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 ...
Uh, you think that they're not claiming this as a "right" already?
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?
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?
Obvious Lesbian [check]
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.
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.
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.
She looks like a vagitarian.....
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.
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.