Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to offer benefits to gay partners of federal employees
LA Times ^ | 6/17/2009 | Mark Z. Barabak and Jessica Garrison

Posted on 06/17/2009 5:43:41 AM PDT by markomalley

Faced with growing anger among gay and lesbian supporters, President Obama is expected tonight to extend healthcare and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

His action is a significant advance for gay rights and comes days after the Obama administration sparked outrage by filing a legal brief defending the law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Obama opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act during his presidential campaign.

It was not immediately clear whether Obama's latest decision would mollify his critics. Some offered only grudging support Tuesday night after learning of the president's intentions.

"This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

As a candidate for president, Obama was a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian rights. He called for repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and also the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the armed forces. He promised to help lead the fight.

Since taking office, however, Obama has disappointed many gay activists by not just keeping silent but, lately, by defending some of the policies he criticized. After months of grumbling, the anger exploded in public denunciations this week after the administration filed its legal brief in Orange County federal court.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhohomosexualagenda; federalemployees; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; wealthshare
Our tax dollars folks...our tax dollars.
1 posted on 06/17/2009 5:43:41 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Gays were throwing a hissy fit that they weren’t getting the “change” THEY were promised.

Obama is trying to pacify them.


2 posted on 06/17/2009 5:45:25 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I believe thats called “Throwing them a bone”


3 posted on 06/17/2009 5:45:35 AM PDT by NMEwithin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NMEwithin
I believe thats called “Throwing them a bone”

No pun intended, of course...

4 posted on 06/17/2009 5:47:10 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I actually thought they had this already. I thought it passed back in 2004. Well I guess I was wrong. If we can stop this then let’s do it. But I think focusing on killing the health care bill is more important IMHO.


5 posted on 06/17/2009 5:48:09 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This has been posted about ten times already.


6 posted on 06/17/2009 5:49:09 AM PDT by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG

“Obama is trying to pacify them.”

And he gives them something to suck on. Oh, did I say that out loud?


7 posted on 06/17/2009 5:53:54 AM PDT by Never on my watch (Obama, your compass has no magnet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

The Boston Globe tried this. They lost in court when they were sued by straight employees who had live in girlfriends or boyfriends. There’s a precedent. He’ll have to extend them to all.


8 posted on 06/17/2009 6:02:57 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And how are they going to “prove” that the person involved is a “gay” partner?

This is just another part of the destruction marriage. It means that marriage means nothing. If there is anyone who you want to have full federal benefits, you need only name them as your “gay” partner, and voila, they are on the taxpayer’s dime.


9 posted on 06/17/2009 6:04:21 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Mass has gay marriage. Want health coverage? Get married.
10 posted on 06/17/2009 6:12:57 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
The Boston Globe tried this. They lost in court when they were sued by straight employees who had live in girlfriends or boyfriends. There’s a precedent. He’ll have to extend them to all.

More dilution of marriage and family.

11 posted on 06/17/2009 6:14:49 AM PDT by Damifino (The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is an empty gesture to placate the fags, who are up in arms. NO health insurance, life insurance or pension benefits can be shared with sex partners, because of DOMA. And DOMA ‘aint goin nowhere because Eric Holder’s Mormon attorney last week compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia in defending DOMA before the court. You can’t make this stuff up! Every other thread on Kos this week is RAGE over Obama’s betrayal of the gays. You would think they’d be used to bending over by now.


12 posted on 06/17/2009 6:16:21 AM PDT by FreepShop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
This is the latest trial balloon. When Shrillery announced that State Department employees were going to get benefits for same-sex partners, there was no outcry. Lord Zero's betting for none here, as well.

He wants to help the gay lobby, but he's afraid of spending political capital to do so. So, he's turning the temperature up gradually on the frog in the pot.

13 posted on 06/17/2009 6:27:08 AM PDT by hunter112 (SHRUG - Stop Hussein's Radical Utopian Gameplan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Thank you for bringing that case up. I’m not an expert, but my first thought upon seeing the headline was that this would be unconstitutional unless extended to heterosexual unmarried couples as well.


14 posted on 06/17/2009 6:35:56 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I hadn't seen it...some of us don't spend 24/7 on here, we have a life ; )
15 posted on 06/17/2009 6:38:55 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Seems like this could get out of control. If you would extend benefits to all, how can you stop someone from covering their friends and neighbors if they don’t already have a spouse or partner covered? What about polygamists, can they just add as many spouses as they wish?


16 posted on 06/17/2009 6:41:29 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

Ok, let’s see.

Man (#1) is 50 yrs old and lives with a man 26 yrs old (his son).

Man (#2) is 50 yrs old and lives with a man 26 yrs old (not his son).

Man (#1) can’t get his son under his medical ins because the son is ‘over 25’.
Man (#2) can.

Explain that one to me.


17 posted on 06/17/2009 6:41:45 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Or how about naming somebody of the OPPOSITE gender? Why not? We’re both gay. She’s my gay partner. Are you asking me about my sex life? None of your business. Do you quiz the married men about their sex life? We don’t even live together - so what? Some married couples don’t live togehter either, and they get benefits. So I’ve named my grown son who lives in another state as my gay partner? So what? We’re not breaking any laws. Now you’re telling me that family members are the only ones who CAN’T qualify under this benefits program. WTF? Okay, he’s not my son. We just have the same last name. Just like married folks do. So give him the benefits.

What a mess!


18 posted on 06/17/2009 7:09:25 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Keep your eye on the ball. It’s called slight of hand.

Meanwhile.....Rome burns, Wednesday jazz concerts in the Beige House, Air Force One flyovers frighten Manhattan citizens, trillions funneled out of your pockets, liberties lost!!!....

Gay, gay, gay all day....


19 posted on 06/17/2009 7:13:58 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
my first thought upon seeing the headline was that this would be unconstitutional unless extended to heterosexual unmarried couples as well

I don't see why anyone would take that view. Heterosexuals have the option of marrying if they want spousal benefits. If they opt not to, that is their decision and they bear the consequences. If gays had the option to marry but didn't, it would also be a consequence of their own decision. But that's an "if" scenario, not the reality.

20 posted on 06/17/2009 7:56:19 AM PDT by around the world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Thank you for bringing that case up. I’m not an expert, but my first thought upon seeing the headline was that this would be unconstitutional unless extended to heterosexual unmarried couples as well.

There is another problem, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the president can’t spend a penny. This will require legislation and I have a feeling that the dems in congress will be reluctant to fight for this. I would be if I were one of them and running for reelection anywhere but a metropolitan area.

21 posted on 06/17/2009 8:05:58 AM PDT by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson