somarco said:
The carrier or plan sponsor has a right to define dependents in any manner they choose, as long as it does not violate laws governing insurance contracts. Now that I know this is with a tobacco company, my guess would be this is a self funded plan and the employer has the right to do just about anything they want with regard to benefits, definitions of eligibility and so forth. State laws are out the window and most of what they have to comply with is ERISA and subsequent laws specifically designed with insurance in mind.
If the employer, more specifically the plan, choose to define a husband & wife as one who has had a civil ceremony that is their preroggative.
ERISA, Federal law, not state law, which brings us back to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution (Section 1 of Article IV). It will also bring into play The Defense of Marriage Act which defines spouse under ERISA and Federal law.
Therefore the plan doesn't define a civil marriage under ERISA it is based on DOMA and State law. The word used was "spouse". SC where the couple was married, does not require a marriage license, they have been married for more than 10 years, have been filing the federal income tax joint, she has been using his name. They qualified under GA law as well. If they were a same sex couple, then the definition of spouse under ERISA would be subject to state law, DOMA and the limitations or allowances of the plan.
Information on DOMA:
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/7-7-1996.2.html
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is short, and it does just two things:
It provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex `marriage'.
It defines the words `marriage' and `spouse' for purposes of Federal law.
This section of the bill is an exercise of Congress' powers under the `Effect' clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, which reads, `Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.' [Emphasis added.]
Precedents. Congress has legislated before with respect to full faith and credit. The general provisions, 28 U.S.C. 1738 & 1739, go back to the earliest days of the Republic. Act of May 26, 1790, 1 Statutes at Large, chap. XI. More recently, Congress has reinvigorated its powers under Article IV of the Constitution by enacting--
Section 3 contains definitions. It will amend Chapter 1 of Title 1 of the United States Code by adding the following new section:
`
7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`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.'
Section 3 merely restates the current understanding. The text reaffirms what Congress and the executive agencies have meant for 200 years when using the words `marriage' and `spouse'--a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.
Most of section 3 borrows directly from the current United States Code. The introductory phrases are taken from sections 1 and 6 of Title 1, and the definition of spouse is taken from paragraph 31 of section 101, Title 31. The current Code does not contain a definition of marriage, presumably because Americans have known what it means. Therefore, the definition of marriage in DOMA is derived most immediately from a Washington State case, Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (Wash. App. 1974), and this definition has now found its way into Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990). There are many similar definitions, both in the dictionaries and in the cases. For example, more than a century ago the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the `union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.' Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).
Note that `marriage' is defined, but the word `spouse' is not defined but refers to. This distinction is used because the word `spouse' is defined at several places in the Code to include substantive meaning (e.g., Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 416 (a), (b), & (f), contains a definition of `spouse' that runs to dozens of lines), and DOMA is not meant to affect such substantive definitions. DOMA is meant to ensure that whatever substantive definition of `spouse' may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
==
Here is a link discussing ERISA, DOMA, common law marriages are mentioned although not the focus of the article because they are considered spouses if recognized by the state in which the marriage took place and subsequent states of residence.
http://www.benefitscounsel.com/archives/001156.html
8-1-2004
The interplay of DOMA, ERISA, and other federal laws
Recent events in Massachusetts regarding marriage have spawned a plethora of law firm publications on the implications of same-gender marriage as it relates to benefit plans. You can access three of such publications here (Jackson Lewis), here (Ropes & Gray) and here (Goodwin Procter). However, this recent article published by the Congressional Research Service ("CRS") of the U.S. Library of Congress (via Benefitslink.com)--"The Effect of State-Legalized Same-[Gender] Marriage on Social Security Benefits and Pension"-- makes an interesting point regarding the interplay between ERISA and the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"):
DOMA provides that, in interpreting any federal statute, ruling, or regulation —including, for example, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code — a spouse can only be a person of the opposite [gender] who is a husband or wife. Consequently, a pension plan cannot be required to recognize a same-[gender] spouse even if same-[gender] marriages are permitted under state law. Some benefits specialists have suggested that because Section 514(a) of ERISA preempts state laws that relate to employee benefits covered by ERISA, ERISA would therefore preempt any state law requiring the plan to recognize same-[gender] marriage for purposes of administering pension benefits. However, whether ERISA alone would preempt state laws recognizing same-[gender] marriage is irrelevant because DOMA prohibits recognition of same-[gender] spouses in the interpretation and application of federal law.
While the technical points of whether DOMA prevails or ERISA preempts provide for interesting thought and discussion, one of the main concerns that the marriage issue raises with respect to benefit plans has to do with the fact that, for income tax purposes, the IRS has historically maintained that an individual is considered to be a “spouse” if the applicable state law recognizes the relationship as a marriage. If, for example, state law recognizes common-law marriages as legal, an employer in that state would be required to recognize an employee’s common-law spouse as his or her legal spouse and IRS would recognize the marriage as valid.
Similarly, many plan documents have defined the term "spouse" as looking to state law as well. This is important for qualified plans as it impacts such matters as pre-retirement survivor annuity and joint and survivor annuity requirements as well as requirements pertaining to spousal consent and qualified domestic relation orders. Now, after recent events regarding marriage, plans which still contain this language of defining the term "spouse" as looking to state law or plans which do not define "spouse" at all, are problematic in affected states since the language, if left unchanged, is confusing, implying that same-gender marriages might be recognized under the plan document when, in fact, DOMA would dictate otherwise. This is why it is important to amend plan documents and revise Summary Plan Descriptions to clarify the issue, particularly for companies with employees in affected states.
The CRS article goes on to discuss how Social Security, the Federal Employees Retirement System, and the Civil Service Retirement Systems are also governed by DOMA and, therefore, would not be affected by state law changes pertaining to the definition of marriage.
Additional note: The Ropes & Gray article also has this interesting discussion regarding the interplay of DOMA and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"):
The FMLA defines “spouse” as “a husband or wife, as the case may be.” The U.S.Department of Labor’s regulations implementing the FMLA add the following unusual gloss to that statutory definition: “’Spouse’ means a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides.” The FMLA regulations (unlike the statute on which they are based) thus command employers to look to state law to determine the meaning of “spouse” for purposes of applying the FMLA.