Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional

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.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

-- Carol J. Williams

Comments

[Marie]

LA Times - with all the more important issues out there like the ECONOMY which leads to unemployment, more job loss and more foreclosures, do you have constantly go on about this?? The residents of California have voted, deal with it or get out!!

[Mark]

Marie, I think the L.A. Times can handle covering more than one story at a time.

I'm glad that they're covering it, and obviously, people are interested in reading about it because every time they do a story about same-sex relationships, the reactions are intense!

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so bothered by it. You should also educate yourself on how our government works. "The people have voted" is not the final verdict. We have a judiciary branch of government for a reason.

[Tina]

While I don't approve of discrimination against gays and lesbians, I do have qualms with the government giving benefits to married persons. Is this not a form of discrimination against single people or those, like myself, who feel no need to get government approval for a heterosexual, co-habitating relationship? When my partner dies, I'll get no death benefits. Had the movement for gay equality not gone down the road of marriage and retained its focus on civil liberties, in 40 years me and my partner and a legally married couple might be in the same boat. Maybe we'd get no government benefits. Or maybe the government would leave it up to individuals to choose who gets their benefits. Then a wife could choose to leave her Social Security to her husband, for example, and my male partner could choose to leave his benefits to me. Or, a single woman or man could give their benefits to whomever they choose. As it stands now, if you die legally single, all the money you earned through Social Security stays with the government. That's not fair. The US needs to start letting citizens, as individuals, decide what to do with government benefits. Let's focus less on "marriage equality," which just widens the circle of privileged persons, and more on civil liberties.

[Phil Jackson]

Just another attempt by the GLBT reprobates to re-define marriage and elimibnate any laws banning same-sex relationships. These gays and lesbians always cry foul and use the reprobate judges to get their way, noth considering their immoral and deviate lifestyle as contrary to nature. Why should the government be involved in sexual preference. You have to be demented and insane to equate heterosexual marriage as equal to gay marriage because it is not, cannot, and never will be. At best, it's a counrerfeit of what nature intended. You want benefits, then do what's right..marry a man if you are a woman, and marry a woman if you are a man...as God intended from the beginning...but we know better than God...so we think...so did the people in Sodom...."Till the fire came and destroyed them all."

[Eric]

So, Marie, you'd rather that the Times not report stories just because they conflict with a vote or the rule of law? I guess the Times should never print an anti-abortion story, since abortion is legal in the United States. Sounds good to me. Also, the marriage issue is all about money and, so, it is related to the American economy.

[Tim]

Judge Reinhardts decisions are probably reversed more than any other judge in the 9th Circuit. Here is another over-reaching attempt to legislate from the bench. He should go back and re-read the Constitution and not try to re-write it.

[defeat8nexttime]

Dear Marie, you bet we will "deal with it" and stay here as long as it takes to change the law once and for all. This issue is every bit as worthy of mass media attention as the economic crisis. Voters against sexual orientation-based discrimination, which is rooted in ignorant fear, will raise the argument again much more vociferously next time and we WILL effect a different result: Defeat of Pro-Prop.8 stupidity. Pro Prop. 8-ers wasted their energy and money on this one and, sadly, are presumably raising a whole new generation of short-sited fear mongers.

[S. TURNER]

Marie, the courts have ruled twice on prohibiting gay marriage and are about to do it again. Deal with it or get out!

[Zandt]

News and government aren't zero-sum games, Marie. Discussion of ongoing civil rights issues doesn't take away from coverage of the economy, foreclosures, or other things -- and government (including court) consideration of these issues doesn't preclude government consideration of measures to improve our economic situation. As then-candidate Obama said, "The president should be able to focus on more than one thing at a time," and I think that can easily be extended to other parts of the government, as well as news and people at large.

And, yes, the people of California have voted. The issue, however, is not dead. Hearings on Prop 8 in the California Supreme Court are scheduled for a month from today.

[homer]

Sorry Marie, homosexuals have only just begun to fight for equal civil rights. We are tax paying, American citizens and we will have the same rights as Britney, John McCain, and Ronald Reagen (all divorced Americans!).

