Alex Blaze

Judge deals a rhetorical blow to DOMA

Filed By Alex Blaze | November 19, 2009 1:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: bisexual, DOMA, gay marriage, gay movement, gay rights, judge, lesbian, LGBT, marriage, queer, reinhardt, rights, same-sex marriage, sears lenehen, transgender

This is a small decision that governs court personnel, but it seems to imply that there is law that is more important than DOMA when it comes to government benefits nonetheless:

A gay lawyer in the federal public defender's office in Los Angeles, denied government health coverage for his husband after their marriage last year, is entitled to extra pay to cover the cost of private insurance, a federal appeals court judge ruled Wednesday.[...]

The federal defender's office refused to add Sears to Levenson's medical, dental and eye care plans, citing the 1996 federal law. Levenson said the denial has cost him $175 to $200 a month to buy private health coverage for Sears.

Reinhardt found the federal law invalid in February and reaffirmed his conclusion Wednesday, rejecting defenses that the Obama administration has offered in court cases.

Check out the ease with which the judge dispels with the notion that there's a rational basis for DOMA:







Too bad this decision isn't binding on any of the various suits against DOMA.

I do like the part about how denying eye care to same-sex partners doesn't turn people straight. So simple a concept, yet so complicated for the average rightwinger.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I wonder if the same logic could be used to force California to provide compensation for the lack of access to CalPERS long-term care insurance for spouses of state employees.