WASHINGTON, D.C., August 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Obama administration announced last week that it will award federal benefits to several homosexuals who were “married” – although the states in which they lived did not recognize the marriages at the time.
Lambda Legal, which was arguing in federal court for Social Security spousal benefits for two homosexuals who had “married” illegally before the court ruling in June and since had both been widowed, announced last Thursday.
Lambda Legal's Susan Sommer said the change “could right a wrong for hundreds of same-sex spouses” married in the 11 states where same-sex marriage was illegal before June.
“You couldn’t call this a capitulation,” said Peter LaBarbera, head of the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. “This is the Obama administration bending over backwards to give the LGBT lobby whatever it asks for.”
The decision by the Justice Department gives homosexuals all the federal benefits heterosexual married couples enjoy under Social Security, although the “marriage” was illegal in the states in question.
LaBarbera said that there was technically a possibility that the Republicans could, if they won the next election, still reverse Obama’s pro-homosexual decision in this case and others – “but I don’t hear Republican leaders saying they will do this.”
“I am afraid the homosexual lobby is making all the gains it can now because it is confident the Republicans won’t undo them,” he said.
Some Republicans are even saying it is time to “move on” and give up on the same-sex “marriage” issue.
“But this is what they said after Roe v. Wade,” said LaBarbera, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. “They said the abortion fight was lost and we should move on.”
Instead, the pro-life movement found ways to whittle away at the decision and to restrict abortion in spite of it. “State governments have got to stand up to the Supreme Court,” he argued.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
The outcome for same-sex partners covered by private extended health plans is unclear. According to Todd Solomon, a benefits expert with McDermott Will & Emery, “Based on the court’s ruling today, there is simply one type of spouse.”
But Solomon told the At Work blogsite this applied only to employees enrolled in “arm’s-length” plans. For bigger companies who “self insured” —covered their employees’ and partners’ claims out of general revenue—the Surpreme Court ruling’s impact was unclear.
He predicted years of litigation would have to occur to resolve the matter.
“Traditional, heterosexual marriage is what sustains culture and nations,” LaBarbera said. “Government policy should support traditional marriage, not radical experiments.”