Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,590 posts)
Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:59 PM Nov 2012

Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court

Source: AP-Excite

By LISA LEFF

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121125/DA2P8CJO1.html




In this photo taken Monday, Nov. 12, 2012, Amy Cunninghis, left, and Karen Golinski, right, walk down a street near their home in San Francisco. All Golinski wanted was to enroll her spouse in her employer-sponsored health plan. Four years later, her request still is being debated. Because Golinski is married to another woman and she works for the federal government, her personal personnel problem has morphed into a multi-pronged legal attack by gay rights activists to overturn the 1996 law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court (Original Post) Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP
As long as loyalkydem Nov 2012 #1
this is absurd, the gov is wasting resources on legal cases instead of covering one more person wordpix Nov 2012 #2
Problem + reaction = solution ricardA Nov 2012 #3
Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #4
What's your point? Gays shouldn't be allowed to receive federal bennies? justiceischeap Nov 2012 #5
You think straight people don't get married for health insurance now? Orangepeel Nov 2012 #6
If this was such a problem, why haven't we been hearing about it already? A gay (or straight) SWTORFanatic Nov 2012 #7
Well, at least they won't marry to get a draft deferment JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2012 #8

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
2. this is absurd, the gov is wasting resources on legal cases instead of covering one more person
Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:56 PM
Nov 2012

and BTW, gov health care is not free, either

 

ricardA

(42 posts)
3. Problem + reaction = solution
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:39 AM
Nov 2012

Population management in action. I don't think they really care to solve the main issues here, which are respect for the fellow human being and the needed access to reliable health care

Notice the most immediate beneficiaries: press, law and coutrs, and policy makers.

So, what people need to do is start to work in setting labs, clinics, good health services, and scan all the laws allready existing that allow that. Rather than paying for a theoretical help put that money into something like that. If for no laws exist already then efficiently work for that by first proving the solution needed rather than the one sought by special interest.

Show them by example, not by show.

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
5. What's your point? Gays shouldn't be allowed to receive federal bennies?
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:07 AM
Nov 2012

That's what it sounds like you're implying. That old "slippery slope" argument that if you allow gay people to have equal rights, then you've got to allow polygamy (group marriages) or let people marry their animals.

Just FYI, straight people can marry for any reason they want at this point and receive all the federal benefits available to them. I don't see your post complaining about this sort of thing already happening.

Orangepeel

(13,933 posts)
6. You think straight people don't get married for health insurance now?
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:51 AM
Nov 2012

People get married for all kinds of reasons from good to stupid.

And, although safeguarding the health of someone you love seems like a pretty good reason to me, gay people have as much right as straight people to get married for the stupid reasons.



SWTORFanatic

(385 posts)
7. If this was such a problem, why haven't we been hearing about it already? A gay (or straight)
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:12 AM
Nov 2012

person can already marry a person of the opposite sex solely for the purpose of getting on their health insurance.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,338 posts)
8. Well, at least they won't marry to get a draft deferment
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:26 AM
Nov 2012

... since there is no longer a draft.

Straight couples live together. Sometimes circumstances suggest that marriage is a good idea. Maybe medical insurance, taxes, survivor Social Security benefits, military family benefits, or just to get the in-laws off their backs.

Is it anyone else's business WHY a couple gets married?

Does it somehow hurt YOU if a gay couple marries?


Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Benefits fight brings les...