Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama: More benefits for gay workers only one step

Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:30 AM EDT
business, politics, us, obama, white-house, barack-obama, gay, benefits
Philip Elliott, Associated Press
AP correspondent Ross Simpson reports the Obama administration has tried to make small, quiet moves to extend benefits to gays and lesbians.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 9 photos
<p>President Barack Obama waves after a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, not shown, Tuesday, June 16, 2009, in the Rose Garden of The White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)</p>

President Barack Obama waves after a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, not shown, Tuesday, June 16, 2009, in the Rose Garden of The White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signaled to gay-rights activists Wednesday that he's listening to their desire for greater equality in "a more perfect union." But he didn't give them even close to everything they want, bringing to the surface an anger that's been growing against the president.

"We all have to acknowledge this is only one step," Obama said in the Oval Office, where he signed a memorandum extending some benefits, such as visitation or dependent-care rights, to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.

But the president's critics — and there were many — saw the incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc, with the primary aim not of making policy more fair but of cutting short a fundraising boycott.

"When a president tells you he's going to be different, you believe him," said John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist. "It's not that he didn't follow through on his promises, he stabbed us in the back."

Obama has refused to take any concrete steps toward a repeal of a policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, even though as a candidate he pledged to scrap the Clinton-era rules. He similarly has refused to step in and block the dismissal of gays and lesbians who face courts-martial for disclosing their sexual orientation, arguing that the only lasting ways would be for Congress to act.

Obama said he wants to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and in its place a law that would give the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees health insurance and survivor benefits, among other things.

"I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it," Obama pledged, flanked by lawmakers and advocates at his Oval Office desk.

Without that repeal, Obama's ultimate goal of extending health benefits would have to wait. Even those who joined Obama at the signing recognized it was only a first step to achieve what they were promised.

"The community has been growing frustrated and the administration has been working on this since Day One," said Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Facing fierce anger, Obama approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples. For instance, employees' domestic partners can be added to a government insurance program that pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also can take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.

Even before Obama signed the memorandum, some agencies had voluntarily offered the benefits Obama guaranteed with his signature.

But health care benefits — the ultimate goal for many gay activists — remained forbidden by Congress.

"People feel they're owed an apology," said Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues. "People in the gay community feel he over-promised and under-delivered. Now, with over 250 discharges from the military on his watch ... the grace period is over."

Obama sought to paint his memo as a measure that "paves the way for long-overdue progress in our nation's pursuit of equality."

"Many of our government's hardworking and dedicated, patriotic public servants have been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy, for one simple reason: The people that they love are of the same sex," Obama said.

Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a Democratic National Committee event scheduled for June 25 where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak.

"Latinos matter for numbers; gays matter for money," Aravosis said.

The leaders' withdrawal from the fundraiser comes after a handful of public missteps that White House officials concede were not handled with the best eye on public relations.

The breaking point came last week, when the administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to reject another state's legalized gay marriages and blocks federal Washington from recognizing those state-based unions. Overturning it is a top legislative target for gay activists. But Justice Department lawyers used incest as a reason to support the law.

Critics saw the Justice memo as evidence of Obama saying one thing and doing another.

"I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the first openly gay non-incumbent to win election to Congress. "I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal ... I also recognize that he cannot do it alone."

Obama on Wednesday again said he was committed to repealing that law but needed lawmakers' help.

"We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally, to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms, and to bring about that more perfect union," he said.

John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking gay official in the administration, said the president is doing the best he can while waiting for Congress to act.

"This is a first step," said Berry. "Not a final step."

___

Associated Press writers Andrew Miga and Henry C. Jackson contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Office of Personnel Management: http://www.opm.gov

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Philip Elliott's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Queer Agendas
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (130)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Randy McMurphy

Let me guess what the rights simultaneous memes will be;

To the libs; He doesn't support gay marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The the cons; He supports the Homosexual AGENDA!!!!!

8 years of this.

Waitresss ,some coffee with this,please?

