On June 26th the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The court’s 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor was a great victory for supporters of same-sex marriage. But what does it mean for Pennsylvania couples?

The 1996 DOMA law prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages – which meant that legally married same-sex couples were denied federal benefits, privileges and obligations under laws governing taxes, Social Security, Medicare, insurance benefits, immigration, etc.

Now, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor, same-sex married couples must receive the same federal treatment as married couples of the opposite sex. This involves both benefits and burdens (such as potentially higher income tax rates due to the “marriage penalty” and pooling of a couple’s resources for purposes of qualification for Medicaid benefits).

The court’s decision does not mean that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The court dodged that murky and politically charged issue by dismissing a second same-sex marriage case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, on procedural grounds.

Here is a “plain English” explanation of the Windsor decision supplied by Amy Howe of the SCOTUSblog on June 26th:

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage,” for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

The court’s decision does not create a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It does mean that married same-sex couples living in states where their unions are recognized as legal must be treated as married for purposes of federal benefits. Currently 12 states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage. (The Hollingsworth decision effectively adds California to that list).

What about gay couples living in Pennsylvania and other states where same sex marriage is not currently recognized? What is the effect of this ruling for Pennsylvania couples?

The case does not affect same-sex couples residing in Pennsylvania who have not been validly married in another jurisdiction. Only couples who have been lawfully married are impacted by the ruling.

But the implications are complicated and evolving for Pennsylvania same-sex couples who have been validly married in another jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania is legally hostile to gay marriage. Act 124 enacted in 1996 (the Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Law) holds that “marriage shall be between one man and one woman” and that a “marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.”

So it is clear that state benefits and privileges granted to married couples under Pennsylvania law will not change as a result of the Windsor decision. They won’t change unless or until there are successful legislative or judicial challenges to current PA law.

Legally married same-sex couples residing in PA will not be treated as married for purposes of state inheritance, state pensions, state taxes, etc. The differences can be very significant. For example, the PA tax rate on inheritance by a surviving spouse is 0%. The tax rate between same-sex couples is 15%.

The federal benefit situation is confusing for same-sex spouses who are legally married, but reside in Pennsylvania. Various federal agencies follow different standards in determining who is married.

Some federal agencies follow the “place of celebration” standard. This means that if a couple was legally married in any jurisdiction, the marriage is recognized by the agency. But other agencies follow a “place of residence” standard which requires that the marriage be recognized by the place where the couple is living for them to be eligible for the benefit.

The place of residence standard is followed by the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs according to NPR’s breaking news two-way blog. (See below for the SSI program regulation).

The result is a mess that is going to have to be fixed either by Congress via legislation or President Obama via regulation. Don’t count on Congress agreeing on anything. But President Obama seems to be already moving towards changing regulations.

In a statement issued after the Windsor ruling, the President said: “So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.”

It seems likely that the Obama Administration will seek to broadly apply a place of celebration standard. But some definitional standards are created by statute and may not be subject to regulatory change. So it may take some time and possibly litigation before a universal definition of marriage is achieved for federal benefit purposes.

The Windsor case is a big step forward for same-sex couples, but it is only a partial step towards true legal equality. Nontraditional couples residing in Pennsylvania, whether legally married or not, still need to plan in advance to protect their partners. As my friend and co-author, Kirby Upright, has noted in his chapter of the book Estate Planning in Pennsylvania:

[E]state planning is probably far more important for the nontraditional couple (i.e., same-sex partners or unmarried partners of the opposite sex) than for traditional couples. Ironically, no such laws address the many complications that develop in a nontraditional relationship. Consequently, nontraditional couples are left to their own means, with little assistance from the legislature, to protect their property rights and the rights of their loved ones.  (Estate Planning for Nontraditional Couples, Chapter 9 of Estate Planning in Pennsylvania, PBI Press, 2012 Edition).

As Bob Dylan sang, “The Times They Are A Changin’” but the law tends to move slowly – it’s a local train, not an express. Same-sex and other nontraditional couples should sit down with their advisors and get their legal and financial planning in order. There is much that can be done to limit the problems and uncertainties that can hurt your loved ones while the law inches forward.

Here is the current SSI regulation on who is considered to be married:

§ 416.1806. Whether you are married and who is your spouse.

(a) We will consider someone to be your spouse (and therefore consider you to be married) for SSI purposes if—

(1) You are legally married under the laws of the State where your and his or her permanent home is (or was when you lived together);

(2) We have decided that either of you is entitled to husband’s or wife’s Social Security insurance benefits as the spouse of the other (this decision will not affect your SSI benefits for any month before it is made); or

(3) You and an unrelated person of the opposite sex are living together in the same household at or after the time you apply for SSI benefits, and you both lead people to believe that you are husband and wife.

(b) if more than one person would qualify as your husband or wife under paragraph (a) of this section, we will consider the person you are presently living with to be your spouse for SSI purposes.