Government presses fight over lesbian employee's benefits

SAN FRANCISCO Tue Mar 1, 2011 10:30am EST

A gay couple hold hands as they look at a wedding photo at their home in San Francisco, California June 11, 2008. REUTERS/Erin Siegal

A gay couple hold hands as they look at a wedding photo at their home in San Francisco, California June 11, 2008.

Credit: Reuters/Erin Siegal

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Obama administration will press ahead with its fight against one federal employee's bid to obtain health insurance for her same-sex spouse, according to a government court filing on Monday.

The decision by the Justice Department comes days after it announced that a federal statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- known as the Defense of Marriage Act -- was unconstitutional.

Karen Golinski, a lawyer who works for a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, requested in 2008 that her same-sex spouse be added to her family health insurance plan, according to court filings.

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, acting as a court administrator, ordered Golinski's insurance carrier to provide the benefits.

However, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management instructed the insurance carrier not to comply. Golinski sued OPM to enforce the order.

Given the recent Obama policy shift on the marriage act, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a written order last week asking the administration to explain how it could continue defending the Golinski lawsuit.

In a filing on Monday, DOJ attorneys reiterated that Obama told executive agencies to enforce the law until Congress repealed it -- even though the administration would no longer defend its constitutionality in court.

But White need not decide the law's constitutionality to resolve the Golinski case, DOJ attorneys wrote. The Kozinski order is not enforceable through the kind of lawsuit Golinski filed, DOJ argued.

Jennifer Pizer, one of Golinski's attorneys, said it would have been much more "helpful and consistent" with Obama's shift had government lawyers taken the position that Golinski could reenroll her wife in the family health plan.

"That is the correct answer in this case," Pizer said.

A DOJ representative declined to comment beyond the court filing.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Karen Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and John Berry, 10-257.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
limapie wrote:
The judge’s (Kozinski’s) order that the partner was to be insured
is not an enforceable order and had nothing to do with the constitution.
The DOJ didn’t need to take up its time with the issue that didn’t apply to their jurisdiction AND was totally redundant.

This public worker (Golinski) is wasting people’s time and tax dollars to be pesty, selfish, and hogging. The law is what the law says.
Live with it. Private sector people do.

When are these public workers going to get it? The government-S are stone broke. California is REALLY broke.
And STILL these public workers demand more and try all kinds of
whining and kicking around and pounding on drums and yelling and spoiled kid stuff.

I read an article that said China owns over 2 TRILLION dollars of our debt.

As a citizen of this country, these public workers like Golinski should realize that hogging attention and thus dollars like
this IS NOT helping to SAVE THE SOVEREIGN NATURE OF OUR
COUNTRY!

Reader From Wisconsin

Feb 28, 2011 11:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj90620 wrote:
They should end healthcare coverage for spouses and children of non gay workers too.Why should someone not working at a job be rewarded with healthcare coverage?This just drives healthcare demand and costs higher.All this healthcare coverage and resulting high demand is enriching the greedy healthcare community while bankrupting the country.

Mar 01, 2011 1:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.