[John]

Mary- The LA Times is not wasting its time on these issues. These issues are important to many of us, and helping us stay informed, I thank them for it. True there is a lot of despair in this country, but most of it was created by your right wing obstructionist friends. Just because a few religious zealots can put a distasteful and discriminatory measure, forcing their views upon the rest of us, inserting religion into government, on the ballot does not mean it is right. The Ninth Circuit got it right. DOMA will be repealed or overturned. As far as prop. 8, it will go down as well. YOU GET OVER IT!!! Freedom for all!!

[Michael Ballard]

You know, civil rights are a tad more important than most anything else. Yes, they do have to go on about this. Voters don't get to take away the rights of anyone for any reason. How about we vote to take YOUR rights away? Would you stand by and "deal with it"?

[Bryan T]

The last paragraph of the article is brilliant, and it really highlights the main failure of anti-gay discrimination: blocking benefits to same-sex couples isn't going to make gay people marry someone of the opposite sex!

Marie: If the residents of California voted to deny equal rights to black people, or to jewish people, or to Catholics, we wouldn't "deal with it or get out." Prop 8 was an outrage, and it deserves to be fought and overturned.

[deBeer]

The people have voted. Stop ramming this stuff down our throats. How many more Times layoffs do you people need to see the will of the people?

[Jay]

I am not a lawyer or a legal professor, but does the constitution actually provide rights for sexual orientation? I know I have heard right specifically spelled out for race, religion, and sex. Where is this at? It is frustrating to when you hear something is deemed unconstitutional and they don't mention specifically in the constitition it says that. I am just trying to understand it.

[Bud]

Marie ignorantly stated - "LA Times - with all the more important issues out there like the ECONOMY which leads to unemployment, more job loss and more foreclosures, do you have constantly go on about this?? The residents of California have voted, deal with it or get out!!"

Civil rights are not up for vote to be potentially overturned by the majority. That's according to the US Constitution and the California Constitution. If you don't like THAT... deal with it or get out.

[Paul]

Marie, The next proposition that the residents of California could vote on might be to deny people with the name Marie the right to vote. If the majority approves it, you loose your vote. Doesn't sound fair to me, even if the people of California vote it in. The most sacred business of the judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny.

[andrea]

Marie, read the front page. The economy IS being covered. Perhaps people also care about the basic rights of citezens,

[Dave]

Apparently Marie doesn't know how to read nor does she seem to be aware that newspapers have specific departments to cover specific topics. It's interesting news and I believe it was former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who indicated that in a case challenging the FEDERAL DOMA that it could be overturned on grounds of due process violations to the FEDERAL constitution - & Marie just so you & other people understand state DOMA will only hold up so long as there is a federal one because state DOMA's will then be subject to the faith and full credit clause of the FEDERAL constitution rendering them a nullity.

[Matt]

The LA Times is a respected paper that is read nationwide, not just in CA. Guess what else... ::gasp:: gay people read it too! Honestly, I'd love to see reporting on religious issues stopped as well, as that offends me, but it's just not going to happen. Unfortunately for some, the Times has a responsibility to ALL it's readers, not just a certain demographic. Some posters may not care about gay issues, but as long as my country continues to consider me and others like me second class citizens, we will always care! EQUALITY is just as important as the ECONOMY. If you don't like it, don't read the paper, because homosexuals aren't going away. As long as we're discriminated against, we will make the news. LA Times, please continue giving quality journalism to people NATIONWIDE regarding issues they care about.

[Kate]

If this goes up it will get overturned by the S Ct so fast that the ink won't be dry on the pleadings filed with the S Ct. (I mean the real S Ct - the one in DC.)

Kennedy won't go along with this and he is the swing vote.

Thomas, Scalia etc will kick this out and overturn it in a heartbeat. Their underlying theory of Constitutional interpetation is if it didn't exist in 1788 or 1791, it doesn't exist now.

Ergo, marriage to a person of the same sex did not exist in 1788 or 1791 and therefore it is not protected under the Constitution. End of dscussion as far as they are concerned.

Kennedy wil be influenced by the fact that 44+/- states have explicitly prohibited gay marriage and therefore such a thing has not been accepted by the majority of the US.

(And dont' try to analogize it to race. Racial discrimination by the government had to be addressed in a seperate amendment (13-15th amendments,)

[peter]

Marie:
Yes, the ECONOMY is important. However are HUMAN RIGHTS
not as important?
It's clear where your politics and religious views (lie)
Those of us who continue to fight for the same rights accorded
heterosexual couples have no intention of leaving.
We are unfairly taxed because of our single status and in large measure are responsible for the tax revenues which support the education and welfare of children in this country without the benefits
awarded straight married couples. What is fair about that?
The people in California did indeed vote on Prop.8 funded by the "Religious Right" organizations which enjoy a tax free status.
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state as
defined in the constitution?
They have no business interfering in civil matters and using untaxed income to further their very un Christian agendas.

