QUESTION
For purposes of F~(Claimant’s) application for spouse’s insurance benefits[1] under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) on the record of the number holder
D~ (NH), you asked whether the Claimant is the NH’s spouse based on the same-sex marriage
they entered into on April XX, 2014, in Mexico City, Mexico. It is our understanding
that the NH and the Claimant are domiciled in Texas.
ANSWER
We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant and the NH entered into a valid
same-sex marriage under the laws of Mexico City, Mexico on April XX, 2014, as evidenced
by a copy of a Mexico City marriage certificate.[2] Thus, we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant
is the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining the Claimant’s entitlement to Title
II spouse’s benefits on the NH’s record.
BACKGROUND
You advised that on March XX, 2023, the Claimant filed an application for spouse’s
insurance benefits on the NH’s record alleging that he and the NH were married on
April XX, 2014, in Mexico City, Mexico. You further advised that the Claimant and
the NH live together in Houston, Texas. In support of their marriage in Mexico City,
the Claimant provided a copy of what appears to be a signed and completed marriage
certificate (Acta de Matrimonio) issued by the office of the Civil Registry of Mexico
City (Gobierno Del Distrito Federal), General Directorate of Civil Registry Court
17, showing the NH and the Claimant as the contracting parties to the marriage and
showing that the marriage was registered and recorded on April XX, 2014 and the certificate
issued on May 8, 2014.[3]
ANALYSIS
Federal Law: Entitlement to Spouse’s Insurance Benefits as a
Spouse[4]
Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to spouse’s insurance benefits
on an insured individual’s record if, among other things, the claimant is the spouse
of the insured individual entitled to old-age or disabled insurance benefits and their
marital relationship has lasted at least one year before the date the claimant filed
the application for benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(b), (c), 416(a)(1), (b), (f); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a); see also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) RS 00202.001B.
The agency will find a claimant to be an insured individual’s spouse if the courts
of the State in which the insured individual was domiciled at the time the claimant
filed the application would find that the claimant and the individual were validly
married at the time the claimant filed the application, or if, under application of
that State’s intestate succession laws, the claimant would be able to inherit a spouse’s
share of the insured’s personal property. See
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345.
With respect to the agency’s application of State marriage laws, we note that on June
26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 674-677 (2015), the United States Supreme Court held State laws invalid
to the extent that they exclude same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms and
conditions as opposite-sex couples. Further, States must recognize valid same-sex
marriages performed in other States. Id. at 680-681. Pursuant to Harper v. VirginiaDepartment of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 94-98 (1993), the agency should give Obergefell full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events,
regardless of whether such events predate or postdate Obergefell. As a result, the agency will consider State-law same-sex marriage bans, whether
based on State constitutional or statutory provisions or case law, void. The agency
will apply the relevant law to the facts to evaluate marital status .
It is our understanding that the NH was domiciled in Texas when the Claimant filed
the application for spouse’s benefits. Therefore, we look to Texas law to determine
if the Claimant is the NH’s spouse.
Texas Law: Valid Foreign Marriage
Although traditionally, Texas courts applied the law of the place where the marriage
occurred (place of celebration) to determine the validity of the marriage, more recent
cases indicate that Texas courts apply the most significant relationship test of the
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws in determining which law to apply on the
issue of the validity of a marriage entered into outside of Texas.[5] See Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 421 (Tex. 1984); Cutler v. Cutler, 2016 WL 4444418, at *2 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Aug. 24, 2016, no pet.); Tex. Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Borum, 834 S.W.2d 395, 399 n.2 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992, writ denied); Seth v. Seth, 694 S.W.2d 459, 462-463 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1985, no writ). However, Texas will
not enforce a foreign law that is contrary to Texas strong public policy. See Broussard v. Arnel, 596 S.W.3d 911, 917-918 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“regardless
of which choice-of-law rule or test courts have applied, we have not found a single
case holding that the law of another jurisdiction applies to compel a Texas court
to recognize a marriage that is void under our laws”); Seth, 694 S.W.2d at 463 (under the particular facts of the case, noting that the “most
critical consideration” of the most significant relationship test was the relevant
policies of the forum, Texas).
