President Obama to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees

I doubt after his DOMA position, this will assuage the gays.

It’s definitely a step in the right direction, and a very good example. Now we need to legalize gay marriage.

jennifert7, what proof would you like to see? Pictures? Since gays can’t legally marry in most states, there is very little proof that they can provide. It’s a Catch-22… you can’t marry because we’re morally opposed, so therefore you have no ability to provide legal documents proving that you’re married.
That said, most companies that offer same-sex partner benefits do so on the basis of a signed statement from one or both partners.

jennifert7, what proof would you like to see? Pictures? Since gays can’t legally marry in most states, there is very little proof that they can provide. It’s a Catch-22… you can’t marry because we’re morally opposed, so therefore you have no ability to provide legal documents proving that you’re married.
That said, most companies that offer same-sex partner benefits do so on the basis of a signed statement from one or both partners.

Why are we giving benefits to same-sex couples? Being partners provides no benefit to the country. It provides benefit to them, sure. I have no problem with that. However, married couples provide the next generation for this country. They actually provide benefit and should be rewarded as such. Same-sex couples should receive the same benefits as single people and polygamists. Nothing.

what proof would you like to see? Pictures? Since gays can’t legally marry in most states, there is very little proof that they can provide. It’s a Catch-22… you can’t marry because we’re morally opposed, so therefore you have no ability to provide legal documents proving that you’re married.
That said, most companies that offer same-sex partner benefits do so on the basis of a signed statement from one or both partners.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pictures? Who said anything about pictures? Maybe I wasn’t clear but when I said I had to provide proof I was married in order for my spouse to get benefits I assumed you would know I was talking about a copy of our marriage license, not pictures of us proving we are heterosexuals I’m fully aware that it is impossible for most gay/lesbian couples to provide such documentation so I was curious as to how that would work for them. You and NYC were kind enough to explain to me how that has worked at other companies and or states that offer these benefits. That was the intent of my question. Nothing more, nothing less.

We really need to extend equal benefits to same-sex couples. To call them ‘married’ though is rediculous and should be federally outlawed. They should be legally called ‘United’ and straight couples who support them should be called the same. They are the way they are either because of genetic difference or because something in their environment, like sexual abuse by clergy, etc, affected their normal development. Either way, they should be recognized as individuals that need companionship, and honored for keeping loyal commitments in pairs.

Since only Congress can authorize the spending of tax dollars…. I don’t believe he has the legal authority to hand out a new Government benefit without it being a part of law passed by Congress…..

MArgaret- good points. Marriage is actually a grey area as far as the law is concerned. State-to-state, I think it averages something like two years before a common-law marriage is accepted without a license, etc. There are a lot of legal details to be worked out for ‘Unions’ to take effect. What do you mean, ‘blended live-in couple families’? I really don’t even know what benefits, specifically, are of concern here.

I am not in favor of gay marriages, in fact, I am not in favor of homosexual behavior. However, not knowing the details of their feelings or behavior, I don’t feel that I am in a position to condemn or harass them in any way.
The thing I dislike here is the fact that Obama is making these decisions, acting more like a dictator than a President. Has Congress turned over all of their constitutional duties to Obama?

Still, I don’t even know what benefits are being discussed here?

Vet1973:”Since only Congress can authorize the spending of tax dollars…. I don’t believe he has the legal authority to hand out a new Government benefit without it being a part of law passed by Congress…..”
That’s hilarious. I suppose you also are vehemently against earmarks, leaving what – invisible Constitution fairies in charge of deploying budgets?
The President is the Chief Executive. With the exception of earmarks, he is in charge of deploying the funding approved by Congress.

jhw539- You should try reading numerology sometime, if you want to find out how complicated the Lord made family to be. It will give you an intro to the complications of modern medicine.

YepImGay:”You think the courts won’t appreciate it? What are they going to do? Put me in jail for pretending to be gay? ”
What are they going to do? Require that you sell your house and give half the proceeds to your estranged “same sex partner.” You suggested faking a domestic relationship to get benefits, I’m just pointing out that can seriously backfire. If you make a public declaration of being in a domestic relationship with a person to get him/her benefits, that (depending on state) can be considered binding in other matters as well. In some states, it can be almost a common law marriage, so as far as power of attorney, survivor rights, defendant support, etc goes you’re ‘joke’ could be legally binding.
(And just like scam traditional marriages – which are not uncommon – your employer could sue you for the cost of benefits falsely procured if they discover your deception.)

