Nancy Polikoff

It's economic interdependence, not marriage, that should afford benefits to partner of deceased state trooper

Filed By Nancy Polikoff | February 03, 2010 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: Dennis Engelhard, Kelly Glossip, survivors pension benefits

Missouri highway patrol officer Dennis Engelhard died in the line of duty on Christmas day. His surviving partner of 15 years, Kelly Glossip, is not entitled to a lifetime benefit of $28,000 a year. That benefit is reserved for spouses and children. Defenders of the system point out that unmarried different-sex partners also do not get the benefit. I discuss many examples like this in my 2008 book and it's a perfect opportunity to illustrate the valuing-all-families methodology I advocate.

Simply put, any law should include within its purview the relationships that are consistent with the purpose of the law.

The Missouri survivor's pension system no doubt dates to a time when married women were economically dependent upon their husbands (and from a time when women could not serve as highway patrol officers, I would guess). The system's purpose is compensation for that dependency, given that the wage-earner has died serving the public interest. Why else would it exist? Today there is no longer such a clear fit between marriage and economic dependency. The pension should go to a person who was financially dependent upon, or interdependent with, the deceased. Married or not.

Right now, there are state workers compensation systems that work this way. (The benefit is not as large, but it's a benefit that goes to the survivor of any worker who dies on the job; the size of the highway patrol officer's benefit recognizes the risk faced by public safety officers). Had the September 11th attacks occurred in Los Angeles, for example, surviving same-sex partners would have received the same workers comp survivors benefits available to spouses, because California looks to economic interdependency, not marriage, in awarding those benefits.

The article on Engelhard's death notes that Glossip may be eligible for a federal benefit. That's true. The Mychal Judge Act, passed after September 11th (and named for a beloved -- and openly gay -- Catholic priest who worked for the New York fire department and who died administering last rites at the World Trade Center site), authorizes a one time federal payment to the survivor of any public safety officer who dies on the job. If the person is not married and has no children, the payment goes to whomever the officer has selected. Englehard would have had an opportunity to select Glossip as a beneficiary. If he did, that's the end of the matter.

What's the purpose of the federal benefit? It appears to be public recognition of the value of a deceased public safety officer -- a way of valuing and honoring his or her work. Mychal Judge himself died without a spouse, parents, or children, and so no one was eligible to receive the federal benefit in existence up until that time. It was to remedy that wrong that Congress amended the law to allow the officer to designate a beneficiary. (Judge's benefit went to his sisters, whom he had designated as the beneficiaries of his life insurance policy.)

Congress might have decided that compensation for the loss of an economic provider was the purpose of the benefit. If it had, then Judge's death would have created no benefit, since no one depended upon him. So Congress actually chose a different basis -- a kind of a parting gift to the estate of the fallen officer. Since each of us gets to decide where our assets go when we die, then it makes sense to allow an officer to select a beneficiary.

Gay rights groups might use Engelhard and Glossip as yet another reason why same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. I use it to illustrate that marriage is the wrong dividing line between who gets a survivors benefit and who doesn't.

cross posted from Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

This is an excellent example of the need for equal rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

For most Lesbian or Gay couples if one Partner dies, the other is not entitled to any of the other's monthly retirement or pension.

This unfair treatment also applies to Lesbian or Gay couples who are federal employees.

I think people think that these laws are just far more complicated and impossible than they are. That was pretty much what a fundie from missouri said after this story came out (joe mirabella quoted him on Bilerico yesterday:, and I haven't read anyone challenge that guy on the fact that "married or not" isn't the best system out there.

Thanks for the post, Nancy!

Mark Fischer | February 7, 2010 9:32 PM

I would call attention to and reinforce the original point of the author . . . it is about ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE . . . An "unmarried" male -female couple would have fared no better than this male-male couple. Let's not get so self-absorbed in the LGBT community that we fail to see what unties us with the larger world of society-as-a-whole!