Posted on 11/18/2009 6:06:28 PM PST by SmithL
San Francisco, CA (AP) --
A federal lawyer who was prevented from enrolling his same-sex spouse in his government-sponsored health plan must be reimbursed the cost of outside insurance and other medical expenses, a California judge ruled Tuesday.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said Brad Levenson, a public defender in Los Angeles, is entitled to the money because the Office of Personnel Management refused to authorize health coverage for Levenson's husband of 16 months. That violates both his constitutional rights and the court's anti-discrimination rules, the judge ruled.
"The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses," Reinhardt wrote.
He ordered Levenson's bosses to negotiate how much Levenson is owed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Stephen Reinhardt and his wife, Ramona Ripston, are two of the most radical left wingers in the US. She is, or was, head of the ACLU in Los Angeles for years. He used to be on the Los Angeles Police Commission Board. He made life a nightmare for every police chief while he was on that board.
“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses”
Why not?
Disgusting. Long ago in the normal world a man with another man would never have crossed anyone’s mind as a “spouse”. Just disgusting.
Especially considering that no normal person considers him a “spouse”
Prop 8 apparently means nothing to the Ninth Circus. They took away God and now they’re doing away with the laws of Kalifornia.
For those who know more about the SCOTUS feel free to chime in -
Will the Gov’t attorneys appeal this decision?
If not, does this become accepted defacto law until the SCOTUS has to hear another similar case from a different circuit?
9th circus strikes again!
There better be an appeal to the SCOTUS.
The Judge in the Pending Prop 8 Lawsuit is strongly rumored to be a homosexual. He has been openly antagonistic toward the people defending Prop 8. He's all but declared that he is going to rule it Unconstitutional.
After that it would go to the Ninth Circus, who we all know will do the same.
It's then up in the air how the Supreme Court will rule.
Keep in mind that the Ninth Circus includes AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA, and the Prop 8 Lawsuit is based on U.S. Constitution claims. If it rules the way most suspect, the marriage laws in those other States will be instantly void.
How a filthy queer got assigned the case in the beginning is beyond me.
This wasn’t about Prop 8, but there is a lawsuit pending regarding Prop 8. The strong rumor is that the judge in that case is a homosexual. Care to guess how he is going to rule?
Ha! It wouldn't surprise me if they threw the case to begin with.
People are so confused and lost these days.
I couldn’t remember which prop it was and figured someone would straighten me out. If you’ve seen one prop you’ve seen ‘em all! In Kalifornia, that is.
More on Judge Stephen Reinhardt......
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0511parentsrights.pdf
When I read the latest affront to civilization of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (dubbed the 9th Circus, by its critics), I recalled the words of my old friend Rabbi Mayer Schiller – Talmudic scholar and hockey coach – pronounced at a conservative conference a decade ago: “Liberalism isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a vile combination of sickness and evil.”
That’s the only way to describe the 9th Circuit’s recent attack on parental rights – a thing to be abominated, excoriated and placed in the same category as the Spanish Inquisition, Jeffrey Dahmer’s cookbook and photographs by the late Robert Mapplethorpe.
The court held that public schools can expose your children to any depravity, can erotically indoctrinate them, can sexualize them when they’re barely out of diapers – and you can’t do a damn thing about it.
The case involved a questionnaire distributed to 7- to-10 year-olds in the Palmdale, California school system. The survey asked students to rate how often they thought about “touching my private parts too much,” “thinking about other people’s private parts,” “having sex feelings in my body” and so on. Schools that can’t teach kids how to tie their shoes are really into sexual instruction.
The interrogation was designed to elicit highly personal information to be used to turn children against parental values and make them compliant citizens of the sexual utopia the left has been constructing for half a century.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit dismissed a suit by parents against the school district. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt (Robespierre meets Kinsey) declared that parents have neither due process nor privacy rights when it comes to sexual brainwashing.
Reinhardt also was the author of the 2002 decision in which the 9th Circuit held that it was unconstitutional for students to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “one nation under God.” In part, this was based on so-called church/state grounds, but also because it supposedly violated the rights of atheist parents to transmit their values to their children.
Thus, examining the rulings side by side, Reinhardt believes exposing children to God (in the form of four words in the Pledge) violates parental rights, but conducting sexual interrogations — over parental objections — does not. Simple explanation: God threatens the left’s agenda, sexual indulgence facilitates it.
In the Palmdale decision, Reinhardt decreed: “There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.” Further, “We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy rights to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children are exposed as enrolled students.”
you would THINK that would represent a conflict of interest — however, it’s possible the US gummit lawyer was also in on the sex bender game, making this a thing of luck for the f*ggots.
Iknew it! I KNEW it! Another liberal judge unilaterally implementing the Gay Agenda, in contravention of the LAW!
It is probably an ILLEGAL marriage under current law.
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.