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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021 last

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