Not So Fast HRC! Compassion Does Not Require Marriage Redefinition or Imitations
When President Bush today signed H. R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, a couple of the provisions buried in this huge piece of legislation were acclaimed by the Human Rights Campaign as “important protections for same-sex couples under federal law.” HRC’s press release repeatedly refers to “gay couples” and “domestic partners” as gaining important protections for retirement funds through these new provisions. One would have thought that the same President who forcefully called for a constitutional amendment protecting the unique legal status of marriage from redefinition had suddenly converted to championing federal recognition of same-sex relationships.
Not so fast, HRC. The truth is that these new federal provisions (Sections 826 and 829 of the Act) merely permit employees in qualified retirement plans to designate beneficiaries, entirely without regard to any relationship or legal status, who will then qualify for certain tax-advantaged treatment of retirement savings currently reserved for spouses and/or dependents (e.g., rollover into the beneficiary’s IRA or extended draw-down by the beneficiary over time, upon the employee’s death; withdrawal of plan funds upon hardship or unforeseen financial emergencies involving the beneficiary).
The new Act is just another example of what the Alliance Defense Fund has noted on a number of occasions in disputes over Defense of Marriage Acts and constitutional amendments protecting the unique legal status of marriage: it is not necessary for the government to create and enshrine in law marriage imitations and substitutes, just to extend on a compassionate basis to others certain legal benefits currently available on the basis of marriage. See, e.g., How Colorado’s reciprocal benefits proposal helps defend marriage, Townhall, Glen Lavy, 3.24.2006:
When President Bush today signed H. R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, a couple of the provisions buried in this huge piece of legislation were acclaimed by the Human Rights Campaign as “important protections for same-sex couples under federal law. HRC’s press release repeatedly refers to “gay couples” and domestic partners as gaining important protections for retirement funds through these new provisions. One would have thought that the same president who forcefully called for a constitutional amendment protecting the unique legal status of marriage from redefinition had suddenly converted to championing federal recognition of same-sex relationships.