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:49 AM EDT
logdump

Impatient people are not the ones bitching about what the President has or has not done so far. To think he could walk into Washington wave a magic wand and make everything ok again is the height of stupidity. The fact he gets absolutely nothing as far as imput from the other side complicates matters to the nth degree. If you can read you will see that while yes he is keeping certain unpalatable positions from the past admin it is only temporary and not permanent. Things have to be changed gradually on some issues while others can take a swipe of the pen. Overall with what he has on his plate I would give him far more than a passing grade so far.

  • 10 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:38 AM EDT
The_Revival

They just need to give the man more time. He's not been in office a year, and some people are saying he already let them down. He's trying to change the direction of the country from a course it's been on for at least eight years; it isn't going to happen overnight!

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:49 AM EDT
onematt4youx4

THANK YOU LOGDUMP an REVIVAL!!! Finally Intelligent life!!! What is up with people thinking that stuff was gonna change first day he was in office? There are issues far more important than the gay community and thier so called happiness, ( Economy, 3 wars and possibly a 4th if Korea don't act right, Medical Policies and a Still being a father and a husband, not to mention the Republican party that insist on stalling him at every turn...Sotomayor, Franken, etc) he only has Two hands and one brain. GIVE HIM TIME!! I really hope they gay community did not think he had them at the top of his to do list. Less than six months is not enough time to do anything thats gonna affect 300 million lives. If we as a country cannot support the man in his decisions weather we are republican or democrat then We DESERVE TO FAIL!!! Like it or not he is our president for the next 4 years, 8 if he run again, and we need to support the man thats got our country on his back.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
Just_some_guy

onematt,

While I do not expect to be at the top of the list to receive help, I don't expect him to actively work against me. He has actively worked to stop hearings on both DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He has actively come out against repeling both through his Justice Department. While I can understand he is a busy man, and that there are big priorities (won't there always be bigger priorities than the 4% of the populace making up the gay community?), I cannot understand why he is openly and actively working against us.

Maybe he has his reasons. But do we know what they are? Has he thought to take the five minutes to say "hey, I know it seems like I'm doing this to hurt you, but here is the real reasoning behind this action." I could come up with several different scenarios on why he has done what he's done, but without actually hearing from him or his people, I can't say that any of those are the real reasons.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:50 PM EDT
onematt4youx4

Just_some_guy,

I don't think he is actively working against it. I believe making such decisions may have other unforseen outcomes attached to them that could possibly work against him or his cause. I believe we need to give him time to work out the whatever potential problems may arise from such decisions from all side of the spectrum. Just making quick decisions without thinking it through can cause a deeper mudhole than what man expects....and america is pretty big mudhole. remember he's only been in office 6 months.

    #1.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:45 PM EDT
    Just_some_guy

    I will agree that there could be potential downsides to hasty decisions. However, he has twice, recently actively opposed gay rights. First by asking the supreme court not to hear a case on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and then following that up with his Justice Department putting a statement to the court saying that DOMA should not be over turned, including in such statements comparisons to incest.

    While I did not expect rapid movement, I did not expect movement that goes directly against the cause of promoting equality. Again, I'm well aware of the potential down sides to letting these things go before the court, but my concerns, and the concerns of others could be easily put aside if he would take five minutes to address them. A quick "I didn't think it would be a good idea at this time because..." note would alay many of my fears, and I'm sure most in the gay community. We have not received that. Given the past of gay rights, where many promises are made and few are kept, I don't think it is unreasonable for us to be more than a little upset.

    Having just read what he has decided to allow, it is a far cry from what he has promised, and what he continues to promise. He says that he is commited to overturning DOMA, and yet says that he feels he is compelled to hold respect for current laws. Many former presidents have worked to over turn laws they disagree with. He could even go so far as to put enforcement of things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell on hold for the time being. And yet, nothing. And now he offers us these benefits, but avoids granting health coverage. I can understand the reasoning there, being that he needs congress' approval before he can do that. However, have we seen him ask for congress to issue a bill in this regard? No, we have not. Do I think that is odd, considering his push for health care reform? Damn skippy I do.

