Question Presented
You asked us to determine if we can combine the dates of civil unions in Vermont and
Colorado with the same-sex marriage in Vermont to establish a longer duration of marriage
to entitle the claimant to spousal benefits on the number holder’s record.
Short Answer
It is unnecessary to consider whether the dates of a civil union and marriage can
be combined because the claimant (CL)’s 2001 civil union was recognized by Colorado
on May 1, 2013, and qualified as a marriage as of that date because CL could inherit
a spouse’s share of NH’s estate pursuant to their civil union.
Background
The number holder (NH), T~, and claimant (CL), K~, are domiciled in Colorado. NH and
CL entered into a civil union in Vermont on September XX, 2001. They then entered
into a civil union ceremony in Colorado on May XX, 2013. The NH and CL had a same-sex
marriage in Vermont on October XX, 2014. NH and CL have resided in Colorado from June XX,
1971 to present. CL applied for spousal benefits on January XX, 2015.
Discussion
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Windsor,
133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013). Because of the decision, the Agency recognizes same-sex marriages
for purposes of determining benefits. See Program Operating Manual System (POMS),
GN 00210.001. Consequently, all claims that were filed on or after June 26, 2013, or that were
pending final determination at the time of the decision, are subject to Windsor’s
instructions.
You asked us to determine if we can combine the dates of civil unions in Vermont and
Colorado with the same-sex marriage in Vermont to establish a longer duration of marriage
presumably because the marriage has not yet lasted at least one year. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a)(1). We need not answer this question, however, because the
Commissioner recognizes CL and NH’s civil union as a marital relationship for the
purposes of determining entitlement to benefits under POMS GN 00210.004, and the civil union by itself meets the duration requirement.[1]
POMS GN 00210.004 provides that a non-marital legal relationship—such as a civil union—can be treated
as a marital relationship for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefits
if such relationship is (1) valid in the state in which it was “established” and (2)
qualifies as a marital relationship under the laws of the state in which NH is domiciled.
Effective July 1, 2000, Vermont established “civil unions,” providing same-sex couples
with the benefits and protections of spouses. Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15, §§ 1201-02;
1999 Adj. Sess. No. 91, Sec. 1-3, 42(e) (session law providing effective date). CL
and NH provided a presumptively valid copy of their Vermont License and Certificate
of a Civil Union, dated September XX, 2001. See Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 5167. Thus, under POMS GN 00210.004.B.1, CL and NH had a non-marital relationship that was valid in Vermont as of September
XX, 2001.
Effective May 1, 2013, Colorado also recognized “civil unions,” including those between
individuals of the same sex. Col. Rev. Stat. § 14 15-103(1) (2015); see also id. § 14-15-104 (2015) (requisites to valid civil union); 2013 Colo. ALS 49 at § 32
(noting effective date). Similarly, effective May 1, 2013, Colorado deemed that “[u]nder
principles of comity, a civil union, . . . that [was] legally created in another jurisdiction
shall be . . . a civil union for purposes of Colorado law . . . .” Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 14 15-116(2). Thus, under POMS GN 00210.004.B.2, effective May 1, 2013, NH and CL’s Vermont civil union qualified as a marital
relationship under Colorado state law by virtue of the facts that they are domiciled
in Colorado and Colorado recognized their Vermont civil union.
As addressed by the table at POMS GN 00210.004.D, a man in a civil union has the right to inherit a husband’s share of personal
property under Colorado law if the man’s spouse (husband) dies intestate (i.e., without
leaving a will). See Col. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-15-107(1), (2), (5)(a), (5)(d) (2015) (explaining rights and
privileges of party to civil union); id. § 15-11-102 (2015) (explaining the share
of intestate estate awarded to surviving spouse). Thus, as of May 1, 2013, CL had
a non-marital relationship with NH that can be treated as marital relationship for
the purposes of determining entitlement to benefits, under to POMS GN 00210.004, because (1) their relationship had lasted for at least one year; (2) NH is domiciled
in Colorado; and (3) under Colorado law, CL is able to inherit a husband’s share of
NH’s personal property under Colorado law if NH died without leaving a will. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.345, 404.346.
Conclusion
We conclude that if the facts as alleged are accurate, you could reasonably find that
T~ and K~ had a spousal relationship for at least one year as of May 1, 2013.