A legal question regarding the standing issue for the Prop 8 case

[dsc]

Say I own a company in California and I give benefits to married couples that I don't give to domestic partners. Further assume that a person works for me and gets married to a same sex partner and now wants the benefits to which s/he is now entitled. Do I have standing?

[DURHAM D]

1. Standing for what exactly? nt

[dsc]

3. to sue

I am now paying money I otherwise wouldn't be.

[DURHAM D]

5. Sue who? I'm lost here. nt

[dsc]

6. the prop 8 case can't be appealed due to no one who wants to having standing

This would be a particular injury.

[LostinVA]

2. You have to give them the married couples' benefits

There is precedent for this in other states, too.

[dsc]

4. I know which is why I think that person would have standing

he is now spending money he wasn't before.

[zipplewrath]

7. Sue who about what?

You have a choice, provide benefits to married couples, or don't. Who are you going to sue about that?

[dsc]

8. It seems that would be the specific injury that is needed for standing

[zipplewrath]

12. So you mean to appeal

Not to sue, but you're looking for standing to appeal the decision. Your problem is that no one is forcing you to give benefits to married couples. That'd be the only thing you could sue about, or have standing for.

[arcane1]

9. How is that different from ANY employee getting married?

Same-sex or otherwise? :shrug:

[dsc]

11. I don't know which is why I am asking

I can see a case being made that this is a specific injury that the court says you need.

[NMMNG]

10. You'd have to give them benefits whether they were married or Domestic Partners

That's CA law. So as a business owner in CA you wouldn't see any change just because couples could now marry rather than get DPs. You couldn't claim any "damages" because you wouldn't be suffering any.

[dsc]

13. thanks that answers the question

except is there a religious exemption to the dp law (say for a Catholic hospital).