Judge rules that VA can't deny disabi...

Judge rules that VA can't deny disability benefits to lesbian vet

There are 14 comments on the Wisconsin Gazette story from Aug 30, 2013, titled Judge rules that VA can't deny disability benefits to lesbian vet. In it, Wisconsin Gazette reports that:

A judge in Los Angeles ruled on Aug. 29 that a lesbian Army veteran and her spouse should be entitled to disability benefits given the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wisconsin Gazette.

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#1 Aug 30, 2013
VA Secretary Eric Shinseki is a bona fied idiot who is spending our tax dollars on denying benefits he knew were legal. He should be fired so he can get a job as a consultant on Fox Propaganda. Seems like he'd fit right in on Huckahasbeen.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#2 Aug 30, 2013
Dubya wrote:
VA Secretary Eric Shinseki is a bona fied idiot who is spending our tax dollars on denying benefits he knew were legal. He should be fired so he can get a job as a consultant on Fox Propaganda. Seems like he'd fit right in on Huckahasbeen.
Since he is appointed by The Obamaniac, why didn't The Obamaniac just tell him to do it, or be fired, instead of waiting for a federal judge to order him to do so ?

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

#3 Aug 31, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Since he is appointed by The Obamaniac, why didn't The Obamaniac just tell him to do it, or be fired, instead of waiting for a federal judge to order him to do so ?
some thing never change do they Foxie

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#4 Aug 31, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Since he is appointed by The Obamaniac, why didn't The Obamaniac just tell him to do it, or be fired, instead of waiting for a federal judge to order him to do so ?
Good question... could he be a holdover from the Bush WH? Is this position a presidential appointee? In any case, he shouldn't have to be told to comply with a SC decision; his reasoning is typical obstructionist GOP.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#5 Aug 31, 2013
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
Good question... could he be a holdover from the Bush WH? Is this position a presidential appointee? In any case, he shouldn't have to be told to comply with a SC decision; his reasoning is typical obstructionist GOP.
This is from Wikipedia, so I cannot vouch for its' veracity:

"On December 7, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama announced at a press conference in Chicago that he would nominate Shinseki to become the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.[18] He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on January 20, 2009, and sworn in the next day."

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6 Aug 31, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is from Wikipedia, so I cannot vouch for its' veracity:
"On December 7, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama announced at a press conference in Chicago that he would nominate Shinseki to become the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.[18] He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on January 20, 2009, and sworn in the next day."
Everyone makes mistakes.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 Aug 31, 2013
Well looks like Mr. Shinseki just got the court ruling he was looking for that he says was needed to change the policy.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Aug 31, 2013
The VA's definition of marriage is statutory as opposed to regulatory. It had to be repealed or overturned before they could do any different.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Sep 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone makes mistakes.
That's true. But since we know Bush made so many big ones, I thought it only fair to point out this one, if it can be called a mistake, was not his.

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#10 Sep 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The VA's definition of marriage is statutory as opposed to regulatory. It had to be repealed or overturned before they could do any different.
I'll admit I'm treading on a subject on which I am largely ignorant, but the IRS and DoD seemingly have made strides in implementing the SC mandate without any legislative action. What am I missing? Couldn't (shouldn't) the VA have implemented reforms within instead of waiting for costly court actions?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Sep 1, 2013
Dubya wrote:
I'll admit I'm treading on a subject on which I am largely ignorant, but the IRS and DoD seemingly have made strides in implementing the SC mandate without any legislative action. What am I missing? Couldn't (shouldn't) the VA have implemented reforms within instead of waiting for costly court actions?
What we had in this case is the difference between a statutory requirement (something inflicted by Congress) and a regulatory one. Regulations written by the executive can be rewritten any time they want unless Congress or the Courts stop them. Laws passed by Congress have to be enforced until repealed or overturned. The VA was bound by a law passed by Congress that was ironically intended to ensure that widows and widowers got benefits entitled to them via their spouse's service. It came with a sex specific definition of a spouse eligible that couldn't be regulated different.

When the Windsor case flipped the switch on that list of the 1000+ rights etc, some have built in breakers like this that will have to be dealt with to turn them on.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Windsor case flipped the switch on that list of the 1000+ rights etc, some have built in breakers like this that will have to be dealt with to turn them on.
Going into the electrical trades, are we?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Sep 2, 2013
RalphB wrote:
Going into the electrical trades, are we?
For want of an analogy anyways. It was the best I could do under the circumstances.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#14 Sep 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>For want of an analogy anyways. It was the best I could do under the circumstances.
Actually, it was a very good one. And amusing, also.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Respect71 53,735
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 13 min Freedomofexpression 8,428
News ABC plans a Riot to mark the 40th anniversary o... 51 min TomInElPaso 4
40 years ago today 1 hr Huey 5
SHOUT OUT TO FRANKIe RIZZO 1 hr im your huckleberry 1
News Trump bans transgender people from military 1 hr Daisy 342
News Gay rights is personal for Fla. candidates 1 hr a nice troller 3
News Organist Says Fear of Trump Future Made Him Pai... 2 hr EMMETT TILL 25
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 3 hr Wondering 568
More from around the web