Skip to comments.Four-year fight for family health coverage leads lesbian couple to Supreme Courtís door
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 Golinskis 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 ...
Anybody know what the Ass. Press is talking about?
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Anything else is NOT marriage.
How I wish the Supremes would simply rule so.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.)
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.
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.
Legal in this world; not the next. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.