Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:54 PM

cal04 (37,032 posts)

BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:57 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued its order finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Karen Golinski's challenge to the denial of her request for equal health insurance benefits for her wife.

Golinski, a federal court employee, brought suit after denied the request. She is represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

In part, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White found:

The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html

BREAKING NEWS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional in California case
(snip)
District Judge Jeffery White, an appointee by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that DOMA violates the rights of Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
http://sdgln.com/news/2012/02/22/breaking-news-doma-ruled-unconstitutional-california-case

13 replies, 3874 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

13 replies	Author	Time	Post
BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case (Original post)	cal04	Feb 2012	OP
K&R !!! n/t	RKP5637	Feb 2012	#1
Took them long enough.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#2
A strand here, a domino there.	Iggo	Feb 2012	#3
It that right - the district court ruled against the Appellate Court? So who can hear the appeal,	24601	Feb 2012	#4
I think that might be the next step.	AtheistCrusader	Feb 2012	#5
No, the District Court did not overrule the Appellate Court (i.e. 9th Circuit)	Swede Atlanta	Feb 2012	#6
I didn't say "overruled". My point is that the entire 9th circuit is a party to the case. With an	24601	Feb 2012	#7
The party is the Office of Personnel Management, not the 9th Circuit	Ms. Toad	Feb 2012	#11
Yep - your right, I read it wrong. n/t	24601	Feb 2012	#13
anyone think this will help santorum in upcoming primaries ?	JI7	Feb 2012	#8
Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team)	sdghjtyjty	Feb 2012	#9
FANFUCKINGTASTIC!	William769	Feb 2012	#10
It's about time georgie's appointments start turning against him.	Dont call me Shirley	Feb 2012	#12

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

RKP5637 (25,785 posts)

1. K&R !!! n/t

Reply to this post

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:09 PM

cstanleytech (5,494 posts)

2. Took them long enough.

Reply to this post

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

Iggo (22,572 posts)

3. A strand here, a domino there.

We're getting there, kids!

Reply to this post

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

24601 (2,536 posts)

4. It that right - the district court ruled against the Appellate Court? So who can hear the appeal,

only the USSC?

Reply to this post

Response to 24601 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,519 posts)

5. I think that might be the next step.

Be nice to knock this law over once and for all.

Reply to this post

Response to 24601 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:01 PM

Swede Atlanta (2,335 posts)

6. No, the District Court did not overrule the Appellate Court (i.e. 9th Circuit)

The District Court is an inferior court of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court. It lacks authority to overturn a decision of a superior court.

The reference to the 9th Circuit appears to be in reference to the Plaintiff's employer, i.e. she works for the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit failed to provide her with benefits not as a result of judicial review but rather as an employer. I have to assume federal agencies, including the courts, have guidelines regarding spousal benefits.

The District Court judge simply held that the denial of benefits by the 9th Circuit as an employer is unconstitutional on an "as applied" basis.

The appellate process is to the 9th Circuit starting with a 3-judge panel of that circuit. From there a plaintiff or defendant can appeal to the full 9th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:46 PM

24601 (2,536 posts)