老澳门开奖结果

As I read those words at the end of the title of a newly issued case from a federal appeals court in California, my high school Latin came flooding back to me and I got teary-eyed.

defines the term 鈥淓t uxor鈥� as 鈥淎nd his wife.鈥� Except in this circumstance, the court used it (appropriately) to mean 鈥淎nd her wife.鈥� Times have changed, even for the federal judiciary.

The case is about Karen Golinski, who works as a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which covers appeals from federal courts in nine western states. She and her long-time partner, Amy, married in California in 2008. Once married, Karen asked her employer to add her wife to the health care plan. When the federal court system told her Amy wasn鈥檛 eligible because their marriage wasn鈥檛 recognized by the federal government, she filed a complaint with the court system, with help from Lambda Legal and the law firm Morrison & Foerster. They pointed out that the refusal to recognize Karen and Amy鈥檚 valid California marriage violated the court鈥檚 internal policy of not discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation.

This week, Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, issued a in this dispute, stating once again that Karen is entitled to receive health care coverage for her wife, just like any other lawfully married employee of the federal courts. But this time, he added 鈥淓t Uxor鈥� to the caption of the case, so that it reads "IN THE MATTER OF KAREN GOLINSKI, ET UXOR", reflecting in yet another way the federal court鈥檚 recognition of the validity of Karen and Amy鈥檚 union. And throughout the decision, the Chief Judge refers to Amy as Karen鈥檚 wife.

The merits of the decision are important 鈥� guaranteeing employees of the federal court system equal pay for equal work 鈥� but the court鈥檚 linguistic respect for their relationship is also a milestone.