Tweet
After yesterday’s profile of Ron Wallen, it occurred to me you’d like to meet another widower drastically affected by the Defense of Marriage Act. Private employers’ — and federal government agencies’ — human resources policies use their pension plans to enshrine DOMA-based discrimination against legally married couples and surviving spouses. This discrimination hugely affects survivors’ quality of life, in a way that simply does not happen to opposite-sex couples.
Meet Andrew Sorbo, with his partner for 30 years and married for only four short months.
Colin Atterbury and Andrew Sorbo were married by two minister friends at their home in Cheshire, Connecticut, on Jan. 14, 2009. There was just one other guest, Andrew and Colin’s oldest friend Francis O’Connor, who served as ring bearer. But while weddings herald the start of a long life together for most couples, their intimate ceremony was, sadly, the final chapter of Colin’s and Andrew’s 30-year committed relationship. Colin, 66, was gravely ill with pancreatic cancer; he passed away just four months after the wedding.
The couple spent some of that time organizing their finances so Andrew wouldn’t be left in the cold, because he wasn’t eligible to collect the widows’ portion of Colin’s VA pension.
Because DOMA would prevent Andrew from receiving Colin’s federal pension and lifetime spousal health insurance coverage, they had begun saving and investing what they could. It was a wise move: after Colin’s death, DOMA effectively reduced Andrew’s monthly income by 80 percent. The $8000 he pays annually for health insurance represents a third of his $24,000 annual pension.
Andrew is grateful that Colin’s higher income allowed them to save and plan accordingly. “If he were a teacher like me, I would be in real trouble, because I basically don’t get anything from my years teaching in the Catholic school, and I only get a small pension from my eighteen years in the public schools. If I were a woman I would inherit part of his $80,000- plus annual pension. There would be no issue.”
Read Colin and Andrew’s story at the website of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. It’s a story of young love and a life well-lived together.
Andrew will testify at next week’s DOMA hearing. Why our federal government sees fit to make these men second-class citizens escapes me.
10 Comments
thanks for sharing these voices teddy — these are real life impacts of the laws and lawmakers need to hear them and the harm their actions as lawmakers have created
I sure hope Joe Solmonese’s faked statement after being briefed the night before on this topic doesn’t crowd out the REAL stories of lives well lived and losses felt hard.
Teddy, thank you for getting these stories to us. Please keep shining the light.
It’s very important we — and lawmakers — hear these voices about real lives and real people who are affected in real time. This is really happening, folks. The law needs to change.
It could be any of us, right?
That’s why I appreciate what these brave men are doing. I can’t imagine getting up there to tell these stories, but there they are.
recommended!! They are very brave individuals! I wish them all the best in our changing society where their issues now are ring loud and clear. Equality for all genders!
Some of the most despicable Republicans in Congress are on that committee. They are going to make this really difficult.
DOMA should be tossed by Obama given he has said it was un-Constitutional.
Meanwhile there are only 2 real sections to DOMA
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
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.
In the case of the VA Pension, the VA does not offer a “joint and survivor” option for a couple not “married” where “married” does not include same sex couples.
The one point I would make is the $80,000 pension would have been drastically reduced if the fellow that died had chosen “joint and survivor” rather than “single life annuity”. And no one gets to change from single life annuity to a survivor annuity after the annuity has started – even if they get married a year or two later. It is nitpicking I know – the point still stands that he did not have the opportunity to chose joint and survivor, and he could not have gotten married an earlier.
It is just that the facts of the case as to the timing of the marriage and the timing of the first annuity check are important to all that retire and have, or will have, a spouse – and that also includes male/female couples.
My heart out to you, them, and all who suffer from this horrid shit.
Rcc’d . . .
Teddy,
Did ya see this crap?
“A federal appeals court late Friday ordered the military to temporarily continue its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for openly gay service members, responding to a request from the Obama administration.”
http://www.kold.com/story/15090628/obama-wants-military-not-courts-to-lift-ban