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

By: Angie

Angie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:10:40 +0000

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.

By: Angie

Angie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:03:05 +0000

Re: Angie:”I really don’t want the health care benefits, the healthcare I have is almost FREE.” -Can you let us in on the name of this almost FREE healthcare?
It is called medicaid. Which I would not be on if my I was able to marry my partner. She is a federal employee and makes too much money. I would also not be on SSI, and it would save the government money. But all I hear people that complain about is how taxpayers would be paying too much money to allow it. I think that is unjustified.

By: urbn

urbn — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:15:09 +0000

@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.

By: d

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:40:24 +0000

Angie:”I really don’t want the health care benefits, the healthcare I have is almost FREE.” -Can you let us in on the name of this almost FREE healthcare? Sounds like something looking into! Since some of us are paying out the ying yang for healthcare.

By: ducdebrabant

ducdebrabant — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:40:09 +0000

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.

By: momru

momru — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:37:34 +0000

‘Over the years this has been reinterpreted and expanded, but as far as I can tell, there is a. no “freedom of religion”‘
You need to reread the Bill of Rights. Pay attention to Amendment I.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:35:00 +0000

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.

By: ThinkOutsidetheBOX

ThinkOutsidetheBOX — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:34:20 +0000

Also Jason: “IF my contention that legalizing same sex marriage will reduce the birth rate is ridiculous, name a developed country in the West where this is not the case.”
The bottom line is Jason, your claim that there is a connection between same sex marriage and decline in birthrate is baseless because there exists developed countries “Western” and “Eastern” (honestly don’t see what distinction you’d like to draw there) who do NOT have legalized gay marriage with the same issues. Australia for example has the same pyramid demographic of an aging population and dropping birthrates. They have extremely generous government incentives to encourage people to have children but guess what happening: the educated faction of the population arn’t the ones responding to this incentive, it’s the unemployed and economically depressed parts of society that are popping babies out like it’s their job encouraging their 16 year old daughters to have babies simply to collect government aid.
Japan is a 1st world country and i’d be interested in hearing anyone claiming otherwise. What do you think is causing their birth rate to drop?? They don’t have legalized gay marriage either.
So lets look at the countries who do have legalized gay marriage: Canada, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden to name some. These countries also happen to have extremely high standards of education and levels of higher education among their population. So going by your method of deduction couldn’t we also say that the drop in birth rate is directly linked to education? and in order to fix that we need to stop providing such high levels of education for the masses so they will breed???

By: sk00ter

sk00ter — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:21:19 +0000

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?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:16:49 +0000

Shannon, IF my contention that legalizing same sex marriage will reduce the birth rate is ridiculous, name a developed country in the West where this is not the case. I agree with you that divorce has thus far been the most harmful thing to family unity here in the US and we see the results in the lower marriage rates in general. Increasing the number of things that will degrade traditional marriage is certainly not going to help. If you believe that we are crowded for land you have never been to the plains states. We have plenty of land to grow enough food to feed us and the rest of the world and still provide for living space for a much larger population. Our population problem is not one of having too many children but too few. Look again at Japan, China, and every single European country who have aging populations with declining birth rates, within a few decades, they will be bankrupt or struggling mightily to figure out how to pay for health care, etc for that population without new workers.