Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
As we heard earlier, the justices are deciding whether to hear several
challenges to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. That's the law
that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. One of the challengers is
from San Francisco, where she happens to be a lawyer for the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. A few years ago, Karen Galinsky got married to her long-time
partner, Amy Cunninghis,
and wanted to add Amy to her health insurance plan.
Well, citing DOMA, her employer, the federal government, refused.
And so Karen Galinsky sued, and now her case is before the Supreme Court.
She and her wife, Amy Cunninghis, join us now from San Francisco. Welcome.
Thank you.
Now, Karen, is it ironic a little bit
to you that you are a lawyer for the very government that you are now
suing?
Um... you know, it's somewhat ironic. I feel very fortunate
because when this case started it started when I filed an employee
dispute resolution under the employee dispute resolution plan that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has
that bars discrimination based on *** orientation.
So the Ninth Circuit actually had a plan that I could use to try to
put Amy on my family health benefits plan. But yes it is somewhat
ironic that I'm a federal employee and I'm not able to add Amy.
Brand: So you weren't able to add Amy, and you thought, "Well this is wrong. This is
discriminatory, so
I'm going to seek legal recourse?"
Uh... Yes, I was hoping it would be resolved within
the confidentiality of the employee dispute resolution plan. I really did
not intend on filing a federal lawsuit when we initially brought this action. It
was just a complaint and it was very private. Unfortunately when the federal
government would not comply with the chief judge's orders directing
them to add Amy to my existing family health benefits plan, I
really was left with no recourse other than to file a federal uh... lawsuit
under the defense - you know - challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. [Brand] So you had
no idea that this case would actually make it all the way up to the Supreme
Court where the justices are now considering
taking it up. And I'm wondering Amy, what does this mean for your family? I mean
people are looking at this in legal terms, but this is also affecting your
family personally, isn't it?
[Cunninghis] Yes, definitely. You know it's been a long road of four years of hearings
and battling and, you know, giving up some of our privacy in order to
really challenge this unfair and discriminatory law, and to help explain to
people that,
you know, even though Karen's been a federal employee for all - for decades, she can't
add me to the existing family coverage she has for her and our child,
so it has been um... quite an interesting journey.
[Brand] So you've had to pay more, right, for your health insurance?
than heterosexual married couples?
[Cunninghis] Yes, actually I had to purchase my own private plan even though Karen paid for
full family coverage. She couldn't cover the whole family, unlike her heterosexual
colleagues
who can cover the whole family under the family plan.
[Brand] And Karen, if you work for th state or for many private companies, this wouldn't be
an issue right?
[Galinski] That's correct. That's correct, if i had chosen a career in the state or
locally in government or even in private corporations that often offer
partner - you know -
uh... benefits to partners, Amy would be easily covered. It's
because uh... there's the federal Defense of Marriage Act that has um...
been the barrier to adding Amy to my plan.
[Brand] So,
what do you think - what goes through your minds when you think, "Wow, we could
actually be a part of history. We could be setting legal precedent?"
[Galinski] I think it's a bit daunting and um... we both feel that it's an honor that our
case has moved through the system in this way.
We're, um...
humbled, and uh... appreciate our part in history with the other plaintiffs in
this case. There's the Gale plaintiffs and Windsor and Peterson and
Dragovich.
there's been many lawsuits filed across the country that were not the only ones
that we do appreciate an
this the strength in numbers that
has now happened as these cases that new feller
and your son he is now
ten years old
amistad
and so what does he say about it does he talk about it with his friends at school
he does i think you know i think it's have such a very strong sense of what's
fair an
and not fair and he really
doesn't understand
why where legally married but then
in state california but then it's not recognized by the government spent
federal government and why our marriages and treated the same as other marriages
and that makes him back
and so when you say to him
we know he's has studied a civil rights movement in acting school
and we talk about how change comes about through social movements and through
legal challenges
and sandy's
excited about the carpenters paging and not process
and so when will you hear or whether or not the supreme court has decided to
take your case
i believe that justice is our conference thing this friday november thirtieth and
it's expected sometime next week they'll announce which
case or cases that they have decided to hear
well karen galinsky in any kind has thank you both very much for joining us
tonight
thank you for having pleasure