    Again, many of my fears would probably go away if he would just give a statement on why he has so forcefully turned his back on the gay community. Instead, we receive no word other than "we're taking steps." Please, outside of this minor change, what steps is he taking? What moves is he making towards equality?

    • 1 vote
    #1.6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:24 PM EDT
    onematt4youx4

    Again, he has his reasons for asking the supreme court not to hear don't ask don't tell policy. When policies of this caliber are disbanded there often needs to be laws put in place to close the loops holes that policy would leave behind. The Supreme Court closing don't ask don't tell could possibly spawn a whole new type of hate crime with endless loop holes to make that hate legal. It would be years before anything is done about it. Obama never said that he supports don't ask don't tell, he is simply buying time....but the media won't cover that.. Lets wait until his plan for this country unfolds before we Judge him.

      #1.7 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:13 PM EDT
      Behind My Screen

      Legislative remedies to things like Don't ask don't tell are much better than a court ruling. The court ruling would result in one of the following:

      1)Upholding the law

      2)over turning the law and leaving a contentious debate that stalls any permanent remedies

      3) over turning the law that results in no legislative protections and guidance.

      repealing the law by way of new legislation is a much better plan and in the interim, the Secretary of Defense and the joint chiefs are working out how to deal with this issue under UCMJ.

      • 1 vote
      #1.8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:30 PM EDT
      Greg-281912

      I don't think it's appropriate for the President to discuss with the Supremes what they may or may not hear.

      That said, I do believe 100% that Obama is more interested in reelection in 2012 that in pretty much anything else. I also feel that once he is reelected, then he might consider doing the right thing.

      But, it's pretty disgusting when politicians refuse to do the right thing just to get elected/reelected. Unfortunately, that's the name of the game.

        #1.9 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:58 AM EDT
        Mark in Worcester

        Agreed, Greg. It's just as disgusting as it is necessary. Doesn't make it any easier to accept. I really hate how "things work" today.

        • 2 votes
        #1.10 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:24 PM EDT
        Behind My Screen

        There wasn't a discussion, they filed a legal briefing which is what every justice department has done in cases the government has an interest in since the beginning of the country.

          #1.11 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
          Reply
          freeAmericaNow1

          this has got to be a sick joke!!! maybe i did vote the wrong way!!!

          • 2 votes
          Reply#2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:19 AM EDT
          Dylan923

          this has got to be a sick joke!!! maybe i did vote the wrong way!!!

          Only Maybe?!?!?!?!?

          • 1 vote
          #2.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:40 AM EDT
          Mark in Worcester

          It's a sick joke to offer benefits to government worker's gay partners? Why is that? They are already paying the exact same taxes that provide benefits for married government workers' spouses. Why should they be taxed only so others may benefit from it?

          • 9 votes
          #2.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:04 AM EDT
          Just_some_guy

          Mark,

          Conservatives have been complaining for...well, forever, about their taxes dollars going away from them and into the pockets of the undeserving poor, who are obviously stupid and lazy.

          And yet, they have no problem with the tax dollars of homosexuals going towards them, while homosexuals see no return on it.

          It is an amazing double standard.

          • 3 votes
          #2.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:13 AM EDT
          Greg-281912

          As a single taxpayer with no kids, I pour thousands of dollars yearly into public education.

          Yes, there is a double standard. In essence, our government supports and encourages people to have more and more kids at the expense of people who don't want kids or can't have kids or who have chosen an alternate lifestyle.

          Now, naturally, it's important to continue the human race, but there is enough people who can afford to raise and educate their own kids without my tax dollars!

          I say we stop all funding of public education via taxes, and we discontine any tax credits for kids.

          • 1 vote
          #2.4 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:02 AM EDT
          Freedom Writer-801740

          Greg I couldnt agree with you more. And we are the ones that get in the shorts because we CHOOSE not to have children. I absolutely despise the earned income credit. I mean it pushed me over the edge to know that someone who makes say 15 thousand a year has 2 kids and then files at the end of the year is going to get a 4 thousand dollar refund. Knowing full well that they are more than likely getting rent, utilities and food subsidized by the government. I think that having a child is a choice and if you cant take care of it dont have it.

