VIDEO: The Tea Party cheers for the Death of the Uninsured

Idiots!

In Arizona: The State must Provide Sex-Same Health Benefits

My former homestate is redeeming itself... Kind of. The courts in the 'grand state' tells them to keep their same sex benefits, for now. Here's more info:

Arizona must continue to provide health-care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian government workers, at least for the time being.


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld an injunction that blocked a 2009 state law from taking effect. That law would have eliminated health-insurance coverage for the same-sex partners of state workers.


In issuing its ruling Tuesday, the appellate court ruled that denying the benefits would violate the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.


“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit means Arizona’s lesbian and gay state employees will not suddenly find themselves without vital family health coverage,” said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based advocacy group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven state employees. “Our clients are simply seeking equal pay for equal work.”

This is good.

source

3 States' Approach to Gay Marriage, Partner Benefits and Civil Unions

In Indiana:

A vote in the Indiana House on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been delayed for at least a day.


Resolution sponsor Rep. Eric Turner of Marion said he wouldn't call it for a vote on Monday because some House members who want to support it were absent for the day. He didn't specify when he expected a vote.


Political analysts expect that the ban is almost certain to pass, with Republicans in control of the Legislature. The amendment states that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid in Indiana, and prohibits civil unions by stating that a legal status "substantially similar" to marriage for unmarried people is not valid.
Opponents have argued that the amendment isn't needed because Indiana law already bans gay marriage, but supporters said they are concerned that the courts could overturn that law.Supporters also contend that traditional heterosexual marriage is best for raising children. Opponents said the amendment seeks to write discrimination into the state's constitution.

In Colorado: Senator Pat Steadman introduced a bill to create civil unions in the Colorado.

And in Arizona:

Attorneys for the state will ask a federal appeals court today to let Arizona stop providing insurance benefits for the partners of gay workers.

Assistant Attorney General Charles Grube contends U.S. District Judge John Sedwick was wrong to issue an injunction last year barring the state from altering its benefits package.
That ruling requires Arizona to keep funding the coverage until there is a final ruling, which could take years.
State lawmakers voted to end the benefits to save money.

Grube said that before issuing an injunction, Sedwick was required to consider not only the claims of harm to the people losing benefits, but the harm to the state by being required to maintain them. But Grube said Sedwick was "explicitly dismissive" of evidence presented by the state about the cost burden on taxpayers of continuing to provide coverage.

Conversely, Grube said Sedwick gave too much credibility to what he said are little more than unproven allegations by those challenging the law.

Arizona provides benefits to the dependents of its state and university employees. But before 2008, that didn't include domestic partners of unmarried workers.

Trying to keep y'all informed.

GetEQUAL's Confusing Stance on the Same-Sex visitation rights

Today, GetEQUAL and Dan Choi had a lot to say about Obama, the hospital visitation rights and crumbs.


Here we go, this is a part Get Equal/ Dan Choi press release:

This announcement comes just days after President Obama issued a non-controversial directive to America’s hospitals that requires them to grant same-sex couples full visitation rights.


As noted by a recent Associated Press article, “Obama's new announcement appeared to upset few hospitals, in part because many already follow the policy he described.”

“Last week’s hospital visitation directive is a welcome, but small step. Long gone are the days when will we accept crumbs and politely smile as if we were served the entire meal,” said Lt. Dan Choi. “We are tired of waiting. We are tired of seeing our money and our support go to politicians who promise us everything yet give us only small token gestures in return.

We will continue confronting our elected officials, including President Obama, with direct action demanding that they fulfill their campaign promises to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”

Really? So, I guess the hospital visitation rights are small crumbs, although it supports MANY LGBT folks and stops horrible incidents like the Clay and Harold issue in Sonoma County.

Okay Dan, tell Clay that the visitation rights issue is small crumbs. Tell that to Janice Langbehn, Sharon Reed or the countless others who were denied rights to see their dying partners. Tell them it's a small token.

Seriously, GetEQUAL and Dan, where's your head at?

Also, I'm getting tired of these useless demands. They do not amount to much and it seems to be more about the org. or the personalities than the cause.

To say this is a small step is almost a slap in the face. Seriously this helps out so many of us, perhaps more than, (dare I say it) DADT. Now, both matters are very important, but I would love to see their faces if folks start saying that DADT is small crumbs.

