Not as simple as that. Though federal benefits cannot be denied to married same-sex couples, state benefits can be if same-sex marriage isn't recognised in the

Not as simple as that. Though federal benefits cannot be denied to married same-sex couples, state benefits can be if same-sex marriage isn't recognised in the state. This still presents some headaches for some people and even the most well-meaning of employers. For instance, imagine if you have a same-sex couple living in a state that doesn't recognise SSM (say, Wyoming) but who married in a state that does (Washington State). One of the two is working for a company just across the border in Washington State, but the other doesn't. Now imagine that the state provides health coverage while a person is unemployed, but it doesn't cover people whose partner's employer provides healthcare. Is the employed partner's health insurance liable for treating his unemployed partner or is the state liable to provide coverage? What about when a couple is travelling? Is a gay partner covered by their partner's health insurance when visiting a state that doesn't recognise SSM? What about states that have civil unions rather than full SSM? In Britain, it has been discussed a fair bit this week that even though since 2004 we've had civil partnerships which are supposedly "marriage in all but name", gay people in civil partnerships are still not getting fair treatment regarding pensions. As an openly gay man who might as some point want to get married, I've followed the news and discussions around the legislation on same-sex marriage in Britain fairly closely and I still don't know what the situation with pensions is, but apparently it's still broken. I think things will be in a bureaucratic mess for a while. It'd probably be easier if it could be legalised across the whole country in one fell swoop... but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.