[bewestbrook]

So we're just supposed to succumb to what Jefferson called the "tyranny of the majority" and go slinking back into the closet? Not a chance.

[Josh Indiana]

Tina, you left out the fact that stable, committed relationships are deemed a benefit to the whole society. It's not Gay people's fault if you choose not to marry, but to forego the 1001 benefits and rights that marriage affords.

Let's hope your boyfriend doesn't have an accident on the way home tomorrow, because if he ends up in the hospital, his parents will have the right to decide his treatment, not you.

The error in your thinking is that marriage means "getting the government's approval." As heterosexuals the government won't question your right to marry, approve or disapprove of you; it's automatic as long as you're Straight. What marriage is about is protecting your loved one.

You have a right to forego it, but consider the consequences. If Mom and Dad don't want you in the hospital room, you don't get in. I've seen this hundreds of times, with invariably tragic results. If your boyfriend dies and you own a house together, Mom and Dad get half your house. You end up a victim twice, because your boyfriend "felt no need" to protect you. He thought marriage was about "getting the government's approval," not Mom and Dad stealing half your furniture and all of his money.

[Jim]

Jay, to answer your question, yes, the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution both explicitly guarantee equal protection to ALL citizens. It's worded that way because the authors were wise enough to know that they could not spell out every possible suspect class explicitly. But by requiring that everyone receive the same treatment under the law, they're covered. So, if you want to deny rights to gays and lesbians, all you have to do is deprive everyone else of those same rights. The constitution does not explicitly give us the right to a civil marriage, it explicitly gives us the SAME right to civil marriage as a heterosexual has. It really is that simple.

[derek]

Kate stated: "(And dont' try to analogize it to race. Racial discrimination by the government had to be addressed in a seperate amendment (13-15th amendments,)"

Well Kate - You are right that it's very interesting that race had to be addressed in a separate (that's how you spell it!) amendment. Somehow the phrase "all men are created equal," was viewed as having nothing to do with race for the longest time, and the admission of another amendment to deal with race admits that very fact. Perhaps we should read "all men are created equal" as "all white heterosexual men are created equal". So maybe it is analogous to race, in that we will have to expect another amendment to deal with sexual orientation, just as we required another amendment to deal with race, and another to deal with women's rights (to which I'm sure you are sensitive). Perhaps we should question what was intentioned in that original phrase, and if we understand it fully, we can see how the fights against racial discrimination and sexual orientation are unfortunately intertwined (at least at this most basic level) in the US. What a shame!

[derek]

Kate stated: "(And dont' try to analogize it to race. Racial discrimination by the government had to be addressed in a seperate amendment (13-15th amendments,)"

Well Kate - You are right that it's very interesting that race had to be addressed in a separate (that's how you spell it!) amendment. Somehow the phrase "all men are created equal," was viewed as having nothing to do with race for the longest time, and the admission of another amendment to deal with race admits that very fact. Perhaps we should read "all men are created equal" as "all white heterosexual men are created equal". So maybe it is analogous to race, in that we will have to expect another amendment to deal with sexual orientation, just as we required another amendment to deal with race, and another to deal with women's rights (to which I'm sure you are sensitive). Perhaps we should question what was intentioned in that original phrase, and if we understand it fully, we can see how the fights against racial discrimination and sexual orientation are unfortunately intertwined (at least at this most basic level) in the US. What a shame!

[Ed]

I'm sure if this were 50 years ago, Marie would be complaining about how many lunch counter sit-ins the LA Times covered.

[Bud]

Brilliant Constitutional analysis, Kate... lol!

Don't quit your day job.

[Zosima]

I think Tina had some good points. To all you people railing against this decision. Remember that one of the arguments supporters of prop 8 put forward was that same-sex couples would get the same benefits from a civil union. Now the same people who supported prop 8 are trying to remove even more benefits. Clear evidence of the hypocrisy of these bigots. Why don't you people get out of the stone age and come join us in the 21st century?