          • 1 vote
          #2.5 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
          Behind My Screen

          so you want to leave the education of the future of our country up to the what the parents want their kids to know given today's world? No standards on what they learn, or if they learn.

          Education is the cornerstone of a healthy society. It is in the people's interest to make sure the children are educated... even those who do not have kids.

            #2.6 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:55 PM EDT
            Reply
            BlaBlaBla22
              Reply#3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:24 AM EDT
              kissmyarsenal

              Great. Another budget busting move to facilitate partnerships of convenience, to pay back his supporters. Why doesn't he just give an executive order that all Americans get federal benefits, being the great and thoughtful man he is?

              Will it be fraud to marry someone for the short term to get temporary benefits like coverage for a high-cost short term healthcare need, say a brain surgery or organ transplant and then divorce when the benefit is exhausted or no longer needed? Or marriage to a terminal federal employee to gain the survivor benefits? I see paid arranged marriages in our futures.

              The squeaky wheel gets the grease in the Obama administration, so expect the squeaking to escalate.

              • 2 votes
              #4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:02 AM EDT
              ohiogal-479871

              Will it be fraud to marry someone for the short term to get temporary benefits like coverage for a high-cost short term healthcare need, say a brain surgery or organ transplant and then divorce when the benefit is exhausted or no longer needed

              Of course, because heterosexual couples have NEVER done this before.

              Imagine, someone marrying for benefits, property, wealth or citizenship . . . all this and more spontanously occurred when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage.

              • 7 votes
              #4.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:16 AM EDT
              Just_some_guy

              kissmyarsenal,

              From what I'm reading in the article, survivor's benefits will not be included in this. Which means that getting married to a terminal person to collect the money is still something only heteros can do. As for the rest of it, yeah, it could happen. But again, it's something heteros have been doing for years.

              • 3 votes
              #4.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:17 AM EDT
              kissmyarsenal

              Of course, because heterosexual couples have NEVER done this before.

              So it is a good thing to open up fraud to the gay community. They have been discriminated against in the opportunity to commit fraud, I suppose.

              Since it is solely love driving current gay relationships, as the gay community has repeatedly told us, why pollute gay love with the benefits angle? Benefits aren't the reason gay marriage is being pursued, is it?

              While full benefits have not yet been promised, there is no doubt Obama plans incremental increases in same sex partner benefits, a little more promised around each election bid.

                #4.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:45 PM EDT
                Just_some_guy

                kissmyarsenal,

                Damn straight this is about benefits. I've already got love. But there are a great many things I don't have. When I'm on my home computer, I'll be more than happy to link you to a partial list of the rights, benefits, and privileges I'm missing out on. So yeah, it's about the benefits. It's about equality. It's about any number of things. But love...that's the one thing I already have, and the one thing the no one else gets to control.

                • 2 votes
                #4.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:53 PM EDT
                kissmyarsenal

                If you just picked an opposite sex partner, problem solved. Keep your love, marry a source of benefits, maybe another same-sexer with your same problem -- cross marry but keep the love as the main dish.

                Equality my big old butt. It is about getting everything possible at little or no cost. The equal rights sqeak is bogus, a cover for the real motives and real objective.

                  #4.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:59 PM EDT
                  Mark in Worcester

                  If you just picked an opposite sex partner...

                  If you would just mind your own goddamn business...

                  You would benefit from not talking about what you have no knowledge of. You can't speak for someone else's motives. And it absolutely is about equality. Gays pay the exact same taxes that heterosexuals pay. But much of our tax dollars only go toward benefiting you heterosexuals.

                  • 3 votes
                  #4.6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:03 PM EDT
                  kissmyarsenal

                  If you would just mind your own goddamn business...

                  It becomes my business when I have to pay for it, when I have to fend off indoctrinations aimed at my kids perpetrated by government schools. It is my business because gays made it my business.