“The Constitution explicitly gives Obama power to do this – you should read it sometime.”
What does the Constitution say about Obama’s 27 “czars” (and counting) who have a huge amount of power, are not confirmed by the Senate, bypass oversight of the Senate, and who only answer to the President?
Yeah, I couldn’t find a mention either.
I’m sure unchecked power by obscure bureaucrats making hundreds of decisions under the radar affecting our lives is exactly what our founders had in mind. What could possibly go wrong?

First off the House has already passed one bill which is H.626 which gives 4 weeks paid leave to federal employees only who CHOOSE to have kids. I don’t know if the Senate has signed it yet(senate bill S.354. Think about how fair it is to other federal employees who have an illness they didn’t choose to have and that they may have to fight to get the bills paid and if they CHOOSE not to have kids, they do not have a equal type of benefit. I am a lesbian, so of course I believe that homosexuals in a committed partnership or union with someone should have the same benefits as married couples do. Remember, heterosexuals have the right to choose to get married, homosexuals do not, so I don’t see why heterosexuals should get the same benefits as married couples or same-sex partners. It is not the same thing. But anyway, why should federal employees have such over-blown and special benefits when most of Americans can’t even get medical coverage at all. That is what you should be complaining about. Federal employees have special rights over everyone else. I don’t want my tax dollars going for someone gay or straight, because they CHOOSE to have children. Being homosexual is not a choice, it is the same as a person being born heterosexual. It is not a choice, just like being black is not a choice. Being a baptist, hindu, atheist, blonde brunette, have children or not…that is a choice. Don’t give federal employees special rights. It should not be a homo or hetero-sexual issue.

response to ordinary sadie: “Does this mean unmarried heterosexual couples will receive these benefits also?”
it is a troubling question as fair practice would say that benefits be paid to unmarried heterosexuals. if
so it will open up a can of worms-or should i say a can of moral dilemmas!
i am surprised that unmarried heterosexuals have not questioned their rights before this in light of the new legislation which is coming out…

there needs to be boundaries of right and wrong. who is it that determines those boundaries?
Posted by: sandieblue
while I understand your thinking, just remember that the same “boundaries of right and wrong” issues you’re concerned about were the same kind of thinking about civl rights, inter-racial marriage, equal rights for women, teaching the science of evolution..
there are always those, either for religious or political issues who are determined to use a group of Americans as a cause to deny equality and rights.
re: allaboutattention
‘..poligimests as well, not to mention those who are for incest and other foul practices.’

Gay people pay more in taxes and get less for their contributions that straights. They serve our country with distinction yet can be discharged without a dime or a thank you if some bigot turns them in.
Obama’s federal employee benefits are a see-through sop that only highlight the glaring inequality.

terse-i agree that god’s word has been twisted in ways that it was unintended. however there is nothing in scripture which speaks against civil rights. paul says that all are equal in god’s sight:
men and women, jews and gentiles,(those of diverse color and nationality). the church is a man made institution and has not always followed christ’s commands- which is very confusing to the world.

response to miss:
“Unmarried heterosexual couples CHOOSE to be unmarried, or at least the vast majority do”.
this is partially true-it is true that heterosexuals have a choice to marry or not to marry but many senior citizens are discriminated against if they marry as they may lose many of their benefits.

ME AND MY SHEEP ETHEL WILL BE DOWN AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE WE BE COVERED TOO.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS!

It’s about time! Gay and lesbian people have been helping pay benefits for Federal employees who are married even though they themselves never received any of these benefits. And I read in another article that it wasn’t even going to include health insurance … what kind of nonsense is that??????

The action is completely disingenuous. Since its a memorandum, not an executive order, it expires at the end of his term (not exactly change we can believe in), and it does not cover health care. Health care is the top benefit of employment. Not to mention it doesn’t impact the military, one of the largest blocks of government workers, due to DADT. Yet the media seems to see this as some sort of breakthrough. Most employers in the private sector already offer this. How about some real change to counter the discrimination against gays and lesbians?

Question – are benefits also provided to
hetero unmarried people living together as a couple?

To the guy who said, “people need to read the bible”. That is the problem. People who read the bible cause all bad things in the wolrd. It’s cos of religion that destroys freedoms & pushes forth ignorance an perpetual effect that never ends.

Here is a fact that stands independent of any opinions on either side: The great majority of the population is not gay.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I totally disagree with one of the comments made:
‘The great majority of the population is not gay. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’
That means that each and every minority can and should be discrimiated against. As everyone belongs to some minority in one way or another, where does this end?
Minorities need to be treated equally, otherwise what sort of democratic society would we live in? Not a very pleasant one me thinks…..sounds very much like a totalitarian or fundamentalist state.

All of you be quite! King O has spoken and thus it is law. King O has declared that the American Constitution is a hinderence to his vision of America. Please stop questioning his decisions!