[Walking the dog]

Marie,

I think I will start a proposition that states that anyone with a five letter name staring with "M" cannot buy groceries from stores larger than 25,000 square feet nor vote. With enough money and the right PR firms, I could probably get it on the ballot and passed. What would you say if the voters approved that Marie?

[asher hawke]

watch out dear readers...you may make marie into the next Joe the Plumber!

[pe]

The most important statement is that there is "no rational basis" for discrimination.

[ayg]

Um, Kate, it's actually the 5th amendment--not the 14th--that prohibits discrimination by the federal government. And it encompasses much more than just racial discrimination. Also, pls read Romer and Lawrence--Kennedy swings in the other direction.

[Frank]

Kate -- actually, if the Supreme Court REALLY followed your guidelines, they would say that marriage is an issue for the individual states and not for the federal government -- since marriage has never been a part of the Constitution. DOMA is federal intrusion on states rights. But isn't it interesting that conservatives don't want interference in people's lives --- unless it is to preserve their own point of view. One role of the courts is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. Rights are not something that should be able to be voted away from a subgroup of the public. I also believe that the religious or other tax-exempt organizations that financially support ANY political cause should lose tax-exempt status. If you want to participate politically, then pay your taxes.

[Bing Jou]

Since neither the State of California nor USA recognizes gay marriage, domestic partners are legally NOT spouses. A health insurances policy that insures only spouses should not be forced by a judge to cover a domestic partner. This is a legal issue. If a judge can redefine a marriage, we'd be in a big trouble. Let's say, 3 persons who love each other and live together and have a wedding among themselves and call their union a marriage and family. Would there be unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation when an insurance company refuses to give benefits to all the spouses involved?

[Erik Self]

It constantly amazes me how these comment sections bring out the craziest right wing ideologues on the planet I think they must live to make rhetoric and breathe to cuase dicontent. Thank you Erik Self

[Deshard]

AVG- you beat me to it...Kate is so way off when she proclaims that Kennedy would vote against same-sex marriage. She apparently never read his statements regarding Lawrence v. Texas.

Kate's just another GOP conservative hack.

[Tom]

While I voted YES on 8, I agree with this ruling. Same sex marriage was truly legal in the state of California within the time period the plaintiffs were married, therefore their rights to benefits applies. The Federal givernment is an employer, like any other, and should be subject to California employment law, which requires the extension of such benefits.

Yes on 8 people, you need to be consistent. If you agree that if they had an RDP; the benefits should apply, then they should apply in this case as well.

[Vivien]

Marie -- you're a bigot. Plain and simple.
Phil Jackson -- you're a bigot. Plain and simple.

If you don't like the news, then quit reading it. I'm sure the tremendous purchasing power of ill-educated cavepeople like yourself will cause the Times to retract all gay coverage for fear of losing valuable readers like you and your ilk and hence, advertisers. So quit - reading and posting here. That's the best revenge. Really. I'm just trying to help.

The Christian Right will die soon. We're just waiting for the hard core of geriatric nutjobs to die off in the next 10 years ... and then we'll remake this country into something to be proud of again. A place where all people are created equal ... A place where a proposition to stop STUPID BIGOTS from marrying will be passed and we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

[Johnny]

I think I could learn to be a bonafide second-class citizen, if only I had to pay second-class taxes. As it is, the heterosexuals want my share of the taxes spent on them -- that's rational? And this will be a huge issue if DA/DT is ever overturned, preventing any same-sex military couple ineligible for federal benefits that are routinely given to heterosexual military couples, for no less than defending our country. You can pay unfair taxes and die for this country, but keep quiet when Marie's sensibilities are offended by your desire to be treated simply equal. If you'll just ask Marie the Plumber (Joe isn't a plumber, either), she'll tell you she and her friends are of a better, more deserving class. And that's how this is just like discrimination based on race, or any other easily defined class of law-abiding citizens.

[Think]

I am sorry but in view of all that is transpiring, this is _not_ a priority issue. People are DYING out there, and all you can think of are your sex lives and your wallets. It's distasteful.

It's also worth mentioning that every step of progress the so-called "gay community" makes towards "equal rights",seems to come at a dear price to the culture that is optimum for families and child-rearing. It's almost as though you can't provide for yourselves without taking away from others, and are constantly drawing comparisons to this affect like jealous children.