                  Can you make it through even one day not worrying about what others have that you don't, one day without feeling and playing the victim?

                  But much of our tax dollars only go toward benefiting you heterosexuals.

                  You have my thanks commensurate with your contribution to my marital benefits, which is none.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.7 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
                  Behind My Screen

                  indoctrination... right.

                  Sorry, but teaching tolerance for someone else is not indoctrination.

                  • 2 votes
                  #4.8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:25 PM EDT
                  kissmyarsenal

                  Sorry, but teaching tolerance for someone else is not indoctrination.

                  Sorry, but it is a demand for tolerance, not teaching of tolerance. We see how well the left "teaches" tolerance of Christians, conservatives, morals, and ethics. By the way, I have no human or Constitutional duty to tolerate anything or anyone. The freedom of speech was to allow expression of intolerance. It has been a tenet of American freedom to associate with those we choose, shun those we choose and to dislike (which does not equal hate) and express the dislike for those we choose. I like it that way and I'm keeping it that way for my family.

                    #4.9 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
                    Mark in Worcester

                    It becomes my business when I have to pay for it

                    Excuse me, but everyone is paying for it, regardless of sexuality. But only the heterosexual married couples are reaping the benefits.

                    Can you make it through even one day not worrying about what others have that you don't, one day without feeling and playing the victim?

                    Sounds like you've filled the victim role just fine, KMA. I for one refuse to be a victim. We should just accept whatever we're deemed worthy of receiving? What a load of bull@!$%#. I'm a citizen of this country, which makes me your equal in every single way.

                    • 4 votes
                    #4.10 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:58 PM EDT
                    Behind My Screen

                    arsenal,

                    You may want to raise a bully, but people are getting fed up with this garbage and resorting to legal remedies. Maybe you would rather your kid hate someone for who they are but expect them to be put in juvenile detention or probation for the actions they take.

                    Tolerance is not acceptance. No one is moralizing your child, they are simply teaching them not to hate and to learn to deal with those in their lives that they might dislike with out resorting to violence, ridicule, or humiliation.

                    • 2 votes
                    #4.11 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:34 PM EDT
                    kissmyarsenal

                    One can be intolerant and not hate. I don't teach my kids to hate, quite the contrary. but I have taught them to not be intimidated by bully activists. And I have taught them there are people worthy of dislike. Your "legal remedies" are a perversion of freedom and liberty, a perversion of justice, a perverse use of the government.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.12 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:19 AM EDT
                    Mark in Worcester

                    That you think it's a perversion for all non-criminal adult citizens of this country to be treated equally says a lot about you. If you don't like what this country stands for, liberty and justice for all, find another country better suited to your very unAmerican ideas and beliefs.

                    • 3 votes
                    #4.13 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
                    Greg-281912

                    As a single person with no kids, I hereby demand from our government that my tax rate (on purchases, on real estate, on cars, etc.) be reduced so that I don't have to support public education.

                    Why should I have to support other people's kids? If we agree that a certain segment of society should not be supported, then I should be able to discontinue my support of children!

                      #4.14 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:07 AM EDT
                      kissmyarsenal

                      Why should I have to support other people's kids?

                      You shouldn't. It wasn't my idea. Your efforts to reverse that transgression are appreciated. But you sure do participate in having your government make rules for my kids.

                      MiW, you are treated equally and you have equal opportunity to marry. You just chose to take a different path, the non-marriage path. And it is a transgression upon the freedoms of individuals to force them to treat everyone the same. The government should have to treat everyone the same within limits, but the people should be free to speak about, associate with, and dissociate from anyone they chose with very few limits.

                        #4.15 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
                        Mark in Worcester

                        MiW, you are treated equally and you have equal opportunity to marry.

                        Marriage laws as they exist in most states are unconstitutional in that they discriminate on the basis of gender. In most states, a man can marry a woman but he cannot marry a man simply because he is not female, and a woman can marry a man but she cannot marry a woman simply because she is not male. Telling me, someone who is gay, that I have equal opportunity to marry, but only if I marry someone of the opposite sex, is a load of crap.

