Posted on 02/05/2009 10:26:13 PM PST by Steelfish
Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional 10:54 AM, February 5, 2009.
A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form.
The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Libertarians rejoice!
There goes our health insurance rates!
Yep, California, you’re in a world of hurt. It’s like you’re trying to see how fast you can flush yourself down the toilet.
“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses...”
Except that no one has scientific proof that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
Which constitution is this judge reading?
Of course, that comment isn't relevant to this thread, which refers to spouses.
Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Start thinking with a clean slate and remove government from the equation – get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.
Then, if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention. That ought to curtail government corruption of the institution and eliminate issues such as the one under discussion.
This is not uncontitutional.
Because this libertarian leaning poster doesn't care who sticks what in who, as long as it's consensual and I don't have to pay for it.
I personally don't approve of queer behavior, but I keep the personal and politics separate.
But this is just big government, overstepping it's Constitutional reach, and asking taxpayers to pay for something else.
/johnny
Answer: Private health caare.
Oh yea, oopsie, I forgot your agenda. Look dumbasses, if you do ‘whatever’, just leave us normal folk outside, and not paying extra taxes. I personally could, or would put up with much, but as soon as I have to endure higher payments for my healthcare because of “You”?
Nope I will NEVER accept that crap, and neither will most Real Americans.
AND If You Think Even for a Second that this dolt that is now POTUS is gonna help your cause, Your dummber than a box of rocks or less intelligent than a bag of hammers.
Guess What LGBT types, you got your foot in the door, and be happy with that, in reality Your CHOSEN one will dismiss you if he feels like he can gain a “Point” by doing something ‘Democratic’.
Hey!, LGBT types, you should actually embrace what true representitive government stands for, and guess what, you are actually a voter. But you types infuriate me, whether your voting a BDS Syndrome or completly forgetting the US Constitution. Hey, I’m just saying “You got what you wanted”. and when stuf hits the stuff.. Don’t come crying to me. I think the LGBT thing will be crushed under this Admin, I’m just saying. And be nice to me if you want to interject. I will not suffer fools.
Go to the article source and check out all the comments from the angry homosexuals because a female poster dared be politically incorrect.
Whoever gets to it first. Off duty in a minute, will check in tomorrow!
Yep. The Nutty Ninth strikes again. Hope that the Supreme Court reverses them as they do in almost every case that comes up from them.
There is NO rational basis for defining the word "spouse" to include homosexual relations which are neither a genuine organic sexual union nor capable of propagating children.
A spouse is a husband or a wife, so it is relevant. Homosexual frenzy does not equate to holy matrimony. Humping a pile of rocks does not create holy matrimony between a man and a snake. Nor does any other perverse sexual act you can think up equate to holy matrimony.
You can use whatever claims you want, but have fun in a court of law. You can’t just make it up on your own and expect the court to just let you define things that are defined otherwise by law.
But until you get the law changed to your definition, there’s a different one on the books. :-(
IANAL
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.