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

Skip to comments.

Obama Expands Family Medical Leave Act to Cover Gay Employees
FOX ^

Posted on 06/22/2010 5:00:24 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Obama Expands Family Medical Leave Act to Cover Gay Employees

The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that orders U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act. fox news

The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The announcement comes as the President Obama declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with a celebration Tuesday night at the White House.

But while some say recognizing gay parenthood is important to the LGBT community, there are other more prominent issues those in the community would like to see progress on, like recognizing same-sex marriage.

Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earle of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fdrq
"Obama declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with a celebration Tuesday night at the White House."............

A celebration?

See you in court........

1 posted on 06/22/2010 5:00:29 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
if they get federal benefits they should be required to file with IRS as a couple- more tax collected that way
2 posted on 06/22/2010 5:03:26 PM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

f’n rump wranglers.


3 posted on 06/22/2010 5:04:36 PM PDT by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Remember when laws used to be passed by Congress?


4 posted on 06/22/2010 5:05:23 PM PDT by Jack Wilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

See my new tag line.


5 posted on 06/22/2010 5:08:08 PM PDT by proudofthesouth (Zero its time you came out of the closet you Pervert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
"Remember when laws used to be passed by Congress?"

This is an interesting point. While the president can have some expansive authority when issuing EOs, that authority must be grounded in statutory law. I have not read the FMLA in some time, but I believe - by statute - that provision is explicitly limited to husband, wife, son, mother, father, daughter or next of kin (kin meaning related). How can a homosexual "couple" qualify under the statute when all but a handful of states don't legally recognize their relationship?

6 posted on 06/22/2010 5:12:26 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

He need to please his lover


7 posted on 06/22/2010 5:18:52 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson

The guy who can fire the CEO of GM or steal Chrysler from its’ rightful owners or tell BP to put $20 Billion in escrow or appoint a czar to disperse that money can’t tell every CEO what to do?


8 posted on 06/22/2010 5:19:38 PM PDT by csmusaret (The way his orders become law, Obama's personal automobile must be a Fiat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson

If there are 25 homosexual employees at a company that is in in a state that does not recognize homosexual marriage, how do you determine which employee will get the family leave?


9 posted on 06/22/2010 5:24:02 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance: Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"Expanding" this law via regulation is, in effect, the same as amending it, since the law doesn't say anything about benefits to non-related people (i.e. neither by blood nor by marriage) -- keeping in mind that most states do not go along with this sexual deviant faux-marriage fraud.

How the Presient presumes to amend laws without Congressional approval floors me. How would one challenge this? Could an employer take it to court?

10 posted on 06/22/2010 5:31:10 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
How nice that the White House has been transformed to a playground for terrorist sympathizers and perverts.
11 posted on 06/22/2010 7:16:39 PM PDT by greatplains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

Face it: A tenet of Obamunism is that everybody is entitled to everything indefinitely, whether it is FMLA, unemployment compenation or anything else. There are no limits.


12 posted on 06/22/2010 7:17:35 PM PDT by Jack Wilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
Face it: A tenet of Obamunism is that everybody is entitled to everything indefinitely, whether it is FMLA, unemployment compenation or anything else. There are no limits.

I believe you are correct. Especially, when it destroys the traditional mores of the U. S.
13 posted on 06/22/2010 8:22:48 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance: Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: greatplains

WTF.We need to destroy the drones who elect these criminals.
I am sorry to say that we thus far have no answer to Obama and the Obamabots.


14 posted on 06/22/2010 8:26:43 PM PDT by shanover (These are the times that try men's souls....tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered-T. Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
Another question:
If you allow family leave to homosexuals who cohabitate, how can you not allow family leave to heterosexuals that cohabitate?

That would be discriminatory toward the heterosexuals. Would it not?

15 posted on 06/22/2010 8:29:19 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance: Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The Family Medical Leave Act is a complete JOKE and not worth the paper it’s written on. I speak from first-hand experience.


16 posted on 06/22/2010 11:20:16 PM PDT by Live Free NH
[ 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