QUESTION
You asked whether the number holder (NH) and Claimant, who entered into a same-sex
marriage in Belgium, were validly married under Florida law for purposes of determining
Claimant's entitlement to Title II benefits as NH's spouse.
OPINION
Claimant is validly married to NH under Florida law for purposes of determining Claimant's
entitlement to Title II benefits as NH's spouse.
BACKGROUND
According to the information provided, O~ (Claimant) married D~ (NH), on October XX,
2009, in B~, Belgium. Both Claimant and NH are female. NH currently receives old-age
insurance benefits. On October XX, 2014, Claimant applied for wife's insurance benefits
(WIB) on NH's earnings record. Claimant and NH lived in Florida when Claimant filed
her WIB application.
DISCUSSION
A claimant may be eligible for WIB if she is the wife of an individual entitled to
old-age insurance benefits. See Social Security Act (Act) § 202(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a) (2015).[1] A claimant may qualify as the wife of a living insured individual if the claimant
is validly married to the insured individual under the laws of the State where the
insured individual was domiciled at the time of the claimant's application. See Act § 216(b), (f), (h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345; see also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 00210.006(B) (stating Regional Chief Counsel opinions regarding validity of foreign same-sex
marriages look to laws of the State of the number holder's domicile and must address
whether marriage would be recognized as valid by the courts of the State of the number
holder's domicile). NH lived in Florida when Claimant applied for WIB on NH's earnings
record. Therefore, we look to Florida law to determine if Claimant and NH are validly
married.
Florida generally approves of the act of marriage, regardless of where it occurs,
and presumes a marriage is valid. See Johnson v. Lincoln Square Properties, Inc., 571 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990); Guelman v. De Guelman, 453 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). In addition, "[i]t is presumed
that an official performing a marriage service, whether in a foreign or domestic jurisdiction
would not have performed the service if there was any known impediment to the marriage."
Guelman, 453 So. 2d at 1160. Furthermore, "all presumptions necessary to make a marriage valid,
including the capacity to contract, attach upon proof of a ceremonial marriage and
cohabitation by the parties under the belief that they were lawfully married." Anderson v. Anderson, 577 So. 2d 658, 660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).
Florida courts generally determine the validity of a marriage based on the laws of
the place where the purported marriage occurred. See Johnson, 571 So. 2d at 542; see also POMS GN 00305.005(B)(1) ("The law of the place where a marriage occurred ordinarily determines the
validity of a marriage. If the marriage is valid in that jurisdiction, it is usually
held valid in other places.") "The law in Florida on this point is consistent with
the general rule recognized in other jurisdictions that the validity of a marriage
is to be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered
into." Anderson, 577 So. 2d at 660.
Florida previously denied recognition to same-sex marriages due to statutory and State
Constitutional provisions, but began recognizing same-sex marriages on January 5,
2015. See POMS GN
00210.003(A); POMS PR 05825.011. Additionally, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry under the United States Constitution.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ---, 2015 WL 2473451, at *19 (2015). The Court held State laws invalid
to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms
and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Id. The Court also reasoned that having required all States to marry same-sex couples,
"[i]t follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no
lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." Id. at *23.
In this case, Claimant and NH provided a copy of a marriage certificate issued in
B~, Belgium indicating Claimant and NH married on October XX, 2009. Belgium legalized
same-sex marriage effective June 1, 2003. See Letter from Nicolas Boring, Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of Cong. Global Legal
Research Ctr., to Brian C. Huberty, Soc. Sec. Admin. (May 20, 2015) (attached). The
marriage certificate on its face (per the translation) and the other information provided
indicate the marriage certificate was issued in accordance with Belgian law. See Anderson, 577 So. 2d at 660; Guelman, 453 So. 2d at 1160. Although Obergefell did not specifically address whether States must recognize same-sex marriages performed
in other countries, Florida has a history of recognizing valid foreign marriages.
See, e.g., Guelman, 453 So. 2d at 1160 (recognizing Bolivian marriage). Thus, because the marriage between
Claimant and NH is valid and Florida recognizes valid marriages from foreign jurisdictions,
Claimant and NH are validly married under current Florida law.
CONCLUSION
Claimant is validly married to NH under Florida law for purposes of determining Claimant's
entitlement to Title II benefits on NH's earnings record.
Mary Ann Sloan
Regional Chief Counsel
By: Brian C. Huberty
Assistant Regional Counsel