It's like a Hydra. Win one lawsuit and two more pop up. I wasn't even aware of this one, yet it's in Oakland, CA, a flash-bang grenade's throw from where I live. Not to mention that I've kept pretty good track of the ongoing DOMA cases.
From the Marin Independent Journal:
OAKLAND -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the state's public-employee pension system must make long-term care insurance equally available to same-sex spouses and partners.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits same-sex spouses of state workers in obtaining the insurance.
Ding! This is the same District Court (but not the same judge) that struck down DOMA in the
Golinski case not that long ago.
Wilken said the DOMA ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment. She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."
Eventually, one of these cases will make it to the Supreme Court. But it's a long row to hoe. Only one case has yet been heard in Appellate Court --
Gill v OPM in Massachusetts, and that by a three-judge panel recently. We are awaiting their judgement; it will likely be appealed to the full First Circuit Court of Appeals before going to SCOTUS.
The Golinski case will be heard on appeal by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in September and, again, from there it is likely to go to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, not directly to the Supreme Court.
Two other cases, Pedersen in Connecticut and Windsor in New York are still awaiting District Court rulings.
And so it proceeds. Courtroom by Courtroom. Circuit by Circuit. Unitil Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and the four liberals on the court finally rid us of this horrible denial of equal rights. 2014 anyone?
Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:34 PM PT: In case you were wondering:
She ordered CalPERS to begin allowing gay and lesbian spouses and partners to enroll in the plan, but also said she will suspend that order during an appeal if the Congressional group files an appeal.
Whereas in Golinski, Golinski's spouse was to have begun receiving health care benefits, even while the appeal is pending. But only that one couple, not everyone in the judge's jurisdiction.
Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:03 PM PT: From Kathleen, Prop 8 Trial Tracker frequenter:
Here's the ORDER
http://www.scribd.com/...
and judgment (a formality)
http://www.scribd.com/...
Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:07 PM PT: Actually, I had heard about this case before. It's the Dragovitch case:
Dragovich v. US Department of the Treasury
The Case: In 2010, The Legal Aid Society filed a lawsuit for several California public employees who were unable to include their spouses in their long-term pension and health care benefit plans due to Section 3 of DOMA.
On January 18, 2011, Ninth Circuit Federal Judge Claudia Wilkin rejected the federal government's motion to dismiss the case in a response that left some believing she would eventually find Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional.