BJ Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]
Posted on 05/25/2012 10:33:26 AM PDT by kevcol
(Bay City News) A federal judge ruled in Oakland that the state's public-employee pension system must make long-term care insurance equally available to same-sex spouses and partners.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits same-sex spouses of state workers in obtaining the insurance.
.
.
Wilken said the DOMA ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment. She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."
.
.
In today's ruling, Wilken also struck down a U.S. Internal Revenue Service law to the extent that it bars domestic partners from enrolling in the long-term care insurance plan offered by CalPERS.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.kqed.org ...
That’s a man, baby!
Dyke [Check]
This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.
Yep
Oh My Gawd: My eyes my eyes.
I assumed before seeing the picture that she was a Dyke.
The Picture pretty much confirms it.
Shopping for Judges is becoming a popular pastime for weird causes.
BJ Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
‘National Lawyers Guild’ member - a leftist “shadow” ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]
Hillary Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
‘National Lawyers Guild’ member - a leftist “shadow” ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]
Fixed it
She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”
.
The proof is there...you just refuse to acknowlege it.
Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.
The government today is more interested in placing somebody else’s kids in homes like the one this judge rules.
Logically, then, 3 people can marry, or even 100. Next, lawsuits for discriminating against polygamy.
If marriage is not one man and one woman, if marriage has no legal benefit, then the Communists have won and have successfully torn down the moral fabric of this nation.
We all have the same right, they can marry the opposite sex as we can, we cannot marry the same sex as they cannot and no where in the constitution does it state homosexual can marry.
Also if they want o redefine marriage then include all, yes ALL kinds of marriage not just that kind they want based on what turns them on.
About love, no I love my daughter and dog but feel no need to marry them or have sex with them.
Ever remember when they used to say they wanted civil unions and it was their private life, what a crock of crap that was as they used this and are using marriage in a bigger agenda and if the dopes out there on our side cannot see the bigger picture here and how they want the laws to let men have sex with boys then they had better wake up
nail on head the likes of Megyn Kelly has bene harpong on about marriage equality , well her guests have and she never questions them but if they want to use that term then they should back all sorts of marriage not just their kind of marriage and it’s about time our side started saying this.
We should not have given them civil unions years ago as giving them steps in their agenda has helped them further their bigger agenda.
see my tagline please
> Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.
Yep.
It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions, to have women protected and nurtured by a male provider and protector, to have women protected from the whims of men, to have stable, long-term households, to have large numbers of children, and to have these children turn out to be healthy.
We would be well-served as a nation to stop and consider why the nation-state and civilized societies created the odd institution of marriage in the first place, and placed the limitations and demands on it that it did.
To put it another way, we should ask ourselves why the state created a special (”odd”) form of contract, calling it “marriage,” and imposed on it some particular burdens but also allowed it special privileges. And, it should be noted, made THIRD PARTIES subject to the contract, compelling them to recognize it and give it considerations not given to singular individuals.
Note that any two parties can form a contract between themselves. In this contract, they can promise to be loving, devoted, share wealth, etc. This is perfectly legal and proper today, right now.
We should take note of how a marriage is a special form of this contract.
For that matter, note that any three or twelve or 157 parties can form a contract amongst themselves. These parties can be all male, or all female, or any combination thereof. They can promise to each other to be loving, devoted, etc.
Why didn’t the state allow this in the terms of what it calls marriage? Why didn’t it allow male-male marriages, or female-female-female-male-female marriages?
The state did not create marriage as an act of favor and mushiness towards the loving couple making a commitment to each other.
It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.
The polygamous marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The same gender marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The adult-child marriage does not accomplish these objectives.
> “violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment” [article]
Neither the Constitution nor any applicable amendment was written and approved by persons who intended for homosexual unions to be treated in the same way as heterosexual unions. (Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the prevailing views of those times should know that.) If some persons nowadays wish to have that, they need to pass new laws, or in some cases new amendments, that say so.
1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Fire All Federal Judges and start over
It’s Mrs Doubtfire!
National Lawyers Guild is an outright communist group going way back.
She is just another reason we need a federal marriage amendment. One that even nails civil unions so even the sneaking way the left attacks marriage is shut off.
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.