Karen Golinski (right) with her wife, Amy Cunninghis
Karen Golinski is a staff attorney at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and all she has wanted for years (seriously, read the procedural history of the case) is what any federal employee wanted: the right to enroll her spouse in the super-awesome federal employee health benefits plan. Thing is, though, Karen's spouse is a woman, legally married under California law, and under Section 3 of the
Defense of Marriage Act
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
This case has a unique procedural history, having first been ruled upon by 9th Cir Chief Judge Alex Kozinski
in his internal administrative capacity, an order effectively ignored by the Obama Administration, but now it's before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, with the Administration now refusing to defend DOMA, leaving it to former Solicitor Paul Clement, on behalf of Congressional Republicans, to defend its constitutionality.
That ruling came down today from the Hon. Jeffrey White, and sometimes Pres. George W. Bush's judicial nominees say the darndest things:
The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:
(Continue reading below the fold)
Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile
Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of
careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against
people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.
Comments are closed on this story.