Talk:Harry Pregerson

Failed GA

I have reviewed the article and think its well on its way to GA status. The references are excellent on the information present and the artcile certainly meets numbers 1, 2 and 4 on Wikipedia:What is a good article?. However I do have several concerns, which is why for now I failed the article. I would have placed it on hold, but I think there are several things that need to be added before it can be reviewed again. My biggest concern is in regard to the broadness of the article, specifically 3A - that the article is not- broad in its coverage and that it does not: (a) address all major aspects of the topic. I also have another concern relating to 5, which I have explained below:

• This article is a biography and although excellent on the career of Pregerson in the last decade, there is no information on either his early life or his family. Furthermore at present the article only covers his career after the period of 1967 (though only briefly). It gives no mention as to his original entry into law, his early jobs/career or indeed of any significant events, cases, rulings etc during the time when he served on the United States District Court for the Central District of California. There is also no information on any events of his judgeship on the Ninth circuit before the 21st century. Surely he must of been involved in numerous cases between 1979 and 2000? At least of which some are notable? To improve then I recommend adding a section on his early life - perhaps incorporating his education from the lead and adding any information available on family, life and early carrer before becoming a judge on the ninth circuit. Some similar biographies (thought not GA) that are more broad in coverage include Samuel Alito, John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia (which is actually A class). If you need help expanding the coverage of the article I recommend asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.

• Aside from this I also have another major concern - namely that the article does not appear stable (number 5 in criteria). Criteria requests that an article does not change significantly from day to day. The article contains a current event tag, which states that:

This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events. It may contain information of a tentative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available.

If this event is no longer ongoing then I recommend removing the tag. However if it is not than you should wait again until the article is not likely to change significantly before renominating. Other than those concerns, the first being the most important I think the article is well written and on its way to GA status.LordHarris 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know he has two grown kids, his daughter is a physician and his son is also a judge. I know this because I knew his wife when we taught together at a community college in the San Fernando Valley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Harry Pregerson was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent ruling by Judge Harry Pregerson

"Federal Judge Eviscerates Oregon’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage" By Zack Ford Apr 26, 2013 10:12 am

Copied from ThinkProgress an online publication.

A federal judge has ruled that an Oregon public defender, Alison Clark, is entitled to health benefits for her same-sex spouse under the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits. Judge Harry Pregerson ruled that the denial of benefits was a violation of the Employment Dispute Resolution Plan’s nondiscrimination protections, arguing that both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage (Measure 36) are unconstitutional. Clark’s marriage, he concluded, should be recognized under both state and federal law.

Though Pregerson did not specifically rule on Measure 36, he thoroughly debunked three possible objectives behind the law, pointing out that none of them provide any rational basis for banning same-sex couples from marrying:

The first possible objective of Measure 36 is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation.

A second possible objective of Measure 36 is to ensure that children will be raised in stable and enduring families. Even if it is true that children are better off if their parents are married, this objective is not furthered by banning same-sex marriages. First, banning same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be believed to improved the stability of families headed by opposite-sex spouses. Moreover, without same-sex marriages, fewer couples can be married and hence, there are fewer couples who can provide a stable, marital environment for their children.

A third possible objective of Measure 36 is to “proceed with caution” in changing the definition of marriage under Oregon law. If Measure 36 had been a temporary suspension of same-sex marriage that would allow the state legislature or the people of Oregon to consider the issue thoroughly, Measure 36 may have been rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution. But, as with California’s Proposition 8, “the purpose and effect… was to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry… not to suspend or study that right.” As a permanent and wholesale ban of same-sex marriage, Measure 36 is not rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution.

An effort is already underway to repeal Measure 36 through a ballot initiative in 2014.

Pregerson ruled that the United States Court must submit Clark’s request to the appropriate health insurance carrier to provide benefits for her wife, and provide the same to any future same-sex couples who apply. If the Office of Personnel Management blocks this, he also ruled that Clark should then be granted monetary relief, including “back pay and associated benefits.”

Pregerson’s ruling does little to change how the Supreme Court may rule on DOMA or California’s Proposition 8 in the coming months, but it is still a symbolic blow to the validity of such discriminatory measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)