Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 02/22/2012 8:52:43 PM PST by SmithL
an Francisco (AP) --
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that the U.S. government cannot deny health benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee by relying on the 1996 law that bars government recognition of same-sex unions.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said that because the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples, the government's refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski's wife is unjustified.
"The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.
Golinski, a staff lawyer for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been trying to secure spousal benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Born gay, as gay as the wind blows
As gay as the grass grows
Born gay to follow your heart
Live gay and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star
Stay gay, where no walls divide you
You’re gay as the roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide
Born gay, and life is worth living
But only worth living
‘Cause you’re born gay
(Stay gay, where no walls divide you)
You’re gay as the roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide
Born gay, and life is worth living
But only worth living
‘Cause you’re born gay
Got a better idea.. How about government employees stop looting my money and pay for their own damn health care? Then there's no worry as to coverage for Fido or Freddie...
What’s the difference? They are government benefits. The government has to be involved in deciding who qualifies for them. Are you saying that insurance companies should dictate to employers who they should provide benefits to?
If the government needs to “get out of the marriage business”, as you said, then what about bigamy laws? Should I be able to share benefits from my job with six wives (or husbands) and force my employer to shoulder the extra costs so long as the insurance company doesn’t object?
So does this mean a mooslimb could get the whole batch of wives on their insurance?
That’s priceless!
I don’t agree with your premise that the govt should legislate the conditions that affect how insurance companies determine coverage. And one of the legislative powers in question involves the govt’s ability to define ‘spousal’ relationships and marriage. It’s clearly abusing that power.
Also, there’s a point where the taxpayer no longer has a say concerning remuneration. It’s the employees’ money, not ours.
The government isn’t *legislating* here; it’s negotiating (on our behalf) the terms of a contract for which it is paying (with our money). The government isn’t prohibiting insurance companies from offering health insurance plans that cover same-sex “spuses” (and, in fact, insurance companies continue to offer those plans to employers willing to pay for them); it’s just saying that it won’t be paying for such a plan for its employees.
How can you even suggest that insurance companies should have the right to force employers to pay for certain coverage? If Microsoft wants to be “hip” and “inclusive” and provide health insurance for same-sex “spouses” of its employees, it’s its money and it can buy that coverage if it wishes; but you can bet that if an insurance company said that its plan will allow unmarried employees to list their best friend as a “spouse” that Microsoft would tell it that it won’t pay for that plan and that if the company wants to sell health insurance policies to be paid by Microsoft that it better define “spouse” the way that Microsoft wants to define it.
And are you seriously going to argue that it isn’t taxpayer money that pays for government workers’ health insurance policies and that it’s really the employee’s money? Health insurance is a benefit that employees provide, but it is by no means “salary,” much less paid for by employees. If you’re married and your spouse works for a company that provides health insurance, you should get on your spouse’s health insurance plan and waive your employer’s plan, and then you should explain to your employer that it should give you a check for the amount that your employer *didnt* spend on your health insurance, since it’s really “your money.” And if you’re unmarried, or have a spouse that isn’t on your company’s health insurance plan, you should demand a check for the money your employer *didn’t* spend on your spouse’s (real or hypothetical) health insurance, since, again, it’s “your money.” Somehow, I don’t think your employer would fall for that trick.
Let me guess: when the government gives welfare recipients food stamps (paid for with taxpayer money), you think it’s some sort of constitutional-rights violation for it to say that they can’t be used to buy chewing gum? Because, you know, convenience stores classify gum as “food,” and it’s really the welfare recipient’s money. (Actually, a welfare recipient may have a better claim on food stamps being “his money” than government workers have on health-insurance premiums being “their money,” since the welfare recipient actually gets to decide in what store to use his food stamps while the government dictates to the government worker what insurance company will provide his coverage and what the coverage will be.)
If you want to argue that same-sex “spouses” are no different than spouses from traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages, then go ahead and argue that (not that I would agree with such view). But to say that the government, as steward for Americans’ tax dollars, doesn’t have the same right to negotiate the terms of its employees’ health insurance plans (paid for with taxpayer money) than private employers have with respect to its (employer-paid) employee health insurance plans is absolutely illogical.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
>> The government isn’t prohibiting insurance companies from offering health insurance plans
That’s right, it’s mandating it.
>> How can you even suggest that insurance companies should have the right to force employers to pay for certain coverage?
I evenly suggested that? Nope, just something you fabricated.
>> policies to be paid by Microsoft ... better define “spouse” the way that Microsoft wants to define it.
Strictly a private sector situation excluding any law that regulates policy structure. Not our problem.
>> And are you seriously going to argue that it isn’t taxpayer money that pays for government workers’ health insurance policies and that it’s really the employee’s money?
If it’s your money, then take it back from the next federal employee you bump in to.
>> Let me guess: when the government gives welfare recipients food stamps (paid for with taxpayer money), you think it’s some sort of constitutional-rights violation for it to say that they can’t be used to buy chewing gum?
It’s not the chewing gum, it’s the Skittles. Go to www.no-food-stamps-for-skittles.org for more information.
>> If you want to argue that same-sex “spouses” are no different than spouses from traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages, then go ahead and argue
No, but feel free to keep on jumping to conclusions in order to protect your precious sense of statism.
You should learn the difference between being a regulator and being a market participant before spouting off about “statism.” When the federal government compels employers with more than X employees to provide health insurance, it is acting as a regulator, and it certainly is statism. But when the federal government decides what health insurance plan it will buy (with our money) for government workers, it is doing what every employer that offers health insurance does (and did long before the government mandated employer-paid health insurance), and thus is acting as a market participant, not a regulator (a distinction for which there is ample jurisprudence in cases involving the Dormant Commerce Clause).
One Nation under God & Unalienable Rights endowed from our Creator...
The government is attempting to replace God and by doing so attempting to take away our freedom.
The government should acknowledge what God has already defined regarding marriage. NOT become a bystander as you suggest. It is only a government that acknowledges God that as well acknowledges its limits.
This is where Gingrich could really shine with his plan to reign in activist judges. I hope if Santorum wins, he finds a way to let Gingrich go after judges like this.
This is where Gingrich could really shine with his plan to reign in activist judges. I hope if Santorum wins, he finds a way to let Gingrich go after judges like this.
This judge is not only ignoring the congressional mandates of the DOMA, but he is redefining marriage and thus finding a right to sodomy where none existed.
I’ll tell you what, I’m doing everything I can, including some highly questionable stuff, to reduce my tax bill as low as possible. F##k this s##t.
Don’t know how to post pics, but one can be found at http://www.benefitspro.com/2012/02/23/lesbian-federal-worker-wins-health-benefits-case?utm_source=BenefitsProDaily&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=BenefitsPro_eNLs
Save your eyes, don’t look!
The 9th Circus is loaded with these side shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.