Comments on: Against North Carolina Amendment One

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:38:10 +0000

AA>”Ted Olson was apparently trying to impress his new girlfriend.” So his detractors have insinuated, but I notice this firsthand account to the contrary, describing him as voicing similar views at a 2001 gathering when Barbara Olson was alive: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/10/ted-olson-gay-marriage.html
[Standard disclaimer: Ted Olson and I are not related.]

By: DEM

DEM — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:23:47 +0000

I’m all for Gale and Elizabeth being able to get married. I just wish a lot more Gales and Elizabeths had as much respect for my liberty as I do for theirs. Alas, gays and lesbians will once again turn out in droves to vote for Obama this fall to support his vision of an ever-growing and endlessly intrustive state.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:23:58 +0000

Re: Duke, the amendment is understood to bar partner health coverage for state and local employers such as Durham or public universities, but not for private employers like Duke.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 10 May 2012 08:51:39 +0000

kimsch: It is mandated that you can’t be excluded from a group — but what group would that be in her case? Her company has two employees. Individual coverage can be denied on the basis of pre-existing conditions, regardless of previous coverage.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 10 May 2012 04:42:37 +0000

In other news, Duke University says its health coverage for same-sex partners won't change despite Amendment One. No news on Durham County, but it's apparently possible.

By: LisaMarie

LisaMarie — Thu, 10 May 2012 01:36:26 +0000

Yeah, yeah, the voters have spoken. The voters are always speaking. Too bad they say so many dumb things. Having your rights up for majority vote is one of the problems with democracy, period.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Wed, 09 May 2012 22:13:56 +0000

But shouldn’t Gale be able to get other coverage without the pre-existing condition clause coming into it. She has proof she was covered previously. Wasn’t it mandated that people who were covered by insurance not more than a certain period of time previously (so within the previous six months or so) couldn’t be declined for pre-existing conditions? Wasn’t that put into place as part of HIPPA so that people could change jobs (and insurance coverage) without penalty?

By: Amendments That Take Away Rights

Amendments That Take Away Rights — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:50:24 +0000

[…] had done so, without controversy.)Yesterday, North Carolina voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (Maryland will likely vote on a referendum to repeal gay marriage in that […]

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:06:13 +0000

And note that in the interview the women explain that the new amendment will force the city of Durham to stop covering health insurance for the partners of Elizabeth and other employees; Gale is currently on that policy but doubts she could obtain independent coverage due to a pre-existing condition. All of which, according to Anonymous Attorney, “confirms” that the couple’s anguish has “far less to do with practical difficulties and far more to do with demanding a government stamp of approval.” Sure, tell us about it.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:13:16 +0000

If you are going to plant you feet firmly on the wrong side of history, it is best to do it anonymously. Well played, Anonymous Lawyer.

I can’t understand why anyone would want Gale and Elizabeth to have different rights from anyone else. On whose authority is their behavior deviant? The Old Testament? Well, I have some questions about your diet because you are breaking a lot of rules. Jesus? Didn’t say boo about it.