Die, Doma!

[Veldrina]

Got this in mail today at work....wooot!!!!!!

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has now extended benefits to employees and annuitants who have legally married a spouse of the same sex.

The attached memo from OPM explains the election options of the benefits that have been extended to same sex marriages as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Additional guidance regarding the benefits covered in the memo and other benefits will be forthcoming soon.

General Guidance from OPM:

1. June 26, 2013 is considered the date of the Qualifying Life Event (QLE).
2. All valid marriages will be recognized and coverage under Federal Employee Benefits will be based on the legal marriage, regardless of where the employee resides.
   1. i.e. If an employee was legally married in Minnesota and lives in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, then they are entitled to Federal Employee Benefits for their spouse and/or children
3. Marriage is the only term that is used in the eligibility requirements for Federal Employee Benefits.
4. HR offices are to follow the procedures already in place for enrolling in or changing benefit elections. Please ensure that you are following the same procedures for both opposite sex and same sex married couples.
5. i.e. If you currently require marriage certificates in order to change from Self to Self and Family, then the same process should be followed for new enrollments based on the extension of federal benefits to same sex married couples.
6. OPM is developing a Benefits Administration Letter with additional guidance that will be available soon.

FEHB:

• When changing from Self to Self and Family due to the addition of a spouse, the effective date is the first day of the first pay period after the election is submitted to Human Resources
• When changing from Self to Self and Family that includes a child, the effective date of the increase in coverage can be the first day of the first pay period that encompasses June 26, however, the FEHB effective date for Self and Family will be June 26, 2013.
  • This should be treated the same as if a child is born and an employee is changing from Self to Self and Family based on the QLE of the birth.
  • Retroactive premiums may apply

• FEDVIP:

  • This is not a QLE for employees who are not currently enrolled in FEDVIP. Employees who are not currently enrolled in FEDVIP will have to wait until Open Season to enroll.
  • Current FEDVIP enrollees can increase coverage in order to cover their spouse and/or children
  • Please contact BENEFEDS directly to report newly eligible family members.
  • The effective date of the coverage is the first day of the first pay period after the request is received by BENEFEDS.

  FEGLI:

  • This is a QLE that will provide the employee the opportunity to:
    • If not enrolled, enroll in Basic and Optional Insurances
    • If already enrolled:
      • Increase Option C insurance
      • Automatically cover eligible dependents under Option C enrollment

  FLTCIP:

  • Spouses will have 60 days to apply for the FLTCIP with the abbreviated underwriting
  • FLTCIP is still allowing same-sex domestic partners to be covered under the program.

  FSAFEDS:

  • An employee can either (1) enroll or (2) increase FSA amount based on the June 26, 2013 QLE.
  • If employees are already enrolled, they can immediately begin submitting eligible family member claims for reimbursement.
  • The effective date for new enrollees is the first day of the first pay period after the election is received.

[jbasser]

Keep your ears posted to the news as there will be VA movement on this issue.

J

[Notorious Kelly]

Hopefully the last of the 2nd class citizens.

Gays have served and sacrificed from the beginning and should be afforded equal benefits.

[jlrith]

I'm talking veterans benefits - NOT Federal Employee Benefits.

Good morning Carlie,

Here is the law the Supreme Court found unconstitutional:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This means that a legal marriage, regardless of gender, is valid to the federal government. This means valid for all employment benefits, legal protections and tax benefits, ect...In fact the lawsuit concerned estate taxes, not employment benefits.

The memo Veldrina posted concerns benefits for the VA employees as Federal Government Employees.

I'm sure another memo will come along detailing VA benefits for same sex marriage.

[71M10]

Changing the definition of marriage wasn't the way to do this. The current legislative and judicial actions are creating a mess. Laws should have been amended to remove any benefit for "Marriage" (be it hetero, same sex, plural, interspecies...). Marriage should have been replaced with the ability of 2 consenting adults to establish an exclusive legal relationship between the two that encompasses certain rights and obligations under the law. People married under the old laws would be considered to have enacted this relationship. Since marriage is a religious sacrement it should remain a function of a religious body/institution. Please be clear, I am not stating this under the mentality of seperation of church and state (which is not in the constitution). I think it is truley the only equitable way to address the ability of all to have access to legally afforded benefits that used to be exclusively available to married (hetro) couples. Why are we distributing benefits based on what generally are romantic/sexual relationships anyway? This whole system was created on the concept of one breadwinner households and inequality between genders.

I firmly believe the VA will be issuing guidlines for implementation and as usual, they will probably make it unnecessarily complex

Edited July 3, 2013 by 71M10

[carlie]

Good morning Carlie,

Here is the law the Supreme Court found unconstitutional:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This means that a legal marriage, regardless of gender, is valid to the federal government. This means valid for all employment benefits, legal protections and tax benefits, ect...In fact the lawsuit concerned estate taxes, not employment benefits.

The memo Veldrina posted concerns benefits for the VA employees as Federal Government Employees.

I'm sure another memo will come along detailing VA benefits for same sex marriage.

jlr,

What you are clearly missing is that my reply was to john999's post and question

in relationship to VA benefits.

Believe me - I am well up on this issue as it will have a direct bearing on my life.

[stillhere]

Changing the definition of marriage wasn't the way to do this. The current legislative and judicial actions are creating a mess. Laws should have been amended to remove any benefit for "Marriage" (be it hetero, same sex, plural, interspecies...). Marriage should have been replaced with the ability of 2 consenting adults to establish an exclusive legal relationship between the two that encompasses certain rights and obligations under the law. People married under the old laws would be considered to have enacted this relationship. Since marriage is a religious sacrement it should remain a function of a religious body/institution. Please be clear, I am not stating this under the mentality of seperation of church and state (which is not in the constitution). I think it is truley the only equitable way to address the ability of all to have access to legally afforded benefits that used to be exclusively available to married (hetro) couples. Why are we distributing benefits based on what generally are romantic/sexual relationships anyway? This whole system was created on the concept of one breadwinner households and inequality between genders.

I firmly believe the VA will be issuing guidlines for implementation and as usual, they will probably make it unnecessarily complex

I agree! I also would ad that the country is to sexually sensitive. Making a persons sexual preference an invitations to benefits is just ridiculous.

Sex and who you prefer to have it with should not be a deciding factor to any answer. Get out of by bedroom!