Sen. Boxer introduces COBRA benefits bill for domestic partners

This weekend, Sen. Barbara Boxer presented the Equal Access to COBRA Act. This will give many domestic partners the same access married spouses have to COBRA health coverage if their partner is lose their job.

The law would apply to companies that already offer health coverage to domestic partners and their children. Currently, more than half of Fortune 500 companies cover domestic partners under their health plans.

Boxer said, “This is a question of fairness: Every family deserves access to health insurance, especially in this tough economy. This bill ensures that domestic partners and their families will have equal access to health coverage after a job loss.”

This is good. Well done, Sen. Boxer. I hope this passes.

source

Lambda Legal’s Jennifer Pizer has questions about the OPM decision.

After the OPM announced their decision on the Karen Golinski case, Pizer, a Lambda Lawyer, felt that their answers only led to more questions:

“Is it possible for Judge Kozinski to be acting in some capacity other than as an Article III judge?” she questioned, “We think when he’s sitting in an employee grievance procedure, he is an Article III judge, that’s the only capacity he has.”

Pizer explained that although the order he issued was not an opinion of a ninth circuit panel, “it is an order that has Article III force to it and he's speaking in his role as an Article III judge when he interprets federal law.” But Pizer was even more troubled by the fact that OPM chose to present its conclusion by issuing a public statement rather than actually countering Kozinski’s rationale in a legal brief.

“They’re stating their position via press statements,” said Pizer. “If they have confidence in their analysis, they should do what people do in legal proceedings.” In the case, Kozinski argued for a separation of powers — saying that if the judiciary has the inherent power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate itself, then it has to be the case that employees of an executive branch agency (OPM in this case) do not have superior authority to dictate what goes on in the judicial branch.

“They’ve said they disagree but they’ve never deigned to explain why. They’ve never written that analysis,” Pizer said of OPM, which took its cues in the case from the Department of Justice.

“What is the Obama administration’s analysis for why the ninth circuit doesn’t have the constitutional authority to regulate its own employee practices?”

She poses good questions, I hope they can explain their reasons. I believe it has a lot to do with DOMA and how this case could become a monkeywrench in the overall repeal. My explaination is probably way off, however, her questions should be answered, very clearly and truthfully.

The Karen Golinski Case: the drama, the result, the blame

Some of you may have heard about the The Office of Personnel Management matter, involving a staff Karen Golinski trying to get benefits for her partner.

Well at first, she was denied by the OPM & Obama Admin. Then Judge Kozinski, from the 9th circuit, stepped in and ordered that OPM stop interfering and asked the Obama Admin comply with his order.

Okay, I tried make it quick, but go here for the detailed version of the story above.

Anywho, the final decision was the OPM does not have the legal authority to provide benefits to Karen Golinski's partner.

And, that Judge Kozinski's order was not legally binding.

It’s important to understand that Judge Kozinski was acting as an administrative official in this matter, reacting to the concerns of an employee of the judiciary. He was not acting as a federal judge in a court case. This does not mean that the inability to extend benefits to Karen Golinski’s spouse is any less real or less painful, but it is a critical point.

The decision in this matter was not reached lightly — after we learned of this development, we examined our options and consulted with the DOJ. DOJ advised us that the order issued by Judge Kozinski does not supersede our obligation to comply with existing law because it is not binding on OPM, as it was issued in his administrative capacity, and not as a judge in a court case. Thus, this type of order does not change the existing law, which DOJ concludes prevents the enrollment. DOJ also advised us that DOMA prohibits same-sex spouses of federal employees from enrolling in the FEHBP and that the law does not permit OPM to allow this enrollment to proceed.

Okay, somewhat clear. I got it. But you know a day can't pass without folks trying to blame Obama for it. AmericaBlog Gay said that Obama violated the Judge's order, but if it's not legally binding, how can you violated it?

Others are saying that they went out of their way to deny Karen's partner. Really? This is law, like it or not, it is law.

I'm not happy with the decision, but it's the reality. Once DOMA is overturned, this will be a moot point. But to jump to conclusions and make assumptions really hurts our credibility. Who will take us seriously, if we are blaming Big Bird for having feathers?

This has to stop, Obama Admin didn't go out of their way to crush Karen's daydreams. They just followed the law, I thought we wanted folks to follow the law, not make them up as they go along. That's what the Bush admin did and we didn't like it at all.

If I'm way off please let me know.