Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Denial Of Health Coverage To Same-Sex Spouse Unconstitutional
LA Times ^ | February 5, 2009

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: doma; firsthundreddays; homosexualagenda; homosonfr; homotroll; queers; ruling; sodomites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Judge's wife is former head of ACLU and ultra-liberal lawyer like the judge. Reinhardt is an unashamedly left-wing politician masquerading in judicial robes.
1 posted on 02/05/2009 10:26:13 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Libertarians rejoice!


2 posted on 02/05/2009 10:28:13 PM PST by Mojave ("Hippies, hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and play frisbee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

There goes our health insurance rates!


3 posted on 02/05/2009 10:28:23 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ( Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Yep, California, you’re in a world of hurt. It’s like you’re trying to see how fast you can flush yourself down the toilet.


4 posted on 02/05/2009 10:31:22 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses...”

Except that no one has scientific proof that homosexuality is anything but a choice.


5 posted on 02/05/2009 10:32:03 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade, There are only two sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Me guesses that the judge has an agenda, as you can't grant spousal benefits to someone who is not a spouse.
Judicial activism, anyone?
6 posted on 02/05/2009 10:32:19 PM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Which constitution is this judge reading?


7 posted on 02/05/2009 10:36:48 PM PST by Outland (So when do we stop typing and start doing something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Me guesses that the judge has an agenda, as you can't grant spousal benefits to someone who is not a spouse.

Of course, that comment isn't relevant to this thread, which refers to spouses.

8 posted on 02/05/2009 10:45:54 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Start thinking with a clean slate and remove government from the equation – get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.

Then, if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention. That ought to curtail government corruption of the institution and eliminate issues such as the one under discussion.


9 posted on 02/05/2009 10:49:18 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This is not uncontitutional.


10 posted on 02/05/2009 10:50:38 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Maybe you confused libertine with libertarian.

Because this libertarian leaning poster doesn't care who sticks what in who, as long as it's consensual and I don't have to pay for it.

I personally don't approve of queer behavior, but I keep the personal and politics separate.

But this is just big government, overstepping it's Constitutional reach, and asking taxpayers to pay for something else.

/johnny

11 posted on 02/05/2009 10:51:10 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
"Federal Judge Rules Denial Of Health Coverage To Same-Sex Spouse Unconstitutional"


12 posted on 02/05/2009 10:52:45 PM PST by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Answer: Private health caare.

Oh yea, oopsie, I forgot your agenda. Look dumbasses, if you do ‘whatever’, just leave us normal folk outside, and not paying extra taxes. I personally could, or would put up with much, but as soon as I have to endure higher payments for my healthcare because of “You”?

Nope I will NEVER accept that crap, and neither will most Real Americans.

AND If You Think Even for a Second that this dolt that is now POTUS is gonna help your cause, Your dummber than a box of rocks or less intelligent than a bag of hammers.

Guess What LGBT types, you got your foot in the door, and be happy with that, in reality Your CHOSEN one will dismiss you if he feels like he can gain a “Point” by doing something ‘Democratic’.
Hey!, LGBT types, you should actually embrace what true representitive government stands for, and guess what, you are actually a voter. But you types infuriate me, whether your voting a BDS Syndrome or completly forgetting the US Constitution. Hey, I’m just saying “You got what you wanted”. and when stuf hits the stuff.. Don’t come crying to me. I think the LGBT thing will be crushed under this Admin, I’m just saying. And be nice to me if you want to interject. I will not suffer fools.


13 posted on 02/05/2009 10:53:44 PM PST by ChetNavVet (Build It, and they won't come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Go to the article source and check out all the comments from the angry homosexuals because a female poster dared be politically incorrect.


14 posted on 02/05/2009 11:01:21 PM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Whoever gets to it first. Off duty in a minute, will check in tomorrow!


15 posted on 02/05/2009 11:48:42 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Yep. The Nutty Ninth strikes again. Hope that the Supreme Court reverses them as they do in almost every case that comes up from them.


16 posted on 02/06/2009 12:22:30 AM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses...

There is NO rational basis for defining the word "spouse" to include homosexual relations which are neither a genuine organic sexual union nor capable of propagating children.

17 posted on 02/06/2009 12:33:37 AM PST by verklaring (Pyrite is not gold))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; jeffc

A spouse is a husband or a wife, so it is relevant. Homosexual frenzy does not equate to holy matrimony. Humping a pile of rocks does not create holy matrimony between a man and a snake. Nor does any other perverse sexual act you can think up equate to holy matrimony.


18 posted on 02/06/2009 2:27:27 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

You can use whatever claims you want, but have fun in a court of law. You can’t just make it up on your own and expect the court to just let you define things that are defined otherwise by law.


19 posted on 02/06/2009 2:28:53 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: verklaring

But until you get the law changed to your definition, there’s a different one on the books. :-(

IANAL


20 posted on 02/06/2009 2:30:58 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


21 posted on 02/06/2009 2:31:44 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Start thinking with a clean slate and remove government from the equation – get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc

EXACTLY!!!

