Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Posted: 12/19/2009 11:02:16 AM EDT
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNSN1B6ISS.DTL&tsp=1

The Obama administration refused Friday to follow a federal judge's order to provide insurance benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee in San Francisco and said its hands were tied by a discriminatory law.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNSN1B6ISS.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0aAP7yRUt
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:05:09 AM EDT
haha! so didn't all the alternative person vote for him and in turn he screws them

Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:16:53 AM EDT
DU is enraged

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4191251#4191266
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:18:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By armoredsaint:
haha! so didn't all the alternative person vote for him and in turn he screws them


I think that the Hope and Change brigade is catching on.  I am starting to hear that expression "Hope and Change" used with more than a little sarcasm from folks who voted for him.  In that way, he is definitely helping.  
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:29:22 AM EDT
They are married, they get the benefits, it's that simple.
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:31:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2009 11:31:27 AM EDT by Shootist_Jeff]
Originally Posted By NathanJK:
They are married, they get the benefits, it's that simple.


They're not legally married so it's not that simple.
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:31:54 AM EDT
Under DOMA they are not, under CA law yes they are
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:34:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC:
Under DOMA they are not, under CA law yes they are


CA voters said NO!
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:36:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shootist_Jeff:
Originally Posted By NathanJK:
They are married, they get the benefits, it's that simple.


They're not legally married so it's not that simple.


This
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:55:59 AM EDT
Alex Kozinski is one of the best judges around.  It'd be tough for me to believe he was wrong without researching the issue.
Here are some of the great nuggets from one of Judge Kozinski's dissenting opinions regarding the Second Amendment:

"It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us."

"The majority falls prey to the delusion––popular in some circles––that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth––born of experience––is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out."

"All too many of the great tragedies of history––Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few––were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations."

"Many could have been avoided or mitigated had the perpetrators known that their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece"

"If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars."

"The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it––and is just as likely to succeed."
Link Posted: 12/19/2009 11:57:05 AM EDT
The voters?



Please.



The constitution hardly matters anymore.



Voters?



Surely you jest.



Just submit to the bliss of the secular liberal utopia they have built over the last 50 years.






Originally Posted By ranchhand:



Originally Posted By CRC:

Under DOMA they are not, under CA law yes they are




CA voters said NO!






 
Top Top