Obama to OK Same-Sex Partner Benefits for Federal Employees

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    CNN

     
  2. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    Yay! It's a start. Like it or not conservatives, GBLs aren't going away.

    That is of course if they don't get Heterosil past the FDA. :)
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Yes! Sweet! Thanks Obama! Now get rid of DADT and DOMA and we'll be on our way! You aren't off the hook yet.
     
  4. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
  5. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #5
    I like this change. This country is LONG overdue.
     
  6. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #6
    Hehehe.

    Whenever I hear the word "change" associated with President Obama, I always think of that JibJab cartoon:

    "Gosh I'm so tired of devisive exchange
    And I've got one or two things to say about change:
    Like the change we must change to the change we hold dear -
    I really like change, have I made myself clear?"
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    And we've got much further to go.
     
  8. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #8
    A good start...but hopefully we can see things moving along a little faster!


    (Also notice how the Obama nay sayers skillfully avoid this thread :D )
     
  9. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #9
    Shouldn't it be "same-sex partner benefits, except military servicepeople"? I have to ask how he can reconcile these two positions, given that those in uniform are also federal employees.
     
  10. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #10
    The military subscribes to a different legal system than the civil government. DADT has not been repealed. Same-sex military spouses are technically entitled to the benefits, but exercising them would be "telling" and therefore grounds for discharge. Thus same sex military spouses are eligible for benefits unless they try to exercise them, which would make them ineligible for benefits.

    Somewhere Joseph Heller is lying in his grave laughing his decomposed ass off.
     
  11. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #11
    I get that. I just don't see how he can justify the position that random person behind a desk in the Bureau of Endless Paperwork is eligible for benefits, but someone in uniform isn't, especially when he is the National Command Authority and both their paychecks come straight out of the US Treasury. It's taking a giant, wet, corn-filled dump on gays/lesbians in uniform.
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Agreed.

    And I had heard that health care was one of the benefits NOT covered by this memorandum.

    EDIT: The CNN article posted confirms what I had heard:

     
  13. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #13
    True. It's a damn shame nobody can think of some simple tweak that would make the new policy apply evenly. :rolleyes:

    (Actually, the specific text of this EO is not yet available online that I can find, but if it's really specifically limited to civil service jobs, as the article suggests, that explicitly excludes the military by definition.)
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    It would take an act of Congress to do that. Fortunately, a bill is currently up in congress to do that, sponsered by Joe Lieberman of all people, and Obama has thrown his support behind the legislation. It's really all he can do for now.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    Just for clarification, do they have to be a legal couple to get these rights? How will they tell if 2 people live together and say they are together but are just roommates? If civil unions are not accepted in all 50 states.

    Ok never mind I didn't read deep enough.:eek:
     
  16. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #16
    a start?

    ITS A FREAKING COP-OUT


    Obama, no spine. The stupid GBLs voted for him because they heard what they wanted to hear and not what he said.


    Why not coverage for opposite sex unmarried partners?
     
  17. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #17
    It covers that.

    Stupid?
     
  18. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #18
    Not surprising, bash, bash without looking up the facts :rolleyes:
     
  19. opinioncircle macrumors 6502a

    opinioncircle

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #19
    Well if it's Joe Lieberman behind the wheel, I think we can all relax and consider a done deal now :D....
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    Way to completely ignore the facts.

    Obama can't just wave a magic wand and give health benefits to same sex couples. It has to go through Congress. Checks and balances, and that's a good thing. A president shouldn't just have the power to change the law like that, even if he is going to change it in a good way.
     

Share This Page