Just the way you all leap on Marie for expressing a differing opinion shows that there is a culture of cattiness and a kind of abusive gang-mentality at play which is really disrespectful of other people's beliefs. Homosexuality was banned by the Church for legitimate reasons. It tends to squash out the conditions for healthy social development when it predominates, and it will predominate because lesbians are most often very aggressive, callous women who tend to have all the most unpleasant characteristics of men as well, but without the tempering qualities that hold men back. History has shown this and it is recorded in the Bible. Too bad if you do not find it convenient. It is self-evident.

And I am so sick and tired of hearing you all complain about religion when half of you are trying to dominate religion from the inside, and tear it to shreds as though it is somehow responsible for all your own personal failings. Always laying blame on everyone else. We never hear gay people admitting to their own failures. You're a jealous, destructive group of people.

Every single callous, incompetent school teacher I had was an obvious lesbian, and they make really cold, neglectful mothers, and I have a right to say this has been my experience because when given the chance, they inevitably try to force the rest of us to abide by their lousy standard, and they succeed because they are so aggressive. A lot of you are really selfish, sex-obsessed people who appear oblivious to the needs of others, and you ought to organize your own religion and leave ours be. The fact that you cannot do this proves you are destructive and that all your gains must come at the expense of others rather than through your own merits.

Play nice or go back in the closet, and for God's sake, keep your hands off of the children. Take your funny-business elsewhere because we've had it with this garbage and insult to our intelligence. You can't even admit you have sexual trauma, for Heaven's sake, and you expect us to believe you are all born that way. It's a CHOICE you are making 95% of the time, due to sexual trauma in childhood that you do not have the courage to own up to, or heal from. And when we do not own up to abuses, we perpetuate them! Shame on those who scream about their rights and in the same breath, deny any healing for the next generation through the propagation of a culture of hidden shame and dishonesty. You owe it to your fellow gays to come forward with your abuses so healing can happen for our children. For the future. And if you think it's o.k. if everybody is gay, then that's your right, but many people I know would rather die than live in a world run by gay people— as the high courts clearly already are.

[Frank]

The Times needs to give up on reporting the economic impact of benefits. Did the Civil Rights foes say in the 50's and 60's that if we give blacks equal rights it's going to cost the taxpayer more? It implies that the judiciary or legislature should consider the economic impact of "giving" equal rights, and that's just plain wrong.

[Common Sense Jack]

Look at the source. Reinhardt has the dishonorable distinction of being the most reversed judge by the U.S. Supreme Court in the history of American jurisprudence. The law is of no consequence to him. All that matters to him is his political agenda. But then, what do you expect from the person who is married to the southern California executive director of the ACLU, Ramona Ripston. Let's just hope that his political, not legal, monograph is once again swiftly reversed.

[jayvee]

During the Proposition 8 campaign, proponents said, "There's no need for gays to marry. Civil unions give them all the same rights." If that's so, then the health benefits should be the same for gays and straights. You can't say "civil unions are enough" and at the same time defend treating gays differently from straights with respect to the privileges granted to those who legally marry.

[Colorado Cowboy]

Is it every too late to right a wrong? The judge's ruling is right on the mark. The naysayers cling to their religious doctrine that is based upon the mistaken belief that being gay is a choice, rather than an uncontrollable fact of nature. Once you recognize the truth that one is born gay, how can even the religious sect continue to argue that God's plan does not include gay people?

And to those naysayers, no, I am not gay. In fact, I am almost as homophobic as you are. Years of brainwashing by my parents and society are not easily overcome. It's just that I do see that being gay is a choice. After all, who in their right mind would chose to be gay in a society as intolerant as ours? But I do despise the mindset that it's okay to discriminate against anyone in the name of God!

[Rob]

Well said Tina who posted on February 05, 2009 at 11:55 AM.
As for Marie posted on February 05, 2009 at 11:38 AM , prop 8 was pass with major church backing. Now as I recalled, the constitution did explicitly stated a seperation of church and state.

[James Oas]

Living with the same sex is not marriage and we should not use our funding to cover same sex lifestyles. They should get individual insurance like anyone else would have to do . They are not married, they are not special, they want what married people want. They will never get there because marriage was created by God for a man and a woman. Any other perversion should not be force fed down our fiscal and judiciary throats. Keep it to yourself and go back into the closet.

Jim

[Jim]

Think, are you for real? That post sounds like a bad parody of a homophobe...