22 posted on 02/06/2009 2:33:27 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; KrisKrinkle
But quit pretending that homosexual acts are holy matrimony.

Agreed! And the government should get out of the business of holy matrimony and leave religion to religions.

23 posted on 02/06/2009 2:37:52 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


24 posted on 02/06/2009 2:42:23 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
Humping a pile of rocks does not create holy matrimony between a man and a snake.

Rocks are snakes?

OH...you mean Titanoboa...gotcha!

Well, what about a wall? ;-)

25 posted on 02/06/2009 2:47:06 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
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.

Yeah...it's called The Consititution.

26 posted on 02/06/2009 2:48:49 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I suppose you believe that the government shouldn’t recognize marriage between non-Christians. After all, that’s not “holy matrimony,” is it?


27 posted on 02/06/2009 2:49:55 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

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.


28 posted on 02/06/2009 2:51:43 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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?


29 posted on 02/06/2009 2:53:42 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
So if you can’t get the government to endorse your perverted lifestyle, you demand that public recognition of real marriages be forbidden.

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.

30 posted on 02/06/2009 2:55:07 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; sageb1

There are brain differences between humans and goats too, but that doesn’t make bestiality normal.


31 posted on 02/06/2009 2:56:03 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


32 posted on 02/06/2009 2:59:07 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
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?

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.

33 posted on 02/06/2009 3:00:08 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Then it must be unconstitutional for me to be denied benefits for my dog.


34 posted on 02/06/2009 3:01:45 AM PST by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

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.


35 posted on 02/06/2009 3:03:09 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nobama08
Then it must be unconstitutional for me to be denied benefits for my dog.

If your dog is your spouse, then yes.

36 posted on 02/06/2009 3:03:44 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I thought you said it was rhetorical.

I have to go boil my eyeballs in acid now.


37 posted on 02/06/2009 3:07:27 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Then I can “marry” my dog and it’s okay. Of course, this came from the 9th, which is no surprise.


38 posted on 02/06/2009 3:09:17 AM PST by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; sageb1
There are brain differences between humans and goats too, but that doesn’t make bestiality normal.

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.

39 posted on 02/06/2009 3:11:58 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nobama08
Then I can “marry” my dog and it’s okay. Of course, this came from the 9th, which is no surprise.

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?

40 posted on 02/06/2009 3:14:53 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Ever study our nations “sodomy laws”??
They existed from the founders (those guys that framed and ratified the US Constitution) until tyrannical liberal activist judges struck them down;
Pure leftist activism plain and simple.
You must have got your revisionist history degree over at www.democraticunderground.com.......
Seriously, your “constitutional” argument is ignorant.

Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perverts, reprobates and degenerates....
“Our constitution is for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” — John Adams

41 posted on 02/06/2009 3:29:29 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (To hell with the RINO party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.

Nonsense. These Judges are out of control and are not ruling on Consitutionality but on their personal issues. They should be removed from office for failure to do their duty.
No matter how many times you read the Consitution you will not find any language that indicates that homosexuals are to receive special consideration due to their perversions....


42 posted on 02/06/2009 3:32:16 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Coming to You From the Front Lines of Occupied America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Politics and religion have always been mixed. But that NEVER included same-sex “marriage”.


43 posted on 02/06/2009 4:09:06 AM PST by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Since every attempt at sanity in an insane world, would somebody tell me what, other than immoral, unhealthy or illegal, IS Constitutional?

We are living in a despotic state, run by judges, who care not one twit for the Constitution or what it means.

Deo vindice


44 posted on 02/06/2009 4:15:55 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
There are no same-sex “spouses” on the Federal level.
45 posted on 02/06/2009 4:33:26 AM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

DOMA falls as predicted and INTENDED this is why clinton signed it.

A federal marriage amendment is now needed.


46 posted on 02/06/2009 4:47:50 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy

Born 1931 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1980, and received commission on September 11, 1980.

Education:
Pomona College, B.A., 1951

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1954

Professional Career:
U.S. Air Force, 1954-1956
Law clerk, Hon. Luther W. Youngdahl, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1956-1957
Private practice, Los Angeles, California, 1957-1980

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male


47 posted on 02/06/2009 4:49:50 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Obama: Carter's only chance to avoid going down in history as the worst U.S. president ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado


48 posted on 02/06/2009 4:56:05 AM PST by Mojave ("Hippies, hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and play frisbee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

More legislating from the bench. Will California just hurry up and break off please.


49 posted on 02/06/2009 5:02:52 AM PST by rfreedom4u (Political correctness is a form of censorship!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

A Carter-appointed leftist/activist judge. This is not surprising. It’s just one more piece of their plan to socialize healthcare and to eliminate morality in America (a two-fer).

Once everyone has the same crappy “healthcare plan” there will supposedly be no discrepancies or discrimination. No problems. Everyone will be miserable. Except that....federal employees will get better healthcare than us peons that refuse to take a Big Brother government job. As usual, there IS no equality when dealing with leftists/socialists/Marxists. Equality is just part of their fascade/lie.


50 posted on 02/06/2009 5:14:07 AM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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