I'm sure she was shocked, shocked! She was free to find an employer who would cover two people of the same sex. Extending coverage to 1) one adult male and one adult female who are 2) legally married are objective criteria to guide an employer. Employers can choose different ohjective criteria, and some have.Lawyer Karen Golinski has spent the past 19 years working for a federal appeals court based in San Francisco.
So finding herself seated in court Friday as the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking health insurance coverage for her same-sex partner was disturbing and strange, she said.
"I never thought I'd be in this position," Golinski said. "I certainly never expected the government to throw their full weight behind hurting my family."
The office has argued that the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the government from recognizing same-sex unions.They have to follow the law, which for the time being includes DOMA.
Denying Golinski's wife, Amy Cunninghis, the benefits afforded other spouses of federal employees is discriminatory, Kozinski said.
Of course, all laws are discriminatory. And a "wife" is a woman who has a husband.
Over at my namesake blog, I note that now that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is safely trashed, the news media is suddenly writing about the hoped-for connection to marriage neutering.
One of the great things about Massachusetts, with our public option you don't have to rely on employment or another person's employment to obtain health insurance solely from an employer. Sadly enough through, the public option is cheaper then my husband's plan from his employer. But we MUST take the employer's option according to state law, the public option is only for individuals who can't obtain health insurance by that means.
ReplyDeleteWhile we live in a society, in which many mothers/fathers both work full time, in one parent scales back to care for care children she/he may lose her/his ability to obtain and afford health insurance for their children. This allows one parent to focus of child rearing, without worrying about what means she/he will get her/his own health insurance.
This is relevant because a man get a woman pregnant through sexual activity, behavior not orientation.
What are the health insurance coverage laws for unmarried/never couples? Does a man have to cover the mother of his children, or just his children? Or vice verse, does a working unmarried mother only is obligated to her children, not the father?
The link is broken to your other blog. It's unfortunate the link. I'm personally for the repeal of DADT. I do want to learn more about what it means to be 'openly gay'. Simply being gay, is irrelevant, it about what behavior no matter the orientation that may affect the cohesion of the unit.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between a man and woman that leads to procreation and serving in the military are two differing things.
I'm not sure what's going on with the link. i can see it is broken going from here, but I don't know why:
ReplyDeletehttp://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/12/20/dadt_activism_really_about_neutering_marriage.thtml