And, yes, we all know people are dying in the world. I'd like to see how all of you who aren't in an oppressed minority would feel if the situation were reversed. Would you fight for equality even though people are dying in the world?

[Jim]

James Oas, "get individual insurance like anyone else"?

Excuse me? I think the whole point here is that anyone else wouldn't get individual insurance, their spouse would be added to their policy.

Whether you like same-sex marriage or not, equality is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Are you advocating doing away with spousal benefits altogether?

[Jason]

civil marriage = civil right

[B.Free]

Let’s be clear. The Constitution does not grant anyone the right of marriage. It does grant equality. Is this a case of discrimination? You bet! Just because you “believe” marriage is only between a man and a women, does not make it so. Just because your “holy” book says so, doe not make it so. It just means that your small minded religion that wants to exert its control over you says that such a union is against their God’s rules. Since our so called “secular” government is in the job of protecting Constitutional rights and since this government made the mistake of “recognizing” marriage it is bound by the constitution to apply the laws regarding discrimination equally to all. If healthcare benefits were allowed to the grandparents of blonde participants and not redheaded participants, that would be discrimination. Get where I am going with this. It does not have to be about race, color or gender. Discrimination can take on many guises. If you church wants to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, then that is ok by me. But, do not think your short sighted, small minded ideology has any power over what the state or federal government can deem worthy of protection. If the government is doing what it is suppose to do, all our rights will be protected. You right to believe a hateful and judgmental ideology as well as the rights of the insured person who happens to be married to a partner of the same sex.

If you want to gripe about something try the fact that single people’s health insurance premiums are covering all those “family” Plans. If you want real equality in the insurance world, make families pay for each member equally. That way the single people of this country will not be discriminated against and the side bonus is that couples (of differing sex) will take very good care about how many babies they make. Of course all those religions out there may not like this to much…you know, that go forth and multiply crap. Can’t do that if you’re queer.

[kennem]

Actually, B.Free, we DO need to be clear: the Constitution DOES grant the right of marriage, in supreme court cases dating back six decades.

Perez v. Sharp, 1948: "Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws." That was in the California case that allowed mixed-race couples to marry.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (US Supreme Court): "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court, concurring opinion): "The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected." In this case, even deadbeat dads have the constitutional right to marry.

Turner v. Safley, 1987 (US Supreme Court): Even prisoners serving time in prison have the constitutional right to marry.

So the question is, since marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for opposite-sex couples, including interracial couples, for deadbeat dads, for prisoners - why is it not so for law-abiding, taxpaying, lawn mowing same-sex couples?

State supreme courts in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut have all decided that, since the constitution provides for equality, marriage obviously must be a constitutionally-protected right for same-sex couples as well.

[Why can't we all just get along?]

James Oas: actually, marriage was not created by your christian god. If you take a quick flick through wikipedia, you'll see that Ancient Rome had marriages, and plenty of them (including same-sex ones), well before when you believe that Jesus was born, and China, a non-christian country, has had marriage since around 5000BC. In addition, it wasn't until the 1500s that priests were actually required to be present at a marriage - prior to this, any witnesses to the couple declaring "I marry you" were fine - which coincides quite nicely with the time when the church really started grabbing power, wealth and status for itself in a way that would make Jesus weep.

What gets me most about christians like you - other than the fact that you act in such a hateful way that your god would disapprove of - is that your eyes are so tightly closed. Go on, open them, question the world, question what you've been ordered to believe - have faith in yourself, a creature that you believe is of God's invention, to do the right thing without having to have someone else tell you how - that's what God would want you to do, and you might even find a stronger faith within yourself.

[Bing Jou]

Since neither the State of California nor USA recognizes gay marriage, domestic partners are legally NOT spouses. A health insurances policy that insures only spouses should not be forced by a judge to cover a domestic partner. This is a legal issue. If a judge can redefine a marriage, we'd be in a big trouble. Let's say, 3 persons who love each other and live together and have a wedding among themselves and call their union a marriage and family. Would there be unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation when an insurance company refuses to give benefits to all the spouses involved? A judge has no authority to decide if such a union be qualified as a family protected by and under the law. The Court’s decision expands its power to alter the definition of a family spouse without clarifying the murky ground of gay rights and interferes without a sound legal ground a private enterprise to conduct its business. It is a bad decision.