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.
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.
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 ().
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Stretton, III, Rosa Ferreum (鐵瑰)

Michael Stretton, III, Rosa Ferreum (鐵瑰) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MSS3RosaFerreum

17 Jan
@heatherpeno I never said I knew more or less than you.

I have asked you for citations to support your assertions and to explain the relevance of some of your assertions, both of which you have demonstrated incapable of doing.

Maybe you are just incapable?
@heatherpeno ...and @heatherpeno blocks conceding and demonstrating that she cannot support her assertions or explain the relevance of some of her assertions to the original conversation (). Her loss.
@heatherpeno Let's address @heatherpeno's final comments.

She joined the conversation "[t]o establish [I] have zero fucking Knowlege of the subject" (). Well, wouldn't that require @heatherpeno to provide supporting citations to demonstrate her superior knowledge.
Read 11 tweets
27 Dec 20
@MichaelGLFlood Maybe Australia is some patriarchy where men have all the power, but that isn't true in the United States. The United States is trying to do something similar and there are good reasons why a council or ministry for men and boys would improve society.
@MichaelGLFlood Remember: in America 🇺🇸, women are the majority of voters and women vote at higher rates than men (pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019…; cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/…).

Should women be held responsible for the actions of the politicians empowered by their votes (if we're judging collectively)?
@MichaelGLFlood For example, there is a gendered pay gap: “unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities” out-earn men pursuant to @TIME Magazine (content.time.com/time/business/…), @usnews & World Report (usnews.com/debate-club/sh…), and @PolitiFact's @PunditFact (politifact.com/punditfact/sta…).
Read 8 tweets
9 Dec 20
@TheMightyV24 @JonesApathy @FoaChris @DianaWintah You have made this argument before (archive.ph/Ggii9), but, @TheMightyV24, you still haven't explained why was it necessary for the study you cited then to excise 5/6s of the data regarding men to show that women "receive much longer sentences than men."
@TheMightyV24 @JonesApathy @FoaChris @DianaWintah "Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders" cited by @TheMightyV24 showed that if numbers are manipulated enough (by taking a random sample of a sixth of the male convicts and compare it with all of the female convicts), women could be shown getting treated worse.
@TheMightyV24 @JonesApathy @FoaChris @DianaWintah Consider, instead, Sonja B. Starr's "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018 (August 29, 2012) (available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…) showing that women get shorter sentences (when prosecuted).
Read 19 tweets
26 Nov 20
@UKLabour I agree that violence is a human rights violation ― full stop.

Domestic violence does not appear to be as gendered as you portray it to be, @UKLabour, but let's look at the data, shall we.
@UKLabour Consider "Intimate terrorism by women towards men: does it exist?" by Denise A. Hines and Emily M. Douglas published in July 2010 in Volume 2, Issue 3, of the _Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research_ (available at www2.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines…).
@UKLabour "Research showing that women commit high rates of intimate partner violence … against men has been controversial because [intimate partner violence] is typically framed as caused by the patriarchal construction of society and men’s domination over women" (Supra, p. 36).
Read 119 tweets
25 Nov 20
@CarolineGatti3 @SeptimusSulla @Suffragentleman @UN_Women Consider "Intimate terrorism by women towards men: does it exist?" by Denise A. Hines and Emily M. Douglas published in July 2010 in Volume 2, Issue 3, of the _Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research_ (available at www2.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines…).
@CarolineGatti3 @SeptimusSulla @Suffragentleman @UN_Women "Research showing that women commit high rates of intimate partner violence … against men has been controversial because [intimate partner violence] is typically framed as caused by the patriarchal construction of society and men’s domination over women" (Supra, p. 36).
@CarolineGatti3 @SeptimusSulla @Suffragentleman @UN_Women "The results of this study indicate that the adherence to the theory that patriarchy is the foundation of [intimate terrorism] in Western, developed nations deserves reconsideration."

2 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 54 (2010).
Read 20 tweets
24 Nov 20
@melliflora @RestlessZoomer @Untega @MyUteri “The Chinese traditionally have valued sons over daughters, depending on their sons to support them in old age” (jstor.org/stable/189961?…).
@melliflora @RestlessZoomer @Untega @MyUteri “Sons are permanent members of their natal families and retain life-time contractual relationships with their parents. Throughout their lives, they are expected to contribute to the economic well-being of their parents” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…).
@melliflora @RestlessZoomer @Untega @MyUteri “In contrast, daughters are only transitory members of their natal families; after marriage, they begin to contribute to the family households of their parents-in-law” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…).
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!