Same-sex couples will get coverage

May 25, 2012

Same-sex spouses and partners are entitled to long-term care insurance coverage from CalPERS, a federal judge ruled Friday. [Sacramento Bee]

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken scrubbed part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Wilken’s ruling said the public employee retirement system’s ban on long-term insurance for same-sex partners “appears to be motivated by anti-gay animus.” She said the man-woman provision in the federal law “violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.”

Wilken is the second federal jurist to declare that part of the 1996 law unconstitutional.

CalPERS has refused to make the coverage available to same-sex spouses or domestic partners, citing the federal statute.

A Republican-led group of Congress members calling itself the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group opposed the decision.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Same-sex couples will get coverage”

I don’t think the majority of people care about palomony benefits between gays and lesbians.

I do believe the majority of people objects to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman being redefined.

Until the majority becomes gay or lesbians, the judges should leave the marriage issue alone and do what they want with same sex benefits and coverage.


Religious beliefs are not a topic of the article. Perhaps the moderator allowed this discussion in the interest of seeing where the discussion would go. I am requesting that henceforth the moderator remove injections of off-topic material unless he/she invites the discussion. See item 2 in the comment guidelines.

prbizwang… you are mistaken , as item 2 pertains to active discrimination . This negates your concerns, as Brother Ted cited no discrimanatory language or thoughts, unless the judges of popularity and comment boards deem that The BIBLE itself is discrimanatory.

Our Hebrew/Aramaic God awaits this decision ! PRAISE !

More condescension. Why butcher my sig? Ted is actively stating that Judge Wilkens should base her decision on the bible. See excerpt from Ted’s post 5/25/2012 at 5:42pm:

“Judge Claudia Wilken obviously doesn’t read her bible. In her decision, she is promoting the gay lifestyle. This is what happens to spoon fed pseudo-christians that want their bible their way, and not the Hebrew-Christian God’s way!”

It would be illegal for her to do so under the laws of this country.


Wait a minute, let me get this straight! You’ve been in discussion with me for two days regarding religion and the main topic of the story, and now you’re complaining and whining about it being off topic? Huh?

What happened? Was I bringing forth to many disturbing passages relative to what our God proposed for the homosexual, where you as a possible Christian, didn’t like what I was showing you?

No one held your hands to the fire to continue this discussion with me ad infinitum. You could have opted out at any time and brought up your “off topic post” at an earlier time. But, you didn’t! Do you realize in how empty, petty, and pathetic your position is at this time?

What a joke.

No. I realize the inappropriateness of my engaging the religious aspects of your comments. The judge is making a determination of law according to the constitution, not the bible. Therefor arguments should be based on interpretation of law as pertains to the country’s legal system, not biblical interpretation. I apologize to the moderator and readers for reinforcing Ted’s attempt to change the subject matter of the article.