The Ruling that Made “Marriage Equality” the Law of the Land
People commonly describe the 2015 landmark SCOTUS case Obergefell v. Hodges as “the ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land.” But 10 years post-Obergefell, people living on Social Security Income still have unequal access to marriage.
Similar to the relationship between Roe and abortion, Obergefell determined that the right to marry is federally protected. This meant that individual states no longer had the right to ban consenting adults from marrying on the basis of their sex. In the decade since then, the number of married gay couples in the US has more than doubled—from 390,000 prior to this ruling, to 823,000 as of this writing.
History shows us the truth for marginalized communtiies is often more complicated than it seems
If history shows us anything, however, it’s that once we peel back the layers of any supposed freedoms extended to us, it’s easy to see that these freedoms don’t apply equally to everyone. Also historically precedented is Republicans’ long track record of finding clever, targeted workarounds to dramatically curtail access to freedoms they personally oppose.
For example: shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Illinois Republican Congressman Henry Hyde introduced and subsequently passed the Hyde Amendment. This legislative provision prohibited the use of federal funding to pay for abortions. This meant that individuals on Medicaid, military insurance, and other government-funded insurance plans would have to pay out-of-pocket for abortions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, BIPOC, poor and low-income people, and disabled people are overrepresented in access to these types of insurance—meaning that many in these communities lacked access to abortions, even before Roe fell.
Despite right-wing lawmakers’ ongoing attempts to undermine LGBTQ rights, they have failed to enact a widespread measure that curtails gay marriage in a comparable way. However, many people living on Supplemental Security Income have never been able to access marriage—mostly due to the strict enforcement of income and asset limits.
What is SSI, and how does it impact marginalized disabled people?
SSI is a federal program that offers extremely limited (read: meager and inadequate) monthly payments to poor and low-income individuals. The maximum monthly payment to a single individual receiving SSI is $967 per month; a married couple may receive up to a combined $1450 monthly.
SSI is available to people who earn less than $2019 per month. Single people living on SSI must have total assets of less than $2000 at the time of applying, and must prove this remains the case in order to maintain eligibility; couples’ assets cannot collectively exceed $3000.
So WAit, disabled people are more economically restricted if they marry?
Currently, the average cost of living for a single person in the US is $4641 per month; for a couple, this figure is $7390. This means that people living solely on SSI live below the poverty line everywhere in the US, but cannot increase their income without losing eligibility to receive SSI. This cruel “Catch-22” is often referred to as forced poverty.
This is true for both single people and those who are legally married. However, getting married leads to a 25% reduction in the amount paid to this couple through SSI, escalating this prescribed economic security. Even if people living on SSI were to earn exactly $1 per month less than the asset limit, they would still live at a baseline monthly deficit when compared to the average cost of living. For single people, this deficit is at least $1675 per month; for couples, it is at least $1940 per month.
This means that the consequence of getting married for a disabled person living on SSI is living at least $300-$500 further below the average cost of living. This assumes that the recipient is not simply disqualified from receiving benefits for exceeding the SSI’s asset and income limits. Adding insult to injury, many people in this situation also end up losing government-provided insurance for similar reasons.
By nature of the qualification process, SSI recipients are primarily disabled and therefore are more likely to require expensive living amenities and healthcare needs, such as building elevators, in-unit washer/dryer, in-unit AC, and more.
To add deeper context here, we also know that experiencing oppression on the basis of a marginalized identity—BIPOC, LGBTQ folks, and more—is itself disabling. Inequitable access to housing, healthcare, employment, social supports, and more is strongly correlated with having a disability and living on SSI. Black people are 1.5-2x as likely to receive SSDI than white people. While it’s difficult to ascertain what percentage of SSI recipients are LGBTQ, we know that 36% of LGBTQ people self-identify as disabled, compared to 24% of their non-LGBTQ counterparts.
Let’s envision a post-obergefell world: freedom for all
The takeaway is this: as of this writing, it remains true that people cannot be denied the right to marry on the basis of their legal sex. However, many disabled people—a group that disproportionately includes LGBTQ people, BIPOC, and more—are still waiting for the ability to exercise these same rights.
While marriage is absolutely not the end-all, be-all of LGBTQ equality, it is notable that even this landmark decision, which is touted by Gay Inc. as one of the largest advances in LGBTQ rights in recent history, still excludes huge swaths of our community.
This June 26, I ask that my community join me in recommitting ourselves to freedom and equality for all LGBTQ people—not just non-disabled, wealthy, white LGBTQ people. By centering the voices of the most marginalized individuals among us, we can and will unearth the pathway to liberation for everyone.