“bestial relationships being the natural next step”
That thought is ridiculous at best. Animals are not consenting adults, and never have been.

“so why is there so much hate and bigotry?”
Because of peoples interpretations of the bible. It’s ironic they they argue, bicker and kill each other over a god who doesn’t even exist.

If I am single and live with my brother can we then get benefits? How about living with my mom? Where is the line?

Kempuch, Bestial relationships may be the extreme, but isn’t this all about how we individually define love and whoever we love should be respected by everyone else? If not bestial relationships, what about robot ones, I hear this is coming up as an issue in Japan.

Gloria, if you are disabled and live with your daughter more than 6 months out of the year your daughter can claim you on her tax return and recieve a more money.

If unmarried hetero couples are given the benefits then I see no problem here. Also not all of us who read the Bible are zealots. Angie, I just checked and thou shall not judge is NOT one of the 10, however there is a passage where Jesus say,s “Judge not less Ye be judged”.

Jason, obviously you didn’t read my long privious comment. It would be alot cheaper for the federal government for people in my situation. Federal employees do not recieve outragous benifits. My partner has to pay ALOT more for heathcare than I do. She is a federal employee… I am unemployed. Figure that one out.

Jason:”Angie, the point Gloria is making”
The point Gloria is making is what exactly? Because she sees a case of unfairness, no other case of unfairness should be dealt with? That is the same logical fallacy as we should not have dealt with Saddam until we dealt with North Korea and Iran too (I guess at the exact, precise same time).
It is also a completely fabricated point – an elderly parent already receives health care benefits from the government.

Jpocali: “We pay taxes that help educate other people’s children (the future) and support other groups in need.”
That is a very good point. I often see people that have children that live off of welfare. If the parents work, the government pays for daycare or school. Sometimes couples choose to have children just to get financial “help”. Just face it… If you do not have children or are not disabled then do NOT expect anything from the government!

jhw539, I think you might be manufacturing points with this whole notion of fairness. It is not about fairness, just pointing out the stupidity of a policy that allows a same sex partner to be on someone’s health insurance, but not their “elderly” 50yr old parent who is not disabled, but has a few medical problems that cost them an arm and a leg. This parent is not covered by the government as they are not old or sick enough.
JPOCali, if your situation were to become very widespread here, which it has in Europe, it would cause major problems with having an aging population with not enough workers to support them, which is the problem in Europe. To be sustainable, the social policies of Obama need to have increased birth rates and more legal immigrants who have higher incomes, not illegal immigrants who use more than they contribute.

jhw539, the argument that I have been making above all these other side arguments is that this policy combined with all the other liberal social policies are unsustainable not only in a financial sense, but also in a cultural sense. The financial aspect I have already addressed with a growing number of people who will become a burden on the system, and there is not a growth in the labor force that is sufficient to support them in the future. This is what has happened in Europe. What has also happened in Europe is the deterioration of the family and this impacts more than procreation, but also the support and strength that a family offers, which places the burden completely on the government. I don’t have much faith that the government will be able to help me and care about me as much as my extended family does.

Jason: just pointing out the stupidity of a policy that allows a same sex partner to be on someone’s health insurance, but not their “elderly” 50yr old parent
Im just going to point out the “stpidity” in that comment. It is not stupid to allow same-sex couples same rights! The ederly parent more than likely recieves help from the government, if not retirement. Why would it be okay for an unemployeed heterosexual male to recieve benifits from his wife’s health insurance and not okay for a homosexual female to recieve the same?? In my opinion the only difference is gender. I think that I should be able to change my last name to my partner’s without having to go to court and explain why in front of a judge. I really don’t want the health care benefits, the healthcare I have is almost FREE. If it were legal for my partner and I to marry the federal as well as state government would be saving ALOT of money!! It would not be so costly to allow same-sex marriages as some assume.

How much money is this going to cost and where is it going to come from?
Just like many other Americans, federal employees do pay a monthly or bi-monthly primium on healthcare. It’s comeing from thier own pockets, so why such a big intrest in the people that it doesn’t affect?? I have no idea.

Comments on:
1- One of the ten commandments is “thou shall not judge.” None of the 10 include “thou shall not unionize with person of the same gender”.
2- Read the constitution. State and religion should remain seprate.
Point #1: Huh? The last time I read the 10 commandments, this wasn’t in there. The concept isn’t really even big part of the Old Testement, from where the Comandments come. It’s really more of a New Testement idea spread by Jesus.
Point #2: The Constitution doesn’t not say anything about the “separation of church and state”. This concept is a test created by the Supreme Court. If you read the Federalist Papers and other documents written by the Framers of the Constitution, it becomes blatently obvious that the First Amendment restrictions against the establishment of religion were meant purely to prevent the formation of an Americal Church (similar to what England has in its Church of England). Over the years this has been reinterpreted and expanded, but as far as I can tell, there is a. no “freedom of religion” and b. no “separation of church and state” guaranteed by the constitution.

