(Federal) Court win for same-sex couples seeking benefits

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

In a victory for gay-rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

... She also rejected arguments that the law's sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

"Marriage has never been contingent on having children," Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples "does not encourage heterosexual marriage."

She said sponsors' "moral rejection of homosexuality" had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/19/BACC1HBOSN.DTL&tsp=1

[sakabatou]

1. Huzzuh!

Too bad the right-wingers are gonna spew about activist judges... again...

[swimboy]

2. Excellent development

Lots of irons in the fire--it's never too soon to do the right thing.

Of course my partner should be on my health insurance.

Let's do this now.

Onward and upward to equality.

:thumbsup:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Nonsensical first sentence...

In a victory for gay-rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

Why would state employees sue over Federal Government excluding same sex spouses from a Federal employee fringe benefit?

[TheMadMonk]

4. Because I would presume the state was using the Federal laws...

...to discriminate against state employees.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Even that does not make sense. State policies are already independent of the Feds

and its policy, not law.

This sounds like an important decision. I just wish the "journalists" would get the facts straight

[No Elephants]

7. That depends upon your definition of "independent." Again, read on.

[No Elephants]

6. The rest of the article elaborates in two places and does answer your question.

Did the writer summarize the legal theory of the case fully and perfectly in the first senence? No. But the info is in the story.

(First rule in law (I've been told wryly) is: "Read on.")