future same sex marriage widows or widowers. The legal attack raises hard questions regarding sophisticated legal concepts like standing and ripeness. In simplified sum, Defendant argues that now that Messers. Arthur and Ives have died, there exists no live controversy for the Court to adjudicate and that Mr. Grunn’s attempt to take up the challenge is without legal basis. Upon close review and careful analysis, the Court disagrees. A. First-Party Claim A plaintiff cannot sue based on “a generalized grievance against [assertedly] illegal government conduct[.]” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). “The rule against generalized grievances applies with as much force in the equal protection context as in any other.” Id. at 743-44, 115 S.Ct. 2431 (<HOLDING>); see also Parker v. Ohio, 263 F.Supp.2d 1100,
recognizing that the injury from discrimination relates to the person actually denied equal treatment recognizing that discrimination causes injury to the whole community recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury recognizing that the equal protection clause proscribes discrimination against whiteanglos holding ec is not responsible for medical treatment required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment