New Jersey court rules in favor of marriage equality

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualA New Jersey state court judge ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry under the state constitution, ordering
marriage equality will take effect on October 21, 2013 — assuming the
decision is not stayed on appeal. New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry:

The decision is expected to be appealed, first to an intermediate court, and then to the state Supreme Court.

* * *

The decision
does not overturn the civil unions law, but asserts that same-sex
couples must also have the right to marriage, including all the federal
benefits now associated with it post-Defense of Marriage Act:

The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal
benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide
range of contexts
: civil union partners who are federal
employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with
regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are
employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave
Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and
civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married
couples enjoy.

And if the trend of federal agencies deeming civil union partners
ineligible for benefits continues, plaintiffs will suffer even more,
while their opposite-sex New Jersey counterparts continue to receive
federal marital benefits for no reason other than the label placed upon
their relationships by the State. This unequal treatment
requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to
satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution
as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis
. Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.

‘Son of Citizens United’ in the Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The first Monday in October marks the opening of the 2013-2014 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We are a week away from the Court hearing oral arguments in "Son of Citizens United," McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the overall contribution
limits for individual donors to candidates and parties.

Political scientist Norm Ornstein writes at The Atlantic, If You Thought Citizens United Was Bad, Wait for This Supreme Court Case:

On October 8, the Court is going to take up the next big campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC,
a challenge to the overall contribution limits for individual donors to
candidates and parties, limits that were institutionalized in the Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976 that undergirds Court jurisprudence on campaign finance.

McCutcheon refers to Shaun McCutcheon, who has given a lot of money
to Republicans and joined with the Republican National Committee to
bring the suit. Their argument starts with the idea that Citizens United’s
reasoning — that limits on independent spending by corporations
violated the First Amendment — should also apply to limits on what
individuals can contribute, in the aggregate, to candidates and parties
.
Undergirding the argument is the idea that since the Citizens United
ruling, parties and candidates have been put at a disadvantage compared
with corporations, other groups, and individuals who are allowed to
flood political campaigns with money through independent expenditures.
Now, the argument goes, we need to compensate by freeing up the parties
and candidates to raise more money
.

Countdown to the Health Insurance Marketplace

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

TwoThe editorial opinion in the Arizona Daily Star today is by Sarah Garrecht Gassen (not the editorial board), Obamacare is here, and that's a good thing:

It’s finally here. Beginning Tuesday uninsured Americans,
including about 1 million Arizonans, will be able to compare plans from
private insurance companies, figure out if they qualify for a subsidy to
help pay for coverage, and enroll in a plan that will take effect Jan.
1.

Yes, this is Obamacare.

And while several important
provisions already have kicked in, Oct. 1 marks the beginning of the
largest phase in the law that benefits Americans.

It’s a landmark
law, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and while there will no doubt be
kinks to work out and improvements to be made, the Affordable Care Act
stands to improve the life and health of Americans.

Arizonans will
pay less than the national average for health insurance, according to
information from the federal Health and Human Services agency.

Arizona is one of 36 states that will participate in the federal health-care exchange instead of running its own marketplace.