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

Skip to comments.

Lesbian federal worker wins health benefits case
AP via SFGate ^ | 2/22/12 | Lisa Leff, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on 02/22/2012 8:52:43 PM PST by SmithL

an Francisco (AP) --

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that the U.S. government cannot deny health benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee by relying on the 1996 law that bars government recognition of same-sex unions.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said that because the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples, the government's refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski's wife is unjustified.

"The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.

Golinski, a staff lawyer for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been trying to secure spousal benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis,

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 9thcircus; federalbenefits; gaystapo; homofascists; homosexualagenda; perverts; ruling; sanfranciscovalues; sodomhusseinobama; yourtaxdollarsatwork

1 posted on 02/22/2012 8:52:48 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

White, Jeffrey Steven
Born 1945 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by George W. Bush on July 25, 2002, to a seat vacated by Charles E. Legge; Confirmed by the Senate on November 14, 2002, and received commission on November 15, 2002.

Education:
Queens College of City University of New York, B.A., 1967
State University of New York, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
Attorney, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1970-1971
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Maryland, 1971-1977
Attorney, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1977-1978
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1978-2002

2 posted on 02/22/2012 8:53:37 PM PST by SmithL (If you reward certain behavior, don't be surprised when you see more of that behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Why shouldn’t I be able to get benefits for my pet cats as though they were sons and daughters? This is unconstitutional speciesism! WAAAAAAH!


3 posted on 02/22/2012 8:58:18 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Amy Cunninghis! The jokes write themselves.

I live way up here in Alaska and work with a lot of Yup’ik and Inupiaq people, sometimes called Eskimos. A friend of mine recently told me that there’s an Inupiaq word for lesbian. The word is “ilickulick.”

God, that’s crude. Hope I don’t get the zot for that.


4 posted on 02/22/2012 9:00:12 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“Amy Cunninghis”

Wait... wait. HAHAHAHA

NO, NO... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


5 posted on 02/22/2012 9:00:58 PM PST by TheZMan (Obama is without a doubt the worst President ever elected to these United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

I had to take a second look at that last name also. With this “marriage”, I think Amy would have a good reason to change her name.


6 posted on 02/22/2012 9:03:32 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: redpoll

Pulling our legs?

The Eskimos actually did borrow the word from English?

A very weird coinkydink?


7 posted on 02/22/2012 9:07:29 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Amazing how DOMA has suddenly become unconstitutional.


8 posted on 02/22/2012 9:13:18 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I don’t know where the Inupiaq got the joke from, other than a lot of Eskimoan words tend to end with that “ick” sound - although it is usually spelled “iq” or “aq.” I gotta admit that I love living with folks from those cultures - fun, mellow, and many of the ladies are among the most beautiful I’ve ever seen anywhere.

So since you didn’t ask...

Did you hear about the Eskimo who used to sneak around and look in windows to catch a peek at girls? You must mean Tommy Tookalook.


9 posted on 02/22/2012 9:13:18 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Interesting. But the Bush family is hardly opposed ,to homosexual marriage. Indeed, they have sent out the women publicly to announce their approval. Pure cynicism.


10 posted on 02/22/2012 9:14:06 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

Everything you knew in your younger days has been toppled; marriage has been destroyed, “white” men are completely marginalized, we press buttons to hear English on phone menus, our fast food places have Latino items on the menus, and our country bears no resemblance to what it was 30 years ago.

Less than a mile from me they buried a 20 year-old Marine on Monday who died in Afghanistan; for the life of me I have no idea what he died for. I know what he thought he was dying for, but he didn’t die for “our country” (whatever that means now). He died after having perverts forced on the military, and just weeks after Obama’s sweeping attack on religion. What a shame...


11 posted on 02/22/2012 9:38:46 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Destroying the budget, one lesbian parasite fraud of a desperate retarded government worker at a time.


12 posted on 02/22/2012 9:49:34 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

I know I’ll draw fire for this, but govt should get out of the marriage business, and let insurance companies cover people as they wish without the threat of the damn govt. There’s no reason for this kind of commie crap.


13 posted on 02/22/2012 9:57:34 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

One’s sacrifice will always depend on how America views and meets the future...even more than the past.
It doesn’t look good right now.


14 posted on 02/22/2012 10:22:46 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

It’s a federal worker, arguing about federal benefits. How exactly is the government supposed to stay out of it?


15 posted on 02/22/2012 10:47:29 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Is the govt self-insured?


16 posted on 02/22/2012 11:03:20 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Is the govt self-insured?

The government is what it wants to be unless you don't let it. Remember, they got organization; they got guns. Stuff you don't have.

17 posted on 02/22/2012 11:54:42 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Amy Cunninghis ???

Is this a pun?


18 posted on 02/23/2012 5:23:38 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; redpoll; TheZMan; SmithL; fieldmarshaldj; Impy

“With this “marriage”, I think Amy would have a good reason to change her name.”


