News
Fed’l benefits issues linger post-DOMA for gay couples
Questions remain on Social Security, taxes, veterans benefits and family leave
Federal benefit issues for gay couples continue to linger after the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).
Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the extent to which many federal benefits — taxes, Social Security, veterans benefits and family leave — will flow to married same-sex couples remains in question.
The Obama administration has extended certain benefits to married same-sex couples regardless of whether they live in the United States, but other benefits are still in limbo because of law, regulation or policy that determines whether a couple should be considered legally married.
Here’s a breakdown of these benefit categories and where they stand in terms of what’s obstructing their flow to married same-sex couples and what LGBT advocates see as the way forward:
1. SOCIAL SECURITY
Last week, the Social Security Administration announced for the first time it was starting to process retirement claims for married same-sex couples who apply for them in aftermath of the court decision on DOMA. But the extension of these benefits is limited.
On Friday, the agency published guidance indicating these benefits will flow to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions, but couples that apply for these benefits in non-marriage equality states for the time being will have their requests placed on hold.
“Bill (the claimant) and Bob (the NH) marry in MA after MA recognizes same-sex marriage, but are domiciled Texas (TX),” the guidance says. “Bill files for husband’s benefits on Bob’s record. They meet all other factors of entitlement. Hold the claim.”
William “BJ” Jarrett, a Social Security spokesperson, confirmed on Monday the agency is processing some Social Security retirement spouse claims when the individual was married in a state that permits same-sex marriage and lives in a marriage-equality state at the time of application — or while the claim is pending a final determination. Still, he acknowledged other retirement claims are on hold.
“For all other claims, including Social Security survivors benefits, we continue to work with the Department of Justice on the development and implementation of policy and processing instructions,” Jarrett said. “We do, however, encourage individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits to apply now to protect against the loss of any potential benefits.”
The reasoning for placing these claims on holds is statutory. Social Security law looks to the state of residence when a couple applies for benefits to determine if they’re married instead of looking to the place of celebration.
Even so, LGBT advocates say it’s possible for the Obama administration to interpret the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA in a broad way that allows them to offer Social Security benefits to a greater number of couples.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, indicated that no final decision has been with the assessment of these benefits as he encouraged the Obama administration to expand the benefits to additional couples.
“We are glad to see some couples getting benefits and that the door is still open for those couples living in non-marriage equality states,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We urge them to take the broadest interpretation to ensure the maximum numbers of same sex couples have access to benefits.”
Susan Sommer, a senior counsel at Lambda Legal, said her organization also believes gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships should also be eligible for Social Security benefits.
“We think that the laws reads for sure to includes those people who live in those states that have a civil union or domestic partnership, but waiting to hear from the Obama administration for confirmation on that point,” Sommer said.
But a statutory change may be necessary. In that event, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has introduced Social Security Equality Act, which would enable gay couples to receive Social Security no matter where they live — even if their union isn’t a marriage, but a civil union or a domestic partnership.
“It is time for our government to stop telling gay and lesbian couples that they are second class citizens,” Sanchez said last week in a statement. “Same-sex couples pay into Social Security over the course of their working lives just like other Americans. They should receive the full benefits they have earned.”
2. TAXES
Another question is whether legally married same-sex couples throughout the country will be eligible for tax benefits — such as the exemption from the estate tax, the ability to jointly file and exemption from taxes on employer-provided spousal health benefits — in the wake of the DOMA decision. These couples are currently not receiving benefits if they live in states that haven’t legalized marriage equality.
That means if DOMA-lawsuit plaintiff Edith Windsor had moved to a non-marriage equality state like Alabama with Thea Spyer after marrying in Canada, she wouldn’t have been eligible for exemption from the estate tax as a result of her own lawsuit.
But what’s different about these benefits is that neither law nor regulation keeps these benefits from flowing to married same-sex couples that live in marriage equality states. It’s simply the policy of the Internal Revenue Service to look to the state of residence as opposed to the state of celebration in determining whether a couple is married.
Lambda’s Sommer pointed out that only policy is keeping the IRS from allowing these couples in non-marriage equality states to receive tax benefits entitled to other married couples.
“We are aware of no statute or even a regulation that prescribes a choice of law rule for determining the marital status for tax purposes,” Sommer said. “There’s no legal impediment to having the administration follow a place of celebration standard. It could so in addition to, say a place of domicile standard, which has been articulated in some tax court rulings, but still, in some circumstances, as a place of celebration rule.”
An IRS spokesperson referred to the statement currently on the agency’s website posted at the time of the Supreme Court in response to inquiry on whether IRS would implement tax benefits for married same-sex couples on the nationwide basis, regardless of their states of residence.
“We are reviewing the important June 26 Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act,” the statement says. “We will be working with the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice, and we will move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future.”
3. VETERANS BENEFITS
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA that the Pentagon would comply the law to implement benefits for service members with same-sex spouses. But the question of whether veterans will be included as part of the package remains to be seen.
In U.S. Code, the Pentagon was previously unable to provide gay troops spousals benefits under Titles 10 and 32, which govern rights for service members, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA, those benefits should begin to flow.
However, the benefits under Title 38, which governs benefits for veterans, define spouse independently of DOMA in opposite-sex terms. Some of the benefits allocated under this law are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. It’s unclear whether these benefits will begin to flow along with these other benefits because of the wording within the law.
Multiple media outlets are reporting that the Pentagon intends to have the benefits issue wrapped up by Aug. 31 along with the extension of benefits that were available under DOMA, such as military IDs, that were announced in February. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department is required to file in McLaughlin v. Hagel, an ongoing DOMA lawsuit, to provide a status report by Sept. 9 on benefits afforded to gay troops addressing the Title 38 issue. An informed source told the Washington Blade the issue may be resolved as soon as this week.
Alex Nicholson, who’s gay and legislative director for Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, said his organization has spoken about the issue with the administration and believes it has a “justifiable mandate” to afford these benefits to the legal spouses gay veterans.
“It’s not surprising that they’re taking their time to figure this out and do it right, but I think the mandate from the Supreme Court was clear enough that they could definitely move a little faster,” Nicholson said.
Lambda’s Sommer said the issue for gay veterans isn’t so much Title 38 because Title 1 of the U.S. Code should allow for a gender-neutral construction of this law. Still, she said other portions of the law related to veterans benefits could impact gay veterans seeking claims.
“In the veterans benefits area, there is also a statute kind of like what’s seen in the Social Security context that looks to the place of domicile at the time of celebration or when the right to the benefit has accrued,” Sommer said. “We’ll have to await guidance for how the administration will treat veterans who resided at the time of their marriage, and continue to live, in states that don’t respect their marriages.”
Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department is working on the issue, but unable to provide additional information.
“The Department of Defense is working alongside the Department of Justice to implement the Court’s decision as quickly as possible,” Christensen said. “At this time no decisions have been made.”
In a statement provided to the Blade, the Department of Veterans Affairs similarly said the department was working to implement the benefits without providing anything conclusive on the extent to which they would flow.
“Our commitment to our Veterans and their families will continue to be our focus as we work to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions,” the statement says. “We are working closely with the Department of Justice to review relevant statutes and policies to implement any necessary changes to Federal benefits and obligations swiftly and smoothly in order to deliver the best services to all our nation’s Veterans.”
Here a change in the law may be required as well. The Charlie Morgan Act, introduced by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would enable spousal benefits to flow to gay veterans. It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs just prior to August recess.
4. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
Yet another issue that related to family leave still persists a few days after the Labor Department issued guidance stating the Family & Medical Leave Act will apply to married same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA: Will the change apply to married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states?
