Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four-year fight for family health coverage leads lesbian couple to Supreme Courtís door
washington post ^ | 11.25.2012 | AP

Posted on 11/25/2012 4:02:33 PM PST by Morgana

SAN FRANCISCO — Like a lot of newlyweds, Karen Golinski was eager to enjoy the financial fruits of marriage. Within weeks of her wedding, she applied to add her spouse to her employer-sponsored health care plan, a move that would save the couple thousands of dollars a year.

Her ordinarily routine request still is being debated more than four years later, and by the likes of former attorneys general, a slew of senators, the Obama administration and possibly this week, the U.S. Supreme Court. Because Golinski is married to another woman and works for the U.S. government, her claim for benefits has morphed into a multi-layered legal challenge to a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing unions like hers.

The high court has scheduled a closed-door conference for Friday to review Golinski’s case and four others that also seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 11/25/2012 4:02:43 PM PST by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Like a lot of newlyweds, Karen Golinski was eager to enjoy the financial fruits of marriage.

Anybody know what the Ass. Press is talking about?

2 posted on 11/25/2012 4:07:37 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Criminal defense lawyers won't have the Twinkie to kick around anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Anything else is NOT marriage.

How I wish the Supremes would simply rule so.


3 posted on 11/25/2012 4:10:33 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots

FR really needs your help!

Please Contribute Today.

FReepathon Day 56!!

4 posted on 11/25/2012 4:13:06 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

They won’t.


5 posted on 11/25/2012 4:13:38 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Bump!


6 posted on 11/25/2012 4:13:48 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
Marriage is between one man and one woman.

G-d has defined marriage...anyone trying to alter that definition to fit their personal agenda is defying the will of G-d.

Good luck with that.

7 posted on 11/25/2012 4:16:13 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Within weeks of her wedding, she applied to add her spouse to her employer-sponsored health care plan, a move that would save the couple thousands of dollars a year.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the only reason queers want to be able to "marry".
It's not about "love" - it's about money.

8 posted on 11/25/2012 4:28:00 PM PST by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Like a lot of newlyweds, Karen Golinski was eager to enjoy the financial fruits of marriage.

That never occurred to me, although I believe Der Prinz was interested in the lower auto insurance rates for married men. Maybe that should have been a clue ...

9 posted on 11/25/2012 4:32:14 PM PST by Tax-chick (Are you getting ready for the Advent Kitteh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
We are seeing sex deviates being granted access to what was supposed to be programs that encourage the Family unit, recognize the tradional family for its values and personal responsibility, etc.

Now, we have created a "Special Class" (just like Blacks, Latino's, Women, etc.) that have access and protections that are unavailable to Christian White Males and Husbands with wives and children. (The Protections include Hate Crime Laws, Affirmative Action Plans, etc.)

10 posted on 11/25/2012 4:36:52 PM PST by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

Money and access to children. They will overburden the health care system because they have more health problems contrary to what they say.

Once DOMA goes away they will be pushing their deviancy in the schools in the guise of anti-bullying.


11 posted on 11/25/2012 4:42:59 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Every special category has harmed rather than helped the targeted group. Employers hesitate to hire special groups because of their tendency to sue or cause problems.

The same will happen with the deviants. They may enjoy the gains for a little while but they will soon alienate themselves in the work place.


12 posted on 11/25/2012 4:47:06 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
When the court is half lesbian then it's guaranteed to be declared legal. Obama’s America. Not exactly half, but you know what I mean.
13 posted on 11/25/2012 4:56:59 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl
When the court is half lesbian then it's guaranteed to be declared legal.

Legal in this world; not the next. :-)

14 posted on 11/25/2012 5:02:04 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Ha! Exactly!


15 posted on 11/25/2012 5:09:09 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

Yes they will enjoy it for awhile, but society will always look upon them as deviants. Yes, there will be tolerance by force, but people know instinctively that it’s just wrong and that will never change.


16 posted on 11/25/2012 5:11:04 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

I am getting old and my memory is going, but the “financial fruits” were not the most important thing on my mind when I was a newlywed. Still ain’t, for that matter.


17 posted on 11/25/2012 5:19:52 PM PST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



Some make more than one donation
Many make none

18 posted on 11/25/2012 5:23:29 PM PST by RedMDer (Please support Toys for Tots this CHRISTmas season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: USAF80

Back in the 90’s, I went to a dentist twice for teeth cleaning. His staff was ALL lesbians and I got the idea that it didn’t start that way, but maybe a lesbian started the hiring and it snowballed from there. It was just so uncomfortable going there so I found another dentist. There was this air of angrym vicious drama, almost like jealously, brewing. So, I never went back. Don’t care how good the dentist was, I have no use for angry bull dykes.


19 posted on 11/25/2012 5:49:05 PM PST by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Like a lot of newlyweds, Karen Golinski was eager to enjoy the financial fruits of marriage.

Why can't they go on their husbands' plans? Oh they don't have husbands...it is just two queers shacked up together. Well then they aren't married, so I don't see what the issue is.

Going along with their term of "newlywed" allows them to define the argument. However, you can't be a "newlywed" if you are not married. If you're not married then you don't have a spouse to add to your healthcare plan. And you have no case.

No matter what the SCOTUS rules, marriage is and will always be a religious institution. No matter how hard the state tries to mimic it, it will never be a marriage and will always just be queers shacked up playing house.

SCOTUS can rule that my couch is a dog, but that won't make it so.

20 posted on 11/25/2012 7:27:02 PM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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