I cannot edit that comment on the commandment issue. I realize I was wrong on that issue. Get over it..lol

I’m a little confused by the comments that refer to the deterioration of the family unit and the fear that procreation will slow down and civilization as a whole will crumble. Honestly, you think simply by not allowing gay marriage that all the gay people in the world will just give up being gay and get married and turn straight? Or do you feel it more socially stable and preferable for a closeted gay man to be so fearful of the social consequences of being gay that he is willing to involve the lives of a whole collection of people in order to hide behind by getting married to a woman having kids and then realizing 25 years later that he simply cannot go on like that anymore and break up that ‘family unit? So in that scenario the wife and the children become the casualty of society; her life devoted to a man who has been too afraid to even let her know who he really is. What kind of a healthy family unit could possibly come from a scenario like that?
The bottom line here is that until people accept that the truth of the ‘gay’ condition is that it is not simply a ‘choice’ these kinds of half baked arguments are going to litter the forefront of any debate.

Jason: Do you think that federal employees pay 100% of their health care premium?
So are you suggesting that the federal government helps pay for their employees Healthcare premiums?? I think you are greatly mistaken.
What I know is that my gf, who is a federal emplyee, pays a premium and a high co-pay. It has got to the point where she will refuse to go to the doctor because she don’t want to pay the co-pay. If health insurance was that good she would go to the doctor more often. She gets an annual check up maybe once every 3 years.

Angie, cmon wake up. Are you serious that you do not realize that the government is paying for at least half of her premiums? Say her premium costs $12k a year. She will pay $500 a month in premiums, and of course her co-pays. Who do you think pays the other $500 a month?

Am I to understand that people are afraid that procreation rates are going to drop because same sex marriage is legalized? That is ridiculous. First of all we already have a population problem. Too many people and not enough land for them. WE over develop and kill off wild life resulting in an imbalanced eco system that will eventually kill off a good portion of the planet. That arguement is weak and strems from Homophobia.
Degredation of the family unit? Really? With the sickening divorce rate you have the audacity to say that homosexuals will degrade the family unit? The family unit began to degrade when divorce was no longer taboo and women rejoined the workforce. I beleive that women have the right to work but our society is going through an adjustment phase. Social restructure takes decades to level out. ONe thing that needs to be remembered is, a loving home is a loving home. Live and let live, as long as no one gets hurt.

Wait a sec….If these same sex couples are not married, can ANY couple that is NOT married, expect to share in these benifits?
Any couple that lives together can enjoy these benifits too, even if they are NOT married?
Is this true?

thinkoutsidethebox, just because I happened to name Japan and China, which was dumb, because they are not a western country and it would be like comparing apples to oranges to compare them to the US, does not mean my point is not valid. Forget Japan and China, name me a western developed country that has legalized same sex marriage and is not experiencing the problems I previously outlined.

I just saw the film from the Oval Office (I do not believe it was live). The President was discovered seated, surrounded by people intending to attend the LGBT dinner next week who need something face-saving to say. He made a very brief statement announcing that he was …. get this …. directing the State Department and the OPM to give same sex partners employed by the Executive Branch all benefits they determine are consistent with the law. If there aren’t any, I guess there aren’t any. God knows the President didn’t name any. He then signed the “memorandum” and took no questions. It was a photo op (flash cameras whirred distractingly all through it), and not a lengthy one. He held his nose, did it, made it as undramatic as possible, and got out of Dodge. Even worse than I expected. There was speculation that he might dramatize it by surrounding himself with affected couples. If there were any, he didn’t mention it. He thanked Barney Frank and Joe Lieberman, both of whom attended, and endorsed Lieberman’s proposed act recognizing gay partners of federal employees. That was it. Oh, and it started more than half an hour late.

@eople really think that allowing the same rights to G/L couples will ower birth rates?
Giving them the same rights as stright peiple isn’t going to make them any more or less stright or breed less. They won’t bw breeding one way or another so it won’t affect birth rates what so ever.
If you want birth rates to go up then make the world a better place so people won’t regret bringing a child into the world.

He signed a memorandum extending some benefits, such as visitation or dependent-care rights, to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.
Even before Obama signed the memorandum, some agencies had voluntarily offered the benefits Obama guaranteed with his signature.
I don’t see how that changed anything. Federal employees can take FMLA (Family medical Leave of Absense) with out giving a reason.
Disney and other companies already give their employees’ same-sex partners, and their children the same benefits as the employee, including health-care.