Given that courts everywhere are overturning bans on same-sex marriage I was wondering why it had not been challenged in Oho, which passed by referendum a constitutional amendment banning it in 2004 in the heyday of anti-gay fervor. But yesterday comes news that a family living in a nearby community to mine that is headed by a same-sex couple with an adopted child had challenged it because Ohio’s definition of marriage excludes them from obtaining cheaper health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
This is yet another example of how the DOMA decision, which we should recall prevented discrimination by the federal government against couple whose marriages had been legally recognized by states, has had so many consequences.
The main issue in the Ohio case is that the ACA apparently allows states to determine family status and Ohio’s policies prevented this family from being covered under one family policy and thus made them ineligible for a family subsidy under the ACA.
Ultimately facing the loss of all health coverage at the end of 2013, Cowger and Wesley were forced to obtain separate individual health insurance policies from the marketplace, their lawsuit said.
The inability of Cowger and Wesley to get family coverage under Obamacare created further complications that also ultimately required them to get a separate policy for their daughter, the suit said.
“As a result, the Cowger-Wesley family went from one family policy in 2013 to three different individual policies,” it added.
Meanwhile, nine same sex couples (four married in other states, five in committed relationships but not yet married) have filed a case against Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage, stating that the civil union legislation passed last year does not give same-sex couples the equal status with heterosexual couples that they deserve.
It is crazy that people should have to go through all this to get affordable health care. The country should simply make same-sex marriages legal everywhere and have free, universal single-payer health care. The simplification of life and the peace of mind that would ensue would be enormous.
Totally OT, Mano, but you had written before about Aronofsky’s Noah, and I (along with a couple others) commented that it would perhaps not be the faith-loving crapfest that one might expect, given Aronofsky’s directorial canon. Early test screenings show that this may indeed be the case, as Christians kind of have a tendency to hate it. “Hey, that movie made Noah look like a crazy genocidal madman!” Indeed….
http://www.christianpost.com/news/noah-movie-test-screenings-reveal-christian-audiences-upset-with-darkness-of-russell-crowes-character-114527/
Now you see the power of the anti-simplification-of-life and anti-peace-of-mind lobbies!
@jamessweet,
The article is not as promising as you suggest. They are still tweaking the film. And while the focus is on the nature of Noah, the real villain is god and it does not say how he is portrayed.
I’m not sure I’m happy about doing it with the courts. I’d prefer it done by legislatures and voter referendums. But if the politicians want the courts to do their work, then let them.