                        To then continue on and tell me that I have chosen to take a different path shows a fundamental lack of intelligence. Anyone with even the most basic of critical thinking skills would understand that sexuality is not a choice. Why would someone choose to subject themselves to bigotry from folks like you?

                        it is a transgression upon the freedoms of individuals to force them to treat everyone the same

                        What utter bigoted nonsense. The constitution guarantees that we are all equal. You're the one with the problem, KMA. You see me as someone who is less than you, and you're very wrong about that.

                        • 2 votes
                        #4.16 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:35 PM EDT
                        Freedom Writer-801740

                        Everyone however, is truly not created equal. Certain people are always going to be different in that everyone has different skills, traits, and intelligence. If you really think about it the constitution does say that we are all equal, but in reality that is simply not the truth. In an ideal world everyone would be treated the same and everyone would get along and respect each other like we should. However, that is simply not reality.

                          #4.17 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:42 PM EDT
                          Mark in Worcester

                          If you really think about it the constitution does say that we are all equal, but in reality that is simply not the truth

                          FW, the equality that the constitution speaks of is about rights and protections. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. Of course we're all different, in many ways. And some people want to turn those differences into justification for discrimination. It isn't.

                          • 1 vote
                          #4.18 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:03 PM EDT
                          kissmyarsenal

                          The constitution guarantees that we are all equal.

                          No it doesn't. And it can't. We are not equal. It is a fallacy. Maybe we were created equal and in God's eyes we are equal, but in the rational tangible world we are not only unequal, we are each unique. I can't perform in sports like some, some can't perform in my profession as I do. If you think you are equal to a child rapist and murderer, have at it. I am not their equal.

                            #4.19 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:37 AM EDT
                            Mark in Worcester

                            KMA, stop being obtuse. The equality that the constitution guarantees us is about rights. It doesn't guarantee that we're all equal in abilities. That's just stupid.

                            If you think you are equal to a child rapist and murderer, have at it.

                            And as I've said, all non-criminal adult citizens of this country are equal. Commit a crime and you obviously lose some of your rights. I'm sure in your sick mind you believe being gay is a crime. It isn't.

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.20 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:28 AM EDT
                            kissmyarsenal

                            I'm sure in your sick mind you believe being gay is a crime.

                            How mean. I thought gay people were kind and compassionate.

                            Being gay is not a crime, but solely due to the goodwill of us straight folk, the super-majority.

                              #4.21 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:36 AM EDT
                              Mark in Worcester

                              Being gay is not a crime, but solely due to the goodwill of us straight folk, the super-majority.

                              KMA, being gay is not a crime, solely due to the constitution and the supreme court of the united states. Your "supermajority" is completely irrelevant, since rights of all individuals are protected against the tyranny of the majority. As for goodwill, based on your posts I doubt you even know what that word means.

                              • 1 vote
                              #4.22 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:48 AM EDT
                              kissmyarsenal

                              MiW, a supermajority can make the Constitution into whatever it wants. In fact, a few thugs in key positions employing the "living document" concept to the interpretation of the Constitution can make it anything they want. It is goodwill, including my own, that keeps your activities legal.

                              The tyranny is making the supermajority accept and fund undesired activites of choice.

                                #4.23 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:44 AM EDT
                                Mark in Worcester

                                MiW, a supermajority can make the Constitution into whatever it wants.

                                You should go educate yourself on what it takes to change the constitution of the united states so as not to continue making a fool of yourself.

                                It is goodwill, including my own, that keeps your activities legal.

                                You mean activities such as being alive?

                                The tyranny is making the supermajority accept and fund undesired activites of choice.

