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

Skip to comments.

Lieberman bill may cross a bridge in same-sex debate
The Hill ^ | October 11, 2009 | J. Taylor Rushing

Posted on 10/11/2009 12:32:48 PM PDT by jazusamo

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) is ready to re-start a debate over domestic benefits to gay federal employees and their spouses.

Lieberman told The Hill he hopes to push a bill onto the Senate floor by the end of the year that would grant the same benefits to gay federal employees and their spouses as given any married federal employee and their spouse.

Benefits include federal health insurance, enhanced dental and vision care, retirement and disability provisions and life insurance and benefits in cases of death or disability. Members of the military would be excluded.

Lieberman said he expects to hold a hearing on the bill soon — an initial hearing was already held in the 110th Congress, but the senator said the Obama administration should be more welcoming.

“We have a whole new administration with a different attitude toward this, so I think I’d like to give people an opportunity to testify,” Lieberman said. “And then I’d like to bring the bill out sometime before the end of the year.”

In the House, the bill is being pushed by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and has already cleared a subcommittee tasked with overseeing the federal work force. The full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), has not yet scheduled it for a hearing.

“We’re hoping a full committee markup will be scheduled in the next couple of weeks and it will be on track for a floor vote this fall,” said Baldwin spokeswoman Jerilyn Goodman, when asked about the bill’s prospects.

Lieberman’s bill has only one GOP co-sponsor, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). All of the other 24 co-sponsors are Democrats.

Asked if the bill had at least 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster, Lieberman said he didn’t know but that the costs of the bill should be minimal.

Lieberman said he sees the bill as a pragmatic approach to federal hiring practices — not as a civil rights issue.

“I’m sure it will be controversial,” he said. “To me this is not a question of fairness. Our committee oversees the civil service, and to me this is a way to broaden the pool of people that we can recruit to work for the federal government. This is why Fortune 500 companies give benefits to domestic partners, because it both attracts and keeps the best employees.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohomosexualagenda; gayrights; homosexualagenda; lieberman; samesexunions
Put a sock in it, Joe.
1 posted on 10/11/2009 12:32:48 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Please bump the Freepathon and donate if you haven’t done so!

2 posted on 10/11/2009 12:34:10 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Gee what happened to all those freepers who donated to this socialist and claimed we should all support him over the Republican because the WOT is "the most important issue"?

Harry Reid sends this thanks.

3 posted on 10/11/2009 12:34:44 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Yep, other than defense they don’t much more liberal than Joe.


4 posted on 10/11/2009 12:36:26 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Must be special protection of some sort. Gay employees are already getting the same benefits. I know of one gay male copule where BOTH took a three month maternity leave when they “adopted” their baby boy. BTW, they had a grand time at the pool while the sitter took care of the baby. It was a three month vacation for both.


5 posted on 10/11/2009 12:36:50 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Joe really wants to extend all the bennies to persons involved in plural marrages ~ just like Father Abraham.

That's really his secret agenda ~ don't tell Mrs. Lieberman about that part though.

6 posted on 10/11/2009 12:38:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

So much for “observant Jew”.


7 posted on 10/11/2009 12:40:00 PM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

With over 80% of Jews in the U.S. voting for Obama, this should come as a surprise to no one.


8 posted on 10/11/2009 12:48:08 PM PDT by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

In the end, all you have to do is follow the money. (sigh)


9 posted on 10/11/2009 12:51:31 PM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (Hey, O'Riley! I'd rather be a CRACKER than a CASPAR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NaughtiusMaximus

I think they are laying the groundwork for homosexual marriage. They are setting this up so that incremental changes in laws will give recognition to same-sex couples. I expect more legislation will be passed so as to require that same-sex couples get the same legal recognition and status as traditional marriage. It may not have the same name, but will have the same legal status. Then, eventually, any couple or group of people will get the same legal status, if not the name of marriage.

If they get a “Brown vs. Board of Education” decision on homosexual marriage out of the U.S. Supreme Court, then the plan will be complete. But until they get that, they will chip away with matters such as this. And they will say they aren’t trying to change the definition of marriage, but, by chipping away like this, it will set the stage for that endgame.


10 posted on 10/11/2009 1:00:43 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Must be some sort of Jewish thing, don't they allow butt jockeys in the Jewish military.
11 posted on 10/11/2009 1:02:00 PM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

About time for everybody’s favorite “Democrat” to guest again on Bill Bennett’s sorry show.


12 posted on 10/11/2009 1:30:06 PM PDT by TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Joe must think it’s a good time to add to the price tag of government. It’s not like we are running hug deficits or anything. What an idiot.


13 posted on 10/11/2009 1:54:04 PM PDT by peeps36 (Democrats Don't Need No Stinking Input From You Little People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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