instructions to our staff.

In the meantime, if you’re a spouse, divorced spouse, or surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage or non-marital legal same-sex relationship, we encourage you to apply right away for benefits. Applying now will preserve your filing date, which will protect you against the loss of any potential benefits.

For other helpful information on how same-sex marriage may affect your claim, please visit our Same-Sex Couples web page. If you have any questions about how to apply for benefits, call toll-free 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778). We can answer specific questions from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. Generally, you’ll have a shorter wait time if you call during the week after Tuesday. We treat all calls confidentially.


Tags: , , ,

See Comments

About the Author

Avatar

Doug Walker, Deputy Commissioner, Communications

Deputy Commissioner, Office of Communications

Comments

  1. Anonamous

    Wondering What ‘Privilege’ Is? This Video Has Some Answers For You:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5f8GuNuGQ&sns=em

  2. Sue

    What this world coming to it about time for it end.

  3. Frances

    According to the bible (King James Version) these gay and lesbion people will not be really married in God’s eyes no matter what they do or say they will stiill
    be lost and go to hell if they don’ t repent and live like God commanded. And I also think that their names should be listed in the Clerk’s Office in a different book
    in the Clerk’s office, please don’t list them with the people that are really married in God’s eyes.

  4. Frances

    God’s word never changes and He does not either this modern bibles some of them changes the true meaning
    of what it was origionally meant to be. If some one don’t stand up for the truth and stop worrying about hurting someone little bitty feelings we all must stand before God in the end and give an account for all, when it comes down to the wire do any of us think that we will make it in
    to Heaven with the Saints, if the righteous scarely make it where will the ungodly appear?

  5. Oaktree123

    Practically speaking, where is the money to fund the traditional families in need, much less the newly formed families?

  6. Lee Cleveland

    Pope Francis, who is called a liberal pope, when in fact he is a follower of Christ says: Be tolerant, kind and loving to all as in Jesus’ words, “Love your neighbor as you would yourself”. One can’t denounce sinners as we all are sinners. Render to Caesar with is Caesar and render to God what is Gods’. It’s apparent, at least to me, the government wants to progressively transform our culture – the president’s words’ and diminish faith – they are prosecuting people who follow their beliefs & consciences. I believe that happened in WWII. If same sex folks want a union, they’ve had them for years – give them a union – but it is not a marriage. Millions of Christians should not be forced to believe otherwise and be prosecuted for less than 2% of the population. To do so would be
    communistic and would change our country morally, spiritually and culturally.

  7. Diane

    GOD made everyone on Earth and not one of us is perfect, or we wouldn’t be here. We are all being tested every day and the one testing us is ourself, (our spirit). GOD gave us clear instructions for living a good, right life, but many factors are pushing us away from it. God said that man must not lay with man or animal. Woman must not lay with woman or animal. It is an abomination and an abomination against our own flesh is detrimental. It festers!

  8. Janet

    What a shame!!! Yet seniors who,get a small soc sec cannot be increased up to a livable income……I do not get anywhere the 1200.00 a month into that is claimed to be the amount that everyone gets!!!!! This is a tragedy!!!

  9. Tony Sanders

    Is this a good or bad thing for gay beneficiaries? It is my understanding that SSA has something of a “marriage penalty” whereby they pay less per person than they would two individuals with disability. Furthermore, the Actuary has latched onto this case although the Court has not applied it to SSA. The Actuary comes across as having a mood disorder because we do not know that his Court judges deprivation of relief benefits under 18USC246. Are gay lovers the new Jewish mothers and pickle farmers who snitch to SSA to steal and poison and you get stuck with $666 a month for life.

    Free DIRT (Disability Insurance Reallocation Tax) Act of 2016-2020 HA-7-7-15 http://www.title24uscode.org/ssa2016.doc

    To avoid burdening the U.S. Supreme Court with the responsibility for criminally convicting the SSA Actuary, Commissioner and Trustees (ACT) in 2016 for deprivation of relief benefits under 18USC§246 when they conspire to cut DI benefits to 80% because the DI Trust Fund will be completely depleted under “current law”, whereas: (a) the SSA Actuary has not gotten right FDR’s infamous “pain the OASDI tax rate calculus”, that takes a week to differentiate the first time, the Chief Actuary has responded to the President in regards to the OASDI reallocation question with a common wrong answer – 2.7% – October 1, 2015 is not too late for Congress to get the OASDI FICA tax rate right to avoid depletion of the DI Trust Fund in FY2016; (b) SSA administrators are peculiarly obsessed with continuing their $666 persecution on DI beneficiaries in violation of the 42 month limit (Revelation 13:10) when a beneficiary receiving $600-$699 a month should automatically receive an increase to $700 plus annual COLA thereafter; (c) Congress and other rich taxpayers should not be compelled to contribute their incomes above $118,500 (2015) to the attached, but separate roll-call vote, on the 130% increase in tax-base that would be derived from the OASDI Without Income Limit Law (WILL) and shared with the U.S. Treasury, until the SSA Actuary has calculated the baseline in dollar amounts for the optimal OASDI reallocation tax rate, projected to pay benefits until 2020, at no cost to taxpayers, free.

    To immediately amend the DI tax rate from 1.80% to 2.30%, from 0.90% to 1.15% for employees and from 0.90% to 1.15% for employers under Sec. 201(b)(1)(S) of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§401 and amend the OASI tax rate from 10.60% to 10.10%, from 5.30% to 5.05% for employees under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3101 (a) and from 5.30% to 5.05% for employers under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3111 (a) to avoid depletion of the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund in 2016 without increasing the overall 12.4% OASDI or 15.3% OASDI and Hospital Insurance (HI) tax-rate under 26USC(A)(2)§1401 beginning October 1, 2015.

    To amend the DI tax rate again in 2018 to 2.20% from 2.30%, from 1.15% to 1.10% for employees and from 1.15% to 1.10% for employers under Sec. 201(b)(1)(S) of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§401 and amend the OASI tax rate from 10.10% to 10.20%, from 5.05% to 5.10% for employees under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3101 (a) and from 5.05% to 5.10% for employers under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3111 (a) without increasing the overall 12.4% OASDI or 15.3% OASDI and Hospital Insurance (HI) tax-rate under 26USC(A)(2)§1401 to maximize efficiency until a deficit appears in the OASI Trust Fund in 2020.

    Without Income Limit Law (WILL) Act

    To abolish the maximum taxable limit on DI contributions on January 1, 2016 and OASI contributions January 1, 2017 and repeal Adjustment of the contribution and benefit base Section 230 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§430.

    To require the Social Security Administration to pay for SSI Costs beginning January 1, 2017.

    To share profits in excess of social security program costs to the general fund of the U.S Treasury on a sliding scale beginning in 2017 DI 50/50 prioritizing the $22 billion + 2% annual growth cost of USPS, and OASI 10/90 to eliminate the federal budget deficit. In 2020 OASI would share at negotiated rates an estimated 25/75, in 2025 OASDI would share 50/50 and by 2030 75/25 and at 2035 OASDI would take all to pay for the peak in costs of Baby Boomer generation and might need to raise the overall OASDI tax rate.

    • Leroy

      Anyone make any sense of that gobbly goop?

  10. Tobi

    In the great words of the legend Kurt Cobain, “Just because your paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” Us gays are fabulously dangerous…

Comments are closed.