                                No, it's folks like you who are trying to force their views and beliefs on others. Live your life based on your own beliefs, and leave everyone else alone. As for funding... we gays are contributing just as much as you heterosexuals in taxes. But it's only heterosexuals who reap the benefits. You either don't understand or choose to ignore how unfair that is. It's unequal. And it's going to change. Because we live in the United States of America, where all non-criminal adult citizens are equal and must be treated equally. Again, if you don't like it that we're all equal, then you're simply unAmerican and don't deserve any of the rights and protections you wish to deny others.

                                I'm done attempting a debate on this topic with someone who refuses to make any substantial contribution to the discussion. Good day.

                                • 1 vote
                                #4.24 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:10 AM EDT
                                Behind My Screen

                                MiW, you need to start saying "Equal Under the Law" to avoid pedantic and obtuse replies.

                                  #4.25 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:15 AM EDT
                                  kissmyarsenal

                                  You should go educate yourself on what it takes to change the constitution of the united states so as not to continue making a fool of yourself.

                                  It takes the will of the people in the prescribed manner, a supermajority, to change the Constitution. I can't imagine that you don't believe it is the goodwill of the people, along with the possibility of a substantial armed defense of their goodwill, that gives us freedom and liberty. When we get that supermajority of malicious people or we let that guard down, the shirt will hit the fan.

                                    #4.26 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:48 PM EDT
                                    kissmyarsenal

                                    MiW, you need to start saying "Equal Under the Law" to avoid pedantic and obtuse replies.

                                    We are not equal. Elderly don't equal infants or middle aged. Fat don't equal skinny. Dumb don't equal smart. Rich don't equal poor. Tall don't equal short. Employed don't equal unemployed. Lazy don't equal industrious. Smokers of tobacco don't equal non-smokers of tobacco. Republicans don't equal Democrats. Christians don't equal atheists.

                                    Try running down to the nearest government building to sign up for Medicare, or food stamps, or unemployment, or a job with the Obama administration, or for a reduction in your tax rate to the lowest, if you are an industrious, hardworking, middle aged Republican. See how far your equal assertion gets you.

                                    No matter how hard you think you are legislating equality, that legislation grows the disparities. Equality legislation is against nature and is doomed to failure. Rather than creating fairness, it creates animosity, like you demonstrate to a tee.

                                      #4.27 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:02 PM EDT
                                      Mark in Worcester

                                      Dumb don't equal smart.

                                      You have more than established that.

                                      you need to start saying "Equal Under the Law" to avoid pedantic and obtuse replies

                                      Looks that way. Granted, I thought it was intentional obtuseness. I'm beginning to doubt that conclusion.

                                      Rather than creating fairness, it creates animosity, like you demonstrate to a tee.

                                      I've demonstrated it? Hahahahaha!!! You're the one bent out of shape at the very thought that all who pay in equally might start receiving equal benefits. Cry me a river. Your exclusive free lunch is over.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #4.28 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:49 PM EDT
                                      kissmyarsenal

                                      Dumb don't equal smart.

                                      You have more than established that.

                                      Yes, you don't equal me.

                                        #4.29 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
                                        Mark in Worcester

                                        Yes, you don't equal me.

                                        Reached that conclusion myself.

                                          #4.30 - Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:55 PM EDT
                                          kissmyarsenal

                                          By the way, MiW, being unequal doesn't mean one is better than the other. I gather from your responses you believe I think I'm better than you -- wrong again.

                                            #4.31 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:20 AM EDT
                                            Mark in Worcester

                                            KMA, I'm done trying to discuss this with you. You little rant about people not being equal in abilities says to me you're not really interested in a rational and factual discussion. The bottom line is, all non-criminal adult citizens in this country are equal under the law. But you go ahead and be miserable fretting over that while progress marches on as it always does.

                                              #4.32 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
                                              kissmyarsenal

                                              Okay. It is progress when things march my way too.

                                                #4.33 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
                                                Behind My Screen

                                                MiW.... There are a number of people on the vine who are promoting agendas that lead me to think they are preparing their own museum shooting.

                                                  #4.34 - Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:30 AM EDT
                                                  Reply
                                                  midwesterner-742861

                                                  Why are benefits being extended at the federal government jobs level while in private sector citizens are having benefits reduced or eliminated??? This country needs to start consolidating federal agencies and reducing overlap in workers, reducing benefits just as those of us in the private sector are experiencing, not extended MORE benefits!!!

