Here is an excerpt from consumer affairs.com It is referring to the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. I have no reason to doubt the following, but isn’t it curious that the dollar value of projected economic benefits are readily available, but there is no mention of the cost of the federal, state and employer benefits? 😳
“Economic implications
While many will celebrate the social victories won by the decision, the economic implications are also something worth noting. Same-sex couples will now be much more financially secure due to their marriage status. This includes benefits guaranteed by Social Security, Medicare, military, civilian, and federal employee benefits.
“Our Social Security system is designed to protect workers and their families in the event of disability, death, or old age. Not only is this a victory for fairness but also for economic security of same-sex married couples. They now with absolute certainty cannot be denied the Social Security benefits they have earned for each other,” said Nancy Altman, Co-Chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign.
States will also be feeling the economic surge from this decision. Researchers have estimated that each state has the potential to add millions of dollars to their economies through same-sex marriages. While the numbers will fluctuate over the next few years, they say that same-sex marriage could have a $2.5 billion dollar impact nationwide.”
These numbers are not even reflective of some industries that will thrive due to increased business from same-sex weddings. Florists, wedding and event planners, and catering companies, to name a few, will get a boost. Tourism may also be affected due to destination weddings and increased travel by honeymooners.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Why is same-sex marriage even used as a talking point?
LikeLike
I have read several good stuff here. Definitely prie bookmarking for revisiting.
I wonder how so much effort you sett to make one of these fantastic informative
site.
LikeLike
It never did seem right to me that couples could collect two benefits from just one person’s earnings’ contributions. It still doesn’t seem right for a new group of persons to get the SSA deal.
Single retirees should be given special consideration by the SSA because of all the discrimination they have experienced in this over the years. Maybe COLAs should be applied only to one benefit per earnings record.
LikeLike
Interesting point. Two people; one single, one married could receive very different total family benefits over the years.
LikeLike
That’s not a bad idea.
LikeLike
Would only note that a health plan gets to define eligibility for coverage (self insured). So, a health plan may, but need not include same gender spouses. Just like a health plan may, but need not include common law spouses. Similarly, a plan may, but need not include step children and foster children. And, of course, a plan may but need not include domestic partners, other relatives (parents, aunts, etc.).
I would note that most local ordinances and state laws do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender preference. Federal law preempts state benefit laws for employers subject to ERISA, so, only state non-discrimination rules / ordinances / laws would preclude an employer from distinguishing between among various marital relationships.
All that said, most employers will continue to simply leave their existing health plan definitions of elibility unchanged – and defer to (default to) the local jurisdiction’s definition of marriage.
LikeLike
I’m guessing in this environment most employers will make sure they can’t be criticized for any reason by someone waiving a rainbow flag. It’s like the poor florist who didn’t want to serve a gay wedding.
LikeLike