Judge refuses to toss gay Calif. vete...

Judge refuses to toss gay Calif. veteran's lawsuit

There are 17 comments on the Sunherald.com story from Feb 25, 2013, titled Judge refuses to toss gay Calif. veteran's lawsuit. In it, Sunherald.com reports that:

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall refused Monday to dismiss Tracey Cooper-Harris' challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and to two other laws that make same-sex spouses of military veterans ineligible for benefits available to straight spouses.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sunherald.com.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Feb 25, 2013
That BASTARD Obamaniac ! ALWAYS tries to have things both ways !

THE BASTARD !

IMPEACH THIS BUM ! Throw Stumblebum Joe in there !

NEXT !

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#2 Feb 25, 2013
This is an important case to watch because it affects other married Veterans who receive disability from the VA......being a Disabled Veteran myself, the VA has denied my wife benefits based on the same reasoning!!!
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#3 Feb 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
This is an important case to watch because it affects other married Veterans who receive disability from the VA......being a Disabled Veteran myself, the VA has denied my wife benefits based on the same reasoning!!!
What is your reasoning,..that homosexuality is a disability?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Feb 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
This is an important case to watch because it affects other married Veterans who receive disability from the VA......being a Disabled Veteran myself, the VA has denied my wife benefits based on the same reasoning!!!
Why is The Obamaniac telling them to do that ?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#5 Feb 25, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your reasoning,..that homosexuality is a disability?
No, dumbazz.......that we who are Veteran's and married DESERVE to have our spouse's covered under our Disability ratings......just like any other Disable Veteran is entitled too!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#6 Feb 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is The Obamaniac telling them to do that ?
President Obama ISN'T telling the Veteran's Affair Department to do that......the Department is following what they believe is the meaning under DOMA!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Feb 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
President Obama ISN'T telling the Veteran's Affair Department to do that......the Department is following what they believe is the meaning under DOMA!!!
And of COURSE, the VA doesn't take orders from The Obamaniac !

Where the heck is Stumblebum Joe when you need him ?!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8 Feb 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
And of COURSE, the VA doesn't take orders from The Obamaniac !
Where the heck is Stumblebum Joe when you need him ?!
I agree with Sheeple.......you're simply an idiot who hates the President.......sorry, but the Department of Veteran's Affair does not need to follow the President orders.......they like any other part of the Military, can and do follow their own policies and until DOMA is gone......they can continue to deny benefits to the spouses of Gay and Lesbian Service Members.....even those who are no longer on active duty!!!
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#9 Feb 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dumbazz.......that we who are Veteran's and married DESERVE to have our spouse's covered under our Disability ratings......just like any other Disable Veteran is entitled too!!!
Hey dumbazz....marry someone of the opposite sex like the law intends.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#10 Feb 25, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumbazz....marry someone of the opposite sex like the law intends.
Why? I'm already legally married and seeing as I have already served my Country......why should my spouse be allowed to receive the same benefits as any other legal spouse does? or is that to hard for you to understand?

What law intends that marrying someone of the opposite-sex is deserving of "SPECIAL" rights?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Feb 26, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumbazz....marry someone of the opposite sex like the law intends.
What part of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution do you not understand ? "EQUAL protection of the laws" MEANS "EQUAL protection of the laws".

And please explain, in detail, how a gay or lesbian couple, getting married in the wild rolling cornfields of Iowa, affects your life in any way whatsoever.

Give at least 14 specific examples of how their marriage negatively affects your life.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#12 Feb 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
This is an important case to watch because it affects other married Veterans who receive disability from the VA......being a Disabled Veteran myself, the VA has denied my wife benefits based on the same reasoning!!!
It is important that we are ALL treated with equality. Neither my husband nor me are "disabled vets" but our marriage isn't recognized by VA either. The personnel do refer to us as married however.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Feb 26, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
That BASTARD Obamaniac ! ALWAYS tries to have things both ways !
THE BASTARD !
IMPEACH THIS BUM ! Throw Stumblebum Joe in there !
NEXT !
Proving once again what a complete & utter moron you are.

Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#14 Feb 26, 2013
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
It is important that we are ALL treated with equality. Neither my husband nor me are "disabled vets" but our marriage isn't recognized by VA either. The personnel do refer to us as married however.
There is a difference between being referred to as "MARRIED" and recognizing the marriage like the VA does with opposite-sex couples!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Feb 26, 2013
Yes, these cases should continue. Just because some other case is pending in another court is no reason to deny this couple their 1st amendment right to redress under the constitution.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#17 Feb 26, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you do it first, so he'll see how it's done, fagg@t.
LOL You should take your own advise. I doubt anyone would notice or miss you, especially the make believe women you have that supposedly makes you straight..POS

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#19 Feb 26, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a good one to talk. You go first, it's for sure no one would miss a filthy queer. You POS
LOL Your immaturity is showing Pappy.

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 Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 1 min Brian_G 1,250
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 17 min Brian_G 5,895
News How is it that cake became a favourite platform... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 8
News Danbury church's rainbow flag burned 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 11
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr tongangodz 6,669
News How a small Ind. town became a gay rights battl... 2 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 10
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 24,138
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 8,192
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 4 hr DebraE 1,825
More from around the web