Here, we have very little information about the couple’s relationship as it relates
to Mexico and Texas. We only know that the couple married in Mexico City, Mexico in
2014 and that they currently live in Houston, Texas. As same-sex marriage is legal
in Texas and Texas is required to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other States,
we believe Texas would have no public policy objections to a valid same-sex civil
marriage entered into in accordance with the laws of Mexico City, Mexico and further,
that the outcome would be the same regardless of which law applied such that an extended
discussion of the most significant relationship factors is not needed here.[6] See Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 674-677, 680-681 ; De Leon v.
Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015); see also In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d 564, 575 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (noting that courts addressing
the issue of which law to apply to determine the validity of marriage after Seth have acknowledged the most significant relationship approach, but have also concluded
that under the facts of those cases, there would be no difference in outcome under
the law of either forum); Tex. Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 834 S.W.2d at 399 n.2 (noting that a conflict of law analysis and application of
the most significant relationship test was unnecessary where there is no difference
in the outcome in application of the laws and thus no conflict exists); Williams v. Home Indem. Co., 722 S.W.2d 786, 787-788 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (noting
that an extended discussion of which choice of law test to apply to the marriage claim
was unnecessary given that the result was the same under the laws of Texas, Virginia,
and New York).
Thus, we believe Texas courts would recognize a same-sex marriage validly entered
into under the laws of Mexico City, Mexico. We next consider Mexico City laws on same-sex
civil marriage and the evidence regarding the Claimant’s marriage to the NH.
Mexico Law: Valid Same-Sex Marriage in Mexico City, Mexico
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mexico City, Mexico since March 4, 2010.[7] See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1075 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting that a new law in 2010 legalized same-sex
marriage in Mexico City, the Mexican Supreme Court required other Mexican states to
recognize those marriages, and a 2010 law allowed same-sex couples to adopt children
in Mexico City); Guzman-Hernandez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 611 F.App’x 956, 960–61 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting same).
The Civil Code of Mexico City indicates that generally the civil status of individuals
may be proved only with certificates and records kept by the Mexico City Civil Registry.[8] The Civil Code also provides that certificates issued by the Mexico City Civil Registry
are prima facie evidence that the facts certified therein were declared before a Civil
Registry official, and that the statements made by the individuals who appear before
the Civil Registry are deemed to be true until they are proven otherwise.[9] Thus, a true copy of an original marriage certificate kept by the Civil Registry
of Mexico City, Mexico is prima facie evidence of the facts certified therein – namely,
that the couple was married before a Civil Registry official in Mexico City pursuant
to the Civil Code.
Here, it appears that the Claimant and the NH registered their marriage with the Civil
Register in Mexico City, Mexico and presented a marriage certificate issued by the
Mexico City Civil Registry as proof of their marriage entered into on April XX, 2014.
Thus, the Claimant has provided evidence to support a valid same-sex marriage entered
into in Mexico City, Mexico. As explained above, we believe Texas courts would recognize
this valid same-sex marriage entered into in Mexico City, Mexico on April XX, 2014.
CONCLUSION
We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant and the NH entered into a valid
same-sex marriage under the laws of Mexico City, Mexico on April XX, 2014, as evidenced
by a copy of a Mexico City marriage certificate. Thus, we believe there is legal support
for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining
the Claimant’s entitlement to Title II spouse’s benefits on the NH’s record.
(1) a court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive
of its own State on choice of law;
(2) when there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable
rule of law include:
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
(b) the relevant policies of the forum (the place of the trial),
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relevant interests of
those states in the determination of the particular issue,
(d) the protection of justified expectations,
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
(f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Sec. 6 Choice-of-Law Principles (1971).
CodigoCivilDF_20151003.pdf , archived at https://perma.cc/LK95-QJ67 ; see also Press Release, Consejo para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación de la Ciudad de
México [Mexico City’s Council to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination], Los matrimonios
entre personas del mismo sexo son más estables [Same-Sex Marriages Are More Stable]
(Mar. 4, 2016), http://copred.cdmx.gob.mx/prensa/pronunciamientos/pronunciamientos-2016/los-matrimoniosentre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-son-mas-estables , archived at https://perma.cc/FN2C-UFAQ).