Lady_Jean_La
11-20-2009, 12:42 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/2334893.html
Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also reminded the bureaucracy that he decreed nine months ago in the same case that withholding benefits based on sexual orientation violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and the circuit's employment dispute resolution plan for federal public defenders and their staffs.
In his order Wednesday, Reinhardt wrote there is no rational basis for denying benefits to same-sex spouses of federal public defender employees while granting them to opposite-sex spouses of employees. "I conclude that the application of DOMA … to reach that result is unconstitutional."
Denial of Levenson's request "violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment," he declared.
Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also reminded the bureaucracy that he decreed nine months ago in the same case that withholding benefits based on sexual orientation violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and the circuit's employment dispute resolution plan for federal public defenders and their staffs.
In his order Wednesday, Reinhardt wrote there is no rational basis for denying benefits to same-sex spouses of federal public defender employees while granting them to opposite-sex spouses of employees. "I conclude that the application of DOMA … to reach that result is unconstitutional."
Denial of Levenson's request "violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment," he declared.