Obama administration blocks lesbian from getting health benefits after judge ordered it

[Bluebear]

A report published on TIME's web site just before the holiday has an explosive bit of information: the chief judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a while back that a lesbian federal employee who reports to him be given federal marriage benefits, and it was actually going to happen until the White House, through the Office of Personnel Management -- headed by openly gay appointee, John Berry -- refused to comply and directed the health insurance carrier of the employee not to proceed :

The order was not published, and garnered little or no notice at the time. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts moved to comply with the judge's ruling, submitting Golinski's insurance form to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the case would have probably gone away — had the Obama Administration not stepped in. "After the AO submitted Ms. Golinski's form, I thought this matter had concluded," Kozinski wrote. "The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski's form 2809, thwarting the relief I had ordered. I must now decide what further steps are necessary to protect Ms. Golinski and the integrity of the Judiciary's EDR plans."

Now Judge Kozinkski has ordered that OPM stop interfering, demanding last week that the Obama administration comply with his order.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/11/did-highest-ranking-ga...

[EFerrari]

1. Anytime now, someone is going to tell me there was no light on in that room.

[ZombieHorde]

2. What does your reply mean? (I can't see the picture in your reply, I don't know if seeing it would

help decipher your message)

[EFerrari]

4. These situations remind me of the movie "Gaslight'

where this evil guy tried to drive his wife mad by turning on the gaslight in one room and then pretending it wasn't on and only she saw it.

ETA: The pix is of the face of Ingrid Bergman at one of those moments when her husband is making her feel nuts.

/oops

[ZombieHorde]

6. Sounds like an interesting movie. nt

[Greyhound]

9. One of the all-time classics.

A must see for any film aficionado.

[Raine]

7. Good comparison

totally on point, these things are nutz (we aren't but they're trying to make us think we are).

[Bluebear]

21. Love the film

And, an apt comparison!

[Bluebear]

26. good morning

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

Will hafta watch this

[rpannier]

5. I'm sure there's a good, resonable explanation for this...

Like ummmm...Uhhhhh...Hmmmmmm??? (silence)
It's a secret plan by the Administration to uhhhhhh...Hmmmm.... (silence)
Oh. Of course. They did it because the...ummmmm.

I got nothing.

It's shameful and typical

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. He's still playing chess, of course!

So he's turning out to be a Manchurian candidate in regards the gay lobby. Typical of Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

[northzax]

27. Well, yeah

But OPM has to follow the law as passed by congress and signed by the President. Remember what it was like to have a President who simply ignored the laws he didn't find convenient? It's a bad law, sure. But it will take more than a lower court ruling or an executive order to grant federal spousal benefits to all partnerships. That's gonna take a SC decision or an act of congress.

So, Madam Speaker: how's about it?

[Greyhound]

10. Never fear, the Grand Chess Master has planned all of this out to the year 2099

and we will all stand in awe of his Master Plan once it is enacted by the Intergalactic Counsel of Omnipotent Overlords.

Until then, just keep hoping and most brands of dog food will provide all necessary nutrition for you and your children.

Hope for (spare) Change!

[ima_sinnic]

11. the administration of the "constitutional scholar" strikes again

wasn't there an episode of The Pretender like that?

[closeupready]

24. "Constitutional Scholar", lol.

Yeah, that was a good one, wasn't it? Almost as good as Keenan Ivory Wayans made up as a white chick. But Wayans does comedy for a living.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Also from the article:

"Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind? That, if true, is enormously troubling."

I think they're onto something here.

[Prism]

13. It does erode the joy of LGBT appointments

After all, what's the point of preening over the fact you've appointed gay people to high position when they're expected to oppress their own community just like any other heterosexual in the administration would?

I'm not saying it's tokenism, but . . . and there's no good way to finish that sentence.

[theHandpuppet]

29. There's a word for such appointees

QUISLINGS.

[Jamastiene]

14. K&R

[avalonofmists]

15. But Kozinski's argument centers on the Federal Health Benefits Act,.............

This is from Time that was referenced in the OP.



http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1942791,00.htm...

.........Kozinski's unusual and bluntly worded Golinski order comes 10 months after the judge, acting in his capacity as administrator in an employee dispute resolution, determined that the federal Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had erred in rejecting Golinski's inclusion of her wife on her insurance election form. Sidestepping constitutional questions about equal treatment for gays under the law, he agreed that the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the government from recognizing gay marriages. But Kozinski's argument centers on the Federal Health Benefits Act, which says that coverage must be provided for an employee's family, including a spouse and children under the age of 21. While the Administration interpreted that as meaning the coverage could only be provided for couples whose marriages are recognized under federal law, Kozinski reasoned that the law should be seen as setting a minimum standard for coverage, and that policies could include grandparents living at home, children until they are 25 or, as in Golinski's case, a woman with whom she is raising a child and is married to under state law.

"When a statute admits two constructions, one of which requires a decision on a hard question of constitutional law, it has long been our practice to prefer the alternative," Kozinski wrote in the January order. "The discussion above illustrates the constitutional thicket into which the discriminatory construction drags us. I therefore construe the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act to permit the coverage of same-sex spouses." (See more about gay rights.)

[northzax]

28. Parents living at home?

We're extending federal benefits to them? Siblings? Mothers-in-law? Sorry, this ruling is overly ambitious and a willful misreading of the Act. It was obviously designed to cover relationships recognized by the Federal Government since the existing categories are also reflected in the Federal Tax Code. Simple cohabitation isn't enough. My girlfriend is a fed, (I am male) we live together, have joint bank accounts, a mortgage on the summer cabin, joint credit cards, etc etc. We get everything but the marriage deduction, because we aren't married, according to the Feds. So I don't have her health insurance.

Should Ms. Golinski have the opportunity to marry her spouse legally and get these benefits, if she chooses to? Of course. But until that time comes (too long coming) or Congress changes to law, the Act does not cover her.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Facts matter. n/t

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

17. kicking

and recommended.

[Mari333]

18. knr

smoke n mirrors

[QC]

19. Now that's some FIEEEEEEEERCE! advocating right there. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

20. Here is the link to the TIME article mentioned in the blog.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1942791,00.htm...

[Bluebear]

22. thank you ZH

[ZombieHorde]

25. You're welcome. nt

[chill_wind]

23. k & R.