Since Amy Cunninghis “married” Karen Golinski, and it would be an affront to feminism for either one to take on the other’s surname, I think that they should combine their two surnames into one and both use it (like L.A. Mayor Villareal did when he married his now-ex-wife).

So, may I propose that the happy lesbian couple henceforth be known as:

Amy and Karen Cunnilingski


19 posted on 02/23/2012 5:24:01 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

It’s not government money paying for these health insurance policies, it’s taxpayer money (i.e., *our* money). Members of Congress, as our representatives, approved a law in 1996 so that same-sex “marriages” from one state would not have to be recognized by other states or by the federal government, which law was needed that we wouldn’t be forced to subsidize health insurance for same-sex “spouses” of federal employees.

The federal government isn’t acting as a regulator when it purchases health insurance for federal employees and their legal spouses; it is acting as an employer and a market participant. What do you suggest, that the insurance companies who provide employer-paid health insurance to federal employees cover whatever they want and whoever they want and just pass the bill to the taxpayers? So long as we have employer-paid health insurance, the employer has to agree to who and what is covered, and in the case of federal workers, U.S. taxpayers, acting through our elected representatives, are the employers. I don’t want to pay for someone’s health insurance just because she entered into a same-sex “marriage” with a federal employee. Do you?


20 posted on 02/23/2012 5:38:22 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Born gay, as gay as the wind blows
As gay as the grass grows
Born gay to follow your heart

Live gay and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star

Stay gay, where no walls divide you
You’re gay as the roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide

Born gay, and life is worth living
But only worth living
‘Cause you’re born gay

(Stay gay, where no walls divide you)
You’re gay as the roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide

Born gay, and life is worth living
But only worth living
‘Cause you’re born gay


21 posted on 02/23/2012 5:39:31 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I know I’ll draw fire for this, but govt should get out of the marriage business, and let insurance companies cover people as they wish without the threat of the damn govt. There’s no reason for this kind of commie crap.

Got a better idea.. How about government employees stop looting my money and pay for their own damn health care? Then there's no worry as to coverage for Fido or Freddie...

22 posted on 02/23/2012 5:56:53 AM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

What’s the difference? They are government benefits. The government has to be involved in deciding who qualifies for them. Are you saying that insurance companies should dictate to employers who they should provide benefits to?

If the government needs to “get out of the marriage business”, as you said, then what about bigamy laws? Should I be able to share benefits from my job with six wives (or husbands) and force my employer to shoulder the extra costs so long as the insurance company doesn’t object?


23 posted on 02/23/2012 6:42:32 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

A federal judge postulates that a judicial creation (one that has never had the full faith and credit of state legislative legality, nor has any governor ever signed it) trumps a well-established federal law. Yuk yuk yuk. Good luck with that chump. You guys keep sending them up, and Roberts will keep sending them back down for reversal...
24 posted on 02/23/2012 6:44:55 AM PST by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So does this mean a mooslimb could get the whole batch of wives on their insurance?


25 posted on 02/23/2012 9:13:04 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; Perdogg; SunkenCiv; Dilbert San Diego; SmithL; ...

That’s priceless!


26 posted on 02/23/2012 4:52:17 PM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I don’t agree with your premise that the govt should legislate the conditions that affect how insurance companies determine coverage. And one of the legislative powers in question involves the govt’s ability to define ‘spousal’ relationships and marriage. It’s clearly abusing that power.

Also, there’s a point where the taxpayer no longer has a say concerning remuneration. It’s the employees’ money, not ours.


27 posted on 02/23/2012 7:26:00 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

The government isn’t *legislating* here; it’s negotiating (on our behalf) the terms of a contract for which it is paying (with our money). The government isn’t prohibiting insurance companies from offering health insurance plans that cover same-sex “spuses” (and, in fact, insurance companies continue to offer those plans to employers willing to pay for them); it’s just saying that it won’t be paying for such a plan for its employees.

How can you even suggest that insurance companies should have the right to force employers to pay for certain coverage? If Microsoft wants to be “hip” and “inclusive” and provide health insurance for same-sex “spouses” of its employees, it’s its money and it can buy that coverage if it wishes; but you can bet that if an insurance company said that its plan will allow unmarried employees to list their best friend as a “spouse” that Microsoft would tell it that it won’t pay for that plan and that if the company wants to sell health insurance policies to be paid by Microsoft that it better define “spouse” the way that Microsoft wants to define it.

And are you seriously going to argue that it isn’t taxpayer money that pays for government workers’ health insurance policies and that it’s really the employee’s money? Health insurance is a benefit that employees provide, but it is by no means “salary,” much less paid for by employees. If you’re married and your spouse works for a company that provides health insurance, you should get on your spouse’s health insurance plan and waive your employer’s plan, and then you should explain to your employer that it should give you a check for the amount that your employer *didnt* spend on your health insurance, since it’s really “your money.” And if you’re unmarried, or have a spouse that isn’t on your company’s health insurance plan, you should demand a check for the money your employer *didn’t* spend on your spouse’s (real or hypothetical) health insurance, since, again, it’s “your money.” Somehow, I don’t think your employer would fall for that trick.

