Podcast: NFL Player Celebrates Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Widower Denied Benefits, Short Film 'The Real Thing'

In this week's podcast:

• A former Dallas Cowboys linebacker becomes first NFLer to celebrate same-sex marriage

• Michelle Obama snuck out of the White House to celebrate marriage equality

• Hate crime suspect in Brooklyn faces 15 years in prison after violent gay-bashing

• A gay widower is being denied benefits by the Social Security Administration

• Acclaimed short film ‘The Real Thing’ really is the real thing

All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report

If you enjoy The Randy Report podcast, please share it on your social media :)

Gay Widower Being Denied Survivor Benefits By Social Security Administration

Michael Ely and James Taylor (image via Metro Weekly)

James Taylor and Michael Ely of Arizona were together as a loving couple for 43 years having met in 1971 when Taylor was 20-years-old and Ely was 18-years-old.

In 1994, they moved to Tucson, Arizona. Taylor was the primary wage earner, while Ely managed their household.

In 2007, the couple celebrated their relationship with a commitment ceremony.

And they married as soon as they could when a court struck down Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2014.

Sadly, six months later, Taylor passed away of cancer.

But when Ely filed for Taylor’s Social Security benefits (which Taylor paid into his whole life), he was denied.

It turns out the Social Security Administration requires couples to be married for a minimum of 9 months before a survivor can access benefits.

It’s worth noting that the couple would have married sooner but were barred from doing because of Arizona’s marriage ban.

It would seem logical that a well-documented relationship of 43 years would somehow be able to overcome this legal snafu.

“Even though we’d been together for 43 years, I’m barred from receiving the same benefits as other widowers,” says Ely. “Even though my husband had worked hard for 40-plus years and paid into the social security system with every paycheck.”

Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Social Security Administration saying the nine-month marriage requirement for social security survivor’s benefits is unconstitutional where same-sex couples were not able to be married for nine months because of discriminatory marriage laws.

“The federal government is requiring surviving same-sex spouses like Michael to pass an impossible test to access benefits earned through a lifetime of work,” said Peter Renn of Lambda Legal. “Michael and his husband got married as soon as they could, less than three weeks after Arizona ended its exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, but they were only able to be married for six months before Michael’s husband died of cancer.”

"Now, the Social Security Administration is allowing the heartbreak of discriminatory marriage bans to persist by holding same-sex couples to a standard that many could not meet, insisting that they have been married for nine months even where it was legally impossible for them to do so.”

“These benefits are as essential to the financial security of surviving same-sex spouses in their retirement years as they are to heterosexual surviving spouses,” says Renn. “But the government is holding their benefits hostage and imposing impossible-to-satisfy terms for their release.”

Lambda Legal filed a similar lawsuit in September against the Social Security Administration on behalf of a 63-year-old lesbian in Washington state who was unable to marry her partner of 27 years due to the ban on same-sex marriage in that state.


(h/t Lambda Legal)

After Massive Tax Cuts For The Rich, GOP Senate Blames Rising Deficits On Medicare/Social Security

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Remember when the Trump tax cuts were not only going to pay for themselves but lower the deficit?

Yeah, not so much.

From Bloomberg News:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed rising federal deficits and debt on a bipartisan unwillingness to contain spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and said he sees little chance of a major deficit reduction deal while Republicans control Congress and the White House.

“It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem,” McConnell said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg News when asked about the rising deficits and debt. “It’s a bipartisan problem: unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future.”

McConnell’s remarks came a day after the Treasury Department said the U.S. budget deficit grew to $779 billion in Donald Trump’s first full fiscal year as president, the result of the GOP’s tax cuts, bipartisan spending increases and rising interest payments on the national debt. That’s a 77 percent increase from the $439 billion deficit in fiscal 2015, when McConnell became majority leader.

People aren’t idiots, Mitch.

You blew up the deficit with huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich, now you want to go dismantle the social safety net, just like everyone predicted.

"McConnell eyes cuts to Medicare, Social Security to address deficit" https://t.co/55d1IFx2BH

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) October 17, 2018

This is a direct attack on our seniors. Medicaid and Social Security aren't "entitlements," they are earned benefits for working class people. https://t.co/yxQCdCYuMs

— Andrew Janz (@JanzforCongress) October 17, 2018

Sure enough, Mitch McConnell is already saying that we need to cut entitlements -- which is a euphemism for cuts in Medicare and Social Security, something every news article should point out -- in response to the deficit the tax cut exploded 2/ https://t.co/4casxKA8CA

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 17, 2018

How To Save Social Security?

Via Bernie Sanders Facebook

I TOTALLY support this approach and think it should be implemented.

Don't forget - most laws about Social Security and Medicare were made when folks didn't live much past their late 60s.

And, the vast majority of people didn't make much more than $50K.

Pass this legislation.

News Round-Up: April 18, 2015

News items you may have missed:

• At this point we all know to act right when sitting in the audience of a Patti LuPone performance. Well, everyone except this woman.

• Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the first gay protest. Bow in respect, please.

• Hollywood legend Rock Hudson's former boyfriend recently spoke on how the couple kept their gay life secret.

• Jonathan Groff, star of HBO's LOOKING, admits there was a time he was so closeted he couldn't be in public with his boyfriend. Not even when he was nominated for a Tony Award.

• Jeb Bush and NJ Gov. Christ Christie want to raise the retirement age for Social Security

• Conan shows you how Hillary Clinton is just like the rest of us

U.S. Senate Republicans Vote With Dems On Equal Federal Benefits For Same-Sex Married Couples

Eleven Senate Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all of the Democrats last night in approving an amendment to guarantee equal Social Security and veterans benefits to married same-sex couples based on where the marriage was GRANTED, not the state of residence.

Via Buzzfeed:

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Brian Schatz, addressed the fact that both Social Security and some provisions of veterans’ benefits are, by statute, provided to spouses on the basis of whether a couple’s marriage is recognized by the state in which they live. The amendment would provide for benefits for spouses for all married same-sex couples, regardless of where they live.

Schatz praised the bipartisan support the measure received.

“Tonight, eleven Republicans joined Democrats in recognizing that gay couples deserve equal treatment, regardless of where they live,” he said. “We still have work to do to, but this is progress and a win for equal rights.”

Six of the 11 Republicans voting for the measure are up for re-election in 2016. They know where the arc of history will bend.

The 11 Republicans were Ayotte (NH), Burr (NC), Collins (ME), Heller (NV), Johnson (WI), Kirk (IL), Moore Capito (WV), Murkowski (AL), Portman (OH), and Tillis (NC).

Social Security benefits to be extended to LGBT married couples in marriage equality states only

We finally get clarity on one of the big benefits of marriage equality - Social Security benefits. But pay attention - the federal government has decided to limit Social Security benefits to couples who live in states where marriage equality is legal. Married in Massachusetts but live in Pennsylvania? You’re out of luck.


The Social Security Administration had tried to trumpet the fact that it was starting to make benefits available to same-sex married couples. But the fine print is that eligibility for federal benefits depends upon the state in which you live. This was an issue identified immediately in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in June.

This isn't the case regarding ALL federal benefits of marriage. The State Department doesn’t care where you live if you and your spouse apply for a visa, and the Pentagon is actually considering leave for gay and lesbian military personnel to travel to get married so that they will be entitled to military spouse benefits no matter where they live. The Labor Department just extended Family and Medical Leave rights to same-sex married couples.

However, the Social Security Administration is hampered by a statute that prevents it from unilaterally offering benefits to all couples. The only way to change the policy would be a legislative solution. And with the House currently in the hands of the GOP folks, that's a "no-go."

So, pick where you live carefully. In the case of your Social Security benefits, geography is destiny.

(via Queerty)

Social Security Administration announces new policies for married same-sex couples

The Social Security Administration announced on Friday that since the Supreme Court's historic rulings, which on June 26 struck down a key section of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,  processes will soon be in place to treat same-sex married couples equally:

"I am pleased to announce that Social Security is now processing some retirement spouse claims for same-sex couples and paying benefits where they are due," said Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security, in a statement released Friday. "We continue to work closely with the Department of Justice. In the coming weeks and months, we will develop and implement additional policy and processing instructions. We appreciate the public’s patience as we work through the legal issues to ensure that our policy is legally sound and clear. I encourage individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits to apply now, to protect against the loss of any potential benefits. We will process claims as soon as additional instructions become finalized."

(via Advocate)

The state of Social Security

Paul Ryan on Social Security

I'd like to know the rationale behind NOT raising the limit

Is there a good reason to NOT raise the limit on Social Security contributions?

Public supports overhaul, not cuts, to entitlement programs

From Politico: According to a new poll by Pew Research Center, most Americans don’t want to cut benefits from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but they do believe the programs all need to be overhauled.

60 percent of those surveyed for a Pew Research Center poll said it’s most important that the programs’ benefits be untouched.

In contrast, 32 percent said that taking steps to reduce the budget deficit is more important than maintaining the current level of benefits.

However, small majorities said they think that all three programs need to be changed:

• 52 percent of Americans said that Social Security needs to be completely rebuilt or undergo major changes
• 54 percent said the same about Medicare
• 54 percent said it about Medicaid

And most Americans give the programs mediocre marks for their performance in serving recipients:

• 56% of those surveyed said that Social Security is doing a fair or poor job, 39% said it is good or excellent
• 53% of Americans said Medicare is doing a fair or poor job, 41% said it is doing a good or excellent job

The poll was conducted June 15-19 and surveyed 1,502 people. The error margin is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

AARP considering support for some changes to Social Security

AARP legislative policy director David Certner recently said while AARP does not support cuts in Social Security benefits, they are open to a discussion about raising the retirement age and other changes.

"Everybody knows we need to look at a package of different changes to Social Security to make it strong for the long term," he said. "The reality is, we have more people older and who are living longer, so we need to make changes. Everybody recognizes that. And we're certainly willing to talk about a package of changes that will keep Social Security strong."

He suggested raising the age at which retirees can receive full benefits -- currently, 66 years old -- would be on the table even though doing so represents "a massive benefit cut for people."

Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it absorbs in taxes this year which will lead the retirement program's trust fund to become exhausted in 2036, according to the latest annual trustees report. After 2036, the program will only be able to pay 77 percent of promised benefits. By 2085, it will be able to pay 74 percent of promised benefits.

Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs.

While I am 20 years away from Social Security, I personally acknowledge that we as Americans are living longer, healthier lives and could probably go one more year before applying for Social Security benefits and not notice.  Especially for those of us in our 40s or younger.  I am personally willing to raise full retirement age one or two years if that will fix the Social Security insolvency issue.  I do believe those in their 50s and 60s should not have their retirement age rules changed on them.  I also think a small raise in the ceiling of where Social Security taxes cut off could be raise by a small amount and it wouldn't make a huge difference in most of our pay checks.

What's important is preserving the system that all of us have spent paying into all our lives.  I'd rather wait one more year and get full benefits than have some politicians make us turn this all into stock market accounts that could crash at any given time due to many conditions beyond our control, such as the current instability in European markets.

Just my opinion.

More info at the Huffington Post