Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Current Affairs/World Issues/Science And History

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-15-2011, 01:36 PM   #27
MsTinkerbelly
Timed Out - TOS Drama

How Do You Identify?:
...
Preferred Pronoun?:
...
 
MsTinkerbelly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts
Rep Power: 0
MsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default From the Prop 8 blog

District court to hear oral arguments tomorrow in Golinski v. OPM
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hear oral arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of Karen Golinski, an employee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who attempted to have her wife, Amy Cunninghis, put on her government health insurance plan. Karen and Amy wed in California in August 2008, and when Golinski’s initial attempt to add her wife to the insurance plan was rejected, she filed an internal complaint with the 9th Circuit, which prohibits discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

9th Circuit Chief Justice Alex Kozinski held in 2009 that the court should reverse its earlier denial to Golinski, but the U.S. Office of Personnel Management instructed Blue Cross/Blue Shield to deny Golinski’s request. Kozinski ordered OPM to stop, but the office responded that under DOMA, it was prevented from extending health coverage to Golinski’s spouse.

Earlier this year, a district judge dismissed Golinski and Lamdba Legal’s claim ‘without prejudice’ (meaning it could be amended), saying the OPM’s obligations under DOMA trumped the 9th Circuit’s non-discrimination policy. The judge, however, did not address the merits of DOMA specifically, and noted that Golinski “ha[d] a clear right to relief.”

Golinski and Lambda then filed an amended suit challenging DOMA’s constitutionality. Since the U.S. Department of Justice is no longer defending DOMA in court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened in the lawsuit. Tomorrow’s hearing will address both BLAG’s request to dismiss the suit, and Golinski’s request for a summary judgment that DOMA is unconstitutional
MsTinkerbelly is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post:
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:02 PM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018