An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Judge Orders Compensation To Same Sex Couple
In what could be a significant development a federal judge in California has ordered damages to be paid by Sears to a same sex couple that was married during the five month period that same sex marriages were legal. This ruling would support the concept that any marriages performed during the period remain valid.
I would think even those who oppose marriage equality would have to agree that since it was legal when this couple was married and since Proposition 8 did not retroactively cancel such unions that the ruling is wholly proper.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Judge Orders Compensation To Same Sex Couple”
California legally issued tens of thousands of licenses, and the couples who got them legally married, and the courts decided their marriages could not be retroactively revoked. These couples are married, just like any other couples who get married in California, and they need to be treated as such!
The U.S. 9th Circus Court of Appeals. The ruling will be overturned. As usual.
.
[...] Judge Orders Compensation To Same Sex Couple | The Moderate Voice [...]
More proof that gay marriage is a terrible idea: the failure rate is 100%, nearly twice that of straight marriage.
Considering the motivations which oppose same-sex marriage are wholly irrational, I'm not sure why anyone should expect these same people to think rationally in this instance.
Considering the motivations which oppose same-sex marriage are wholly irrational
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2…
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2…
[...] Judge Orders Compensation To Same Sex Couple | The Moderate Voice [...]
Reliable data to back up your claim, please?
Ninth Circus Court strikes again — and what needs to be asked is, did someone seek to use the courts wrongly, in the first place? Where was this case before being entertained by the Ninth Circus Court?
How in the world is this a misuse of the federal courts? This case centered upon the interpretation of a federal statute, and thus is squarely within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction. This also is a suit against the federal government, and federal courts clearly have jurisdiction to make decisions where the federal government is a party.
“How in the world is this a misuse of the federal courts?”
If the answer you continued to provide is correct, you have shown that it is not a misuse in this case. If so, it is a welcome relief from what is a common as well as disgusting and subversive practice, the use of the courts rather than the legislature to change or amend law, or enact new law, by those who can't win elections or convince their legislatures to get their goals met in the legitimate manner, or who want to misuse the courts plainly as a political weapon. The federal courts are especially in the light for this malpractice, and misbehavior by courts as well as by those seeking to misuse them is routine, that the Ninth Circuit Court is called the Ninth Circus Court and has been for ages is no mystery whatsoever.
DLS, that's not at all the question that needs to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is “if a couple is legally married, should an employer regard them as legally married?” Or maybe you're just being contrary (shocking!). The legality of the situation is so blatantly obvious, and you don't like the outcome anyway, so evidently this must be in the wrong court. Is that it? For someone who's always telling everyone everywhere that they need to grow up, this is remarkably immature of you. If you have an opinion on the substance of the case, please give it. Otherwise, maybe leave those of us who do have an opinion to discuss without your off-topic silliness.
“More proof that gay marriage is a terrible idea”
I would instead look at the actual details — the behavior of the judge as described in the article is suspicious, as is the role he is playing in this and related matters. The person who comes across as the most sensible among all the parties named in the article is Eric Holder, who must resolve the PC Feel-Good political-activist appeal of other lefties with the actual facts and legal obstacles to what's PC.
I'm sure there may be misuse of the courts occurring in the manner you describe (because everything is possible under the sun, and there are those who seek to win at all costs), but to be clear, we do live in a common-law country. This country is run not just by statutes, but also by the law derived from cases. Judge-made law. The line that separates the powers is not so crystal-clear as some may imagine. For some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
“The question that needs to be asked is 'if a couple is legally married, should an employer regard them as legally married?'” [illogical additional material deleted]
What matters here is the definition of marriage, the real legal question. Additionally of interest is the distinction between married and unmarried (there is no obligation for employers or governments to make unmarried and alternative-arrangement couples equal to married couples legally or otherwise — to do so is to attack marriage itself, which is what many advocates actually are seeking, in addition to radical egalitarianism).
“there may be misuse of the courts occurring in the manner you describe”
There is no question about the decades-long history of misuse of the courts as well as misconduct by the courts themselves (typically arrogating legislative powers rather than correctly leaving these to the legislatures). In fact, some legal and related political reforms, for ages, have been attempted in response to such misconduct (including legitimate changes to law, in the legislatures and through constitutional reform, and involving initiative and referenda, as well as attempted recalls or removals of judges if their misconduct has been especially motivational).