On Friday, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez issued guidance to department staff notifying them the Wage & Hour Division made the change as the result of the work with the Justice Department and calling the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA “a historic step toward equality for all American families.”
“As part of this process, the Department of Labor updated several guidance documents today to remove references to DOMA and to affirm the availability of spousal leave based on same-sex marriages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),” Perez said. “This is one of many steps the Department will be taking over the coming months to implement the Supreme Court’s decision.”
The Family & Medical Leave Act entitles employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to 12 work weeks of leave in a year-long period for the birth of a child or to care for spouse and up to 26 work weeks of leave to care for a service member with a serious injury.
But under current policy, this post-DOMA application of the Family & Medical Leave Act won’t apply to married same-sex couples if they place of residence doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. A Labor Department official said the Wage & Hour Division’s Family & Medical Leave Act regulations define “spouse” for purposes of marriage as recognized under the state law where an employee resides. All that would be required for to change this policy is a change in regulation.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, called on the Labor Department to update the regulations so same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of celebration for family and medical leave purposes.
“The couple that lives in Alabama, flies to New York City for the weekend to get married and returns to Alabama deserves to have the same FMLA rights as the gay and lesbian couples that live in New York City,” Almeida said. “We want a 50-state solution, and that means recognizing same-sex marriages by the state of celebration, even though current FMLA regulations recognize marriage by the state of residency.”
Asia
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Marriage equality lawsuits filed in Japan
In recent years, some of Asia’s most significant legal developments involving LGBTQ rights have unfolded not in parliamentary chambers but in courtrooms. From marriage equality lawsuits in Japan to litigation over same-sex spousal benefits in South Korea and constitutional challenges in countries including India and Nepal, courts across the region have increasingly been asked to decide questions that lawmakers have yet to resolve. The trend raises a broader question: Why has constitutional litigation become a recurring pathway for LGBTQ people seeking legal recognition in parts of Asia?
The pattern has unfolded over nearly two decades.
In 2007, Nepal’s Supreme Court issued one of Asia’s earliest landmark rulings recognizing the rights of sexual and gender minorities, directing the government to end discriminatory laws and examine legal recognition for same-sex couples. A decade later, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the constitution, paving the way for the region’s first marriage equality law. In India, the Supreme Court recognized transgender people as a third gender in 2014 before striking down a colonial-era ban on consensual same-sex relations four years later.
The pattern continued across Asia.
Japan’s courts repeatedly questioned the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The rulings intensified pressure for legal reform. Parliament, however, has yet to act.
South Korea’s judiciary expanded legal protections for same-sex couples. It recognized spousal health insurance benefits. A recent district court also awarded damages after a same-sex relationship ended. The ruling added momentum to the country’s marriage equality movement.
China’s courts took a different path.
Landmark constitutional rulings never emerged. Still, litigation prompted the Supreme People’s Court to acknowledge anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The developments reflected courts’ growing role in LGBTQ rights disputes.
The Philippines added another dimension.
Marriage equality remains unresolved, yet the Supreme Court recently recognized property rights for some same-sex couples. The ruling stopped short of recognizing marriage. Still, it acknowledged legal protections for LGBTQ relationships. The decision reflected another way courts have shaped LGBTQ rights across Asia.
Constitutional courts occupy a distinct place in democratic systems. Legislatures enact laws. They also respond to political priorities and public opinion. Constitutional courts serve a different function. They decide whether laws or government actions comply with constitutional guarantees. They resolve legal disputes brought before them. Their role is not to measure a policy’s popularity. It is to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. That distinction has placed constitutional courts at the center of many of Asia’s most consequential LGBTQ rights disputes.
Nepal offers an early example.
In 2007, LGBTQ activists turned to the Supreme Court through a public interest petition. They argued that discriminatory laws and government practices violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought legal recognition for gender and sexual minorities. The government urged the court to dismiss the petition. It argued existing laws already protected all citizens. It also said the claims relied on assumptions rather than specific instances of discrimination. The court disagreed. It held that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural variations of human identity. It directed the government to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The ruling also ordered a study on legal recognition for same-sex couples, laying the foundation for future reforms.
“Since it is the absolute jurisdiction of the legislature to decide as to what type of law should be made and amended on a particular issue, and as this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office, therefore, there does not seem any pertinent reason and valid ground to make this Office a respondent,” said Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in its 2007 affidavit. “Let the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the unconcerned office is being made as an opposite party in the case.”
In India, a prominent leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, described homosexuality as a “genetic disorder” in 2015. He also wrote on social media that it was a “genetic handicap,” reflecting the political discourse surrounding LGBTQ rights before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. The decision did not end the debate. Soon afterward, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer and paramilitary organization, an ideological parent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said it did not consider same-sex relationships a crime. It added, however, that it did not support such relationships.
After the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, Arun Kumar, a senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader, told the media that same-sex relationships and marriage were neither “natural” nor “desirable.”
During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, the Indian government repeatedly argued that the issue belonged before Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the case involved a “very complex subject” with “profound social impact” and that “all the questions in this case must be left to the Parliament.” He argued that recognizing same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation would require rewriting the Special Marriage Act and could have unintended consequences across multiple laws. During the hearings, Mehta also questioned how existing marriage laws would operate for same-sex couples, asking, “Who will be the wife in a lesbian relationship?”
The Washington Blade covered these arguments as the hearings unfolded.
Three years have passed since the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, holding that creating such a legal framework was a matter for Parliament. Marriage equality, however, remains unrecognized in India. Parliament has not enacted legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legal position has remained unchanged since the court’s 2023 ruling.
Similar tensions have surfaced elsewhere in Asia.
In Japan, a growing number of courts have questioned the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples, even as Parliament has yet to amend the law. In South Korea, courts have steadily expanded legal protections for same-sex couples, while the government has argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is up to lawmakers. In the Philippines, marriage equality and civil partnership bills have repeatedly failed to secure congressional approval amid religious and political opposition. The legislative stalemate has prompted advocates to pursue constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court.
Indonesia presents a different picture.
Rather than debating legal recognition, much of the political discourse has focused on restricting LGBTQ rights. In a landmark 2017 case, however, rights groups successfully opposed a petition that sought to criminalize all consensual same-sex relations nationwide. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition, ruling that creating new criminal offences was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.
Hungary
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
New government allowed event to take place without restrictions
Tens of thousands of people on Saturday took part in the annual Budapest Pride march in the Hungarian capital.
The march took place less than two months after new Prime Minister Péter Maygar took office.
Hungarian lawmakers in 2025 passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify participants. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in last year’s Budapest Pride parade. The event became one of the largest protests against then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government since he took office in 2010.
Magyar’s center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12. The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021.
Hungarian police last month announced they would allow the Budapest Pride march to take place without restrictions.
Authorities subsequently dropped charges against Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony over his role in organizing the city’s 2025 Pride march. Officials in Pécs, a city near Hungary’s border with Croatia, have also dropped charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel, who organized a 2025 Pride event.
California
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
State Sen. Scott Wiener running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat
A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing gay California state Sen. Wiener (D-San Francisco) being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities.
Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.
The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBTQ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician.
Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza.
“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and … you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”
“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”
Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”
When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.
The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday.
Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It's sad because while he's written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde
— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026
In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have.
A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.
“For years, I’ve condemned (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”
“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”
“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.
“All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”
Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.
Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend.
Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”
This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.
Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-state Sen Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.
Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.
The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”
“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for transgender, gender Expansive, and intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
Court to weigh class action status in trans military ban challenge
PHOTOS: Fredericksburg Pride March and Festival
Washington Blade names new publisher
Administration must stop targeting LGBTQ kids
Is Pride over at the end of June?
Nearly 6,000 turn out for Pride Night Out at the Nationals