Let me guess: when the government gives welfare recipients food stamps (paid for with taxpayer money), you think it’s some sort of constitutional-rights violation for it to say that they can’t be used to buy chewing gum? Because, you know, convenience stores classify gum as “food,” and it’s really the welfare recipient’s money. (Actually, a welfare recipient may have a better claim on food stamps being “his money” than government workers have on health-insurance premiums being “their money,” since the welfare recipient actually gets to decide in what store to use his food stamps while the government dictates to the government worker what insurance company will provide his coverage and what the coverage will be.)

If you want to argue that same-sex “spouses” are no different than spouses from traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages, then go ahead and argue that (not that I would agree with such view). But to say that the government, as steward for Americans’ tax dollars, doesn’t have the same right to negotiate the terms of its employees’ health insurance plans (paid for with taxpayer money) than private employers have with respect to its (employer-paid) employee health insurance plans is absolutely illogical.


28 posted on 02/23/2012 8:32:43 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


29 posted on 02/23/2012 8:34:16 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

>> The government isn’t prohibiting insurance companies from offering health insurance plans

That’s right, it’s mandating it.

>> How can you even suggest that insurance companies should have the right to force employers to pay for certain coverage?

I evenly suggested that? Nope, just something you fabricated.

>> policies to be paid by Microsoft ... better define “spouse” the way that Microsoft wants to define it.

Strictly a private sector situation excluding any law that regulates policy structure. Not our problem.

>> And are you seriously going to argue that it isn’t taxpayer money that pays for government workers’ health insurance policies and that it’s really the employee’s money?

If it’s your money, then take it back from the next federal employee you bump in to.

>> Let me guess: when the government gives welfare recipients food stamps (paid for with taxpayer money), you think it’s some sort of constitutional-rights violation for it to say that they can’t be used to buy chewing gum?

It’s not the chewing gum, it’s the Skittles. Go to www.no-food-stamps-for-skittles.org for more information.

>> If you want to argue that same-sex “spouses” are no different than spouses from traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages, then go ahead and argue

No, but feel free to keep on jumping to conclusions in order to protect your precious sense of statism.


30 posted on 02/24/2012 1:32:47 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Impy, lol.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2850104/posts?page=19#19


31 posted on 02/24/2012 3:03:45 AM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

You should learn the difference between being a regulator and being a market participant before spouting off about “statism.” When the federal government compels employers with more than X employees to provide health insurance, it is acting as a regulator, and it certainly is statism. But when the federal government decides what health insurance plan it will buy (with our money) for government workers, it is doing what every employer that offers health insurance does (and did long before the government mandated employer-paid health insurance), and thus is acting as a market participant, not a regulator (a distinction for which there is ample jurisprudence in cases involving the Dormant Commerce Clause).


32 posted on 02/24/2012 5:14:29 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I know I’ll draw fire for this, but govt should get out of the marriage business, and let insurance companies cover people as they wish without the threat of the damn govt. There’s no reason for this kind of commie crap.

One Nation under God & Unalienable Rights endowed from our Creator...

The government is attempting to replace God and by doing so attempting to take away our freedom.

The government should acknowledge what God has already defined regarding marriage. NOT become a bystander as you suggest. It is only a government that acknowledges God that as well acknowledges its limits.

33 posted on 02/24/2012 6:41:12 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is where Gingrich could really shine with his plan to reign in activist judges. I hope if Santorum wins, he finds a way to let Gingrich go after judges like this.


34 posted on 02/24/2012 10:42:23 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is where Gingrich could really shine with his plan to reign in activist judges. I hope if Santorum wins, he finds a way to let Gingrich go after judges like this.

This judge is not only ignoring the congressional mandates of the DOMA, but he is redefining marriage and thus finding a right to sodomy where none existed.


35 posted on 02/24/2012 10:44:13 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I’ll tell you what, I’m doing everything I can, including some highly questionable stuff, to reduce my tax bill as low as possible. F##k this s##t.


36 posted on 02/24/2012 10:48:00 AM PST by Marathoner (In the 80s we had Reagan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash and no hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Don’t know how to post pics, but one can be found at http://www.benefitspro.com/2012/02/23/lesbian-federal-worker-wins-health-benefits-case?utm_source=BenefitsProDaily&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=BenefitsPro_eNLs


37 posted on 02/27/2012 12:02:36 PM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

38 posted on 02/27/2012 12:36:27 PM PST by SmithL (If you reward certain behavior, don't be surprised when you see more of that behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel; All

Save your eyes, don’t look!


39 posted on 02/27/2012 2:05:23 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The 9th Circus is loaded with these side shows.


40 posted on 02/27/2012 2:06:43 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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