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 ...
Why are homosexuals so bitter over the fact that marriage is what it is? Take your pick. You can have marriage, or homosexual acts. But quit pretending that homosexual acts are holy matrimony. They’re not.
EXACTLY!!!
Agreed! And the government should get out of the business of holy matrimony and leave religion to religions.
So if you can’t get the government to endorse your perverted lifestyle, you demand that public recognition of real marriages be forbidden. I’m sure you have some way of rationalizing that.
Rocks are snakes?
OH...you mean Titanoboa...gotcha!
Well, what about a wall? ;-)
Yeah...it's called The Consititution.
I suppose you believe that the government shouldn’t recognize marriage between non-Christians. After all, that’s not “holy matrimony,” is it?
The same can be said for many things. Proof is difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, there is evidence (e.g., brain differences) that indicate it likely has some organic component, even if that might not be something at birth.
Aside from The Constitution requiring the government to endorse whatever perversion you feel like engaging in, does it also require normal people to subsidize your perversions with our tax dollars? If you want to engage in pedophilia, are we required to produce children for your pleasure? What part of the Constitution guarantees these “rights” for you?
And I never suggested such be done, per se. I suggested that marriage is something that is religious, not just a civil union. If it's a religious and holy sacrament, then it belongs in church, not sanctioned by the government, any more than we want to see government-sponsored prayer rugs.
But like is done in many countries, the government can recognize the partnership of a man and woman as a union before the civil body separate from the religion.
There are brain differences between humans and goats too, but that doesn’t make bestiality normal.
Right, and all you and the association of perverts have to do is redefine all the words so you can have “marriage” between whatever genders or species you want. If you can’t be normal, just redefine “normal” to your own perverted specifications. Problem solved.
HECK, NO!
If the government finds that it can obtain better employees for its dollar by offering benefits to employees who choose to enter in an exclusive partnership via a civil registration, then ok, but I would probably prefer it to offer benefits to individuals and use the cost differential for wages that the employee could spend on something of his choice, including his family and their health care, etc.
And I recognize the rhetorical device of using an objective "you," but please do not in any way get the impression that I am anything other than a red-blooded American male who has no interest in matrimonial union with anything but a woman.
Then it must be unconstitutional for me to be denied benefits for my dog.
If your church wants to offer “marriage” between a congregant and a silver dollar, then that might be a problem. But if you are dead set on your church offering a “marriage” between a congregant and a candle snuffer, then that’s your right to your beliefs. But don’t expect to get benefits that way...benefits are not a religious matter. Benefits are a civil matter and should be handled via civil procedures.
If your dog is your spouse, then yes.
I thought you said it was rhetorical.
I have to go boil my eyeballs in acid now.
Then I can “marry” my dog and it’s okay. Of course, this came from the 9th, which is no surprise.
And never did I say that homosexuality is normal.
I simply addressed the idea of "choice," in response to sageb1's comment...and actually, for the sake of clarity, I prefer the term "homophilia" for the sexual preference, with "homosexuality" referring to the expression of those preferences.
A kleptomaniac might have a desire to steal, but that doesn't excuse exercise of that desire or make it "normal."
On the other hand, it's not my business where someone wants to stick their private matters. What is my business is someone trying to claim benefits based on their religious beliefs or consortion habits.
No...
Then I can “marry” my dog and it’s okaylegal.
This is why it was bad to mix relgion and politics. Now that the door is open to give the State power to decide on "marriage," the definition has been broadened to include homosexual unions.
If next they decide to allow you to marry your dog and you decide to, then by logical extension, your dog cannot be denied benefits.
What a lovely world it is, when we mix politics and religion, eh?
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.