Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Federal Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional
KQED (Bay Area/CA) ^ | May 25, 2012 | News Staff and Wires

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; romney; romney4nytimes; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; romneyvsconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: Leep
Wonder why gays can not conceive? Perhaps our generous government should make it a right?

Uh, you think that they're not claiming this as a "right" already?

41 posted on 05/25/2012 4:02:46 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
She looks butch-dykey. Is she?

Itsadyke

42 posted on 05/25/2012 4:07:52 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Homosexuals use the black Civil Rights Movement as a point of comparison to their cause. Abraham Lincoln in a debate with Stephen Douglas clarified the issue of racism by comparing a black man and a white man. Clearly, between the two there are differences, but add a dog to the picture and clearly it is the dog who is different.

Do the same with a homosexual couple (or even a single mom) and a heterosexual couple. This is the angle of attack of the Pink Mafia. We’re the same they claim, but add a child to the picture and anyone can see that they’re different. It robs the child to deny a mother or a father and the perspective they give.

Now, lest we lose the argument consider the following without a child. You’re deciding on whether or not someone needs psychological counseling. Here is their symptom - they like to put things in their rectum, as a matter of fact they love it and want it. What’s your diagnosis counselor - sane or insane?


43 posted on 05/25/2012 5:44:11 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."

Hey Claudia, what proof is there that defining marriage ITSELF is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest"?

Other, that is, than a tax definition?

44 posted on 05/25/2012 6:06:02 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Obvious Lesbian [check]


45 posted on 05/25/2012 6:12:23 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
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.

Sorry, ALL of what you describe are cultural acceptances.

For "the state" did NOT "create marriage."

Marriage is a loving commitment made before God and the community. Traditionally, it has been also something people have wanted acknowledged by their preferred religious tradition, all over the world. That's why geneologists spend so much time in churches, looking through the marriage records and banns.

What 'the state" does is acknowledge "marriage" for tax purposes. That's it. And that's why allowing such a level of government definition is an incredible rape of the true meaning of the term - and of the human beings joined in matrimony.

46 posted on 05/25/2012 6:12:42 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

47 posted on 05/25/2012 9:10:31 PM PDT by massmike (The choice is clear in November: Romney or Caligula!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I would offer that it is the judge who is not rational as to understanding rational history of humans and related societal structures. The judge is a good example of social tampering using the laws and power of appointed office(not necessarily by social knowledge) to further some idiosyncrasy.


48 posted on 05/25/2012 9:50:58 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]

The National Lawyers' Guild is an old Stalinist front group -- they're as Communist as Communist gets. Many ties to William Kunstler and his foundation on the one hand, and the CPUSA on the other.

They're involved in the "Troofer" canards, and also in trying to get Bush and Cheney indicted and tried in The Hague in a Communist show trial.

49 posted on 05/26/2012 2:38:33 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

She looks like a vagitarian.....


50 posted on 05/26/2012 5:03:44 AM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

This reminds me of the old joke -— if you called a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: four - calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

No judge has the power to change the definition of “marriage” — in fact, one of the reasons that Webster’s dictionary was created was to define the words used in the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

If the people of a State or its legislature wish to pass a law enlarging the definition of “marriage” for the purposes of their state, I may disagree, but the 10th Amendment allows them to do so. But a Federal Judge has no such power.


51 posted on 05/26/2012 10:57:07 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson