Thread by @MSS3RosaFerreum

The marriage equality described in this tweet happened once for homosexual couples and homosexual rights advocates took it away and I don’t see it ever coming back for anyone ever again.

https://twitter.com/annieelainey/status/930802742582546432

Supplemental Security Income is welfare and I don’t see how the justification to the average working person is going to be made that said working person should pay welfare to a family making 6 figures which regularly happened when this was last tried.

Under the presidencies of William Jefferson Clinton; George W. Bush; and Barack Hussein Obama, II; a fair amount of antihomosexual bigotry fueled the passage of The Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C; 110 Stat. 2419; Pub.L. 104–199; govinfo.gov/.../PLAW.../pd…).

The Defense of Marriage Act was a lightening-in-a-bottle moment that few realized at the time had happened and few realized it had gone away due to progressive activism.

Homosexual couples (with at least one partner being disabled and collecting Supplemental Security Income) had the sort of marriage equality that Annie Segarra (@annieelainey) spoke of under The Defense of Marriage Act (because their marriages weren't recognized federally).

However, marriage equality advocates, in winning the extension of marriage equality to homosexual couples, took away the sort of marriage equality of which Annie Segarra (@annieelainey) had spoken from disabled homosexuals.

This was due to The Defense of Marriage Act's repeal.

Ironically, one kind of marriage equality was traded for another kind of marriage equality by marriage equality advocates who were blissfully unaware that such a switch was happening due to their advocacy.

Be careful of what you wish for and all that....

I was not the only one who saw the sort of marriage equality that Annie Segarra (@annieelainey) described going away with the repeal of The Defense of Marriage Act.

Charles T. Hall, Esq., (@SocSecBlog) also sounded the alarm.

The blog posts of Charles T. Hall, Esq., (@SocSecBlog) sounding the alarm:
👉socsecnews.blogspot.com/2012/05/doma-r…
👉socsecnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/doma-f…
👉socsecnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-h…
👉socsecnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/ssa-un…
👉socsecnews.blogspot.com/2013/07/ssa-no…

However, when discussions of "marriage equality" come up, it usually focuses on those who are receiving Supplemental Security Income, but that is not the only American 🇺🇸 disability benefits program that precludes marriage (legally or as a practical matter).

Disabled Adult Children's benefits also preclude marriage. 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(B) (ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/…); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(4) (ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/…); 44 Fed.Reg. 34486–34487, 34493 (tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…).

Widow's and Widower's benefits also preclude marriage under the age of 50. 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1)(A), 402(f)(1)(A) (ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/…); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(e) (ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/…); 44 Fed.Reg. 34484–34486, 34493 (tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…).

It should be also noted that the sort of marriage equality that Annie Segarra (@annieelainey) described has always been available to Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries, which Spoonie Warrior (@spwarriortweets) already noted in her tweet (

https://twitter.com/spwarriortweets/status/931186811455639552

).

The rationale behind the "lack of marriage equality" for Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries, Disabled Adult Children's beneficiaries, and Widow's and Widower's beneficiaries is dependence. When a disabled person gets married, that person becomes dependent on their spouse.

Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries are dependant upon the government (by receiving something akin to welfare). Disabled Adult Children's beneficiaries were (and are) dependent upon a parent. Widow's and Widower's beneficiaries were (and are) dependent upon a dead spouse.

The path to marriage equality for disabled beneficiaries is to justify the receipt of these benefits in a manner that circumnavigates the issue of dependency as a basis for receipt.

That's the challenge.

If one doesn't care about Widow's and Widower's benefits, one could fight for the federal government to not recognize any marriages, which achieves marriage equality for all except, of course, Widow's and Widower's beneficiaries whose benefits are based upon such recognition.

@threadreaderapp, please unroll.

@threader_app, please compile.