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                  Reply#5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:43 AM EDT
                                                  my-pockets-r-mt

                                                  obama is trying to appease same sex partners without making too much of a commitment (anyone notice he hung the carrot out there saying "one step"), so they will still love him and he can say he kept his promise. That all equates to future votes and support. Votes not people is the priority.

                                                    #5.1 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:44 AM EDT
                                                    Greg-281912

                                                    Obama is ALL about being re-elected in 2012. Then, maybe, he will do the right thing.

                                                    But isn't that sad?

                                                    Frankly, although I didn't vote for Obama (nor did I vote for a Bush or a Clinton), I expected him to follow through on his campaign of "change."

                                                    LOL.

                                                      #5.2 - Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      Auteur 1536

                                                      At least he's moving a little in the right direction.

                                                      • 3 votes
                                                      Reply#6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:03 AM EDT
                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                      Amazingly enough, this is one of the things I think Obama got right (Oh no, did I say that?). I'm not a supporter of gay marriage, I've always believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I understand that there are 'life partners' and think that they should be afforded some of the same entitlements as everybody else. I do think that this policy needs to be strictly defined as regards to entitlements and limitations. On the flip side of the issue, this is going to increase spending meaning---- you guessed it, more taxes.

                                                      • 4 votes
                                                      Reply#7 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:14 AM EDT
                                                      Tacitus13

                                                      The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

                                                      FEDERAL JOBS NET CAREER CENTER

                                                      So why are gov't workers generally incompetent? You'd think higher qualifications would be in order. Also, I wonder how many gay federal employees there are and how much this is going to cost us?

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #7.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:36 AM EDT
                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                      Most are incompent because that's the way they were hired at a very low level. Once you're in, though, you're golden. Firing a government employee is almost impossible so you get the poor performers who end up rising through the system. The higher they go and the more seniority they get, the harder it is to get rid of them and it seems the less work you get out of them. It is a broken system.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #7.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:44 AM EDT
                                                      jabbausaf

                                                      So why are gov't workers generally incompetent?

                                                      What empirical data do you base this statement upon? And what proof is there that government workers are any more or less incompetent then their private sector counterparts? I've run into incompetence at restaurants, game stores, banks, retail stores, with my cell phone provider, with my internet service provider, etc. Comparing the last time I renewed my license at the DMV to when I tried to find a rare movie at Borders, the DMV process actually moved faster and smoother.

                                                      In fact, the only genuine examples of private sector competence that I can recall are my dentist, my car insurance agent, and the buyer's agent I used when buying my home. All three are very competent and very good at their jobs. And in every case, you can bet they have a yearly wage higher then $100k. Everybody else? Box of rocks.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #7.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:22 AM EDT
                                                      Behind My Screen

                                                      try removing the military personnel from that statistic... unless you think the military should not get decent benefits for voluntarily putting themselves in harms way.

                                                      you might also consider that government workers are more highly specialized, highly trained and have more complex jobs on average than the average joe who works at walmart. Straight averages make no sense when comparing the public sector to the private sector as a whole.

                                                      • 3 votes
                                                      #7.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      Sherry-523975

                                                      Will the employee who is paying the health benefits have to include the cost of the federal government subsidy portion for the "domestic partner" as imputed income when they file the tax form? Our state just included these benefits, and that is how it works here. So any portion of the subsidy that covers the partner is included as income for the employee

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      Reply#8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:27 AM EDT
                                                      Just_some_guy

                                                      Sherry,

                                                      I was wondering the same thing. I found out when I went to get my partner put on my insurance that any contributions that the company makes towards domestic partner benefits would be taxable income. I'm anxious to see what the policy actually says.

                                                      • 3 votes
                                                      #8.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:39 AM EDT
                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                      That's one of the many things that needs to be resolved with this plan. A spouse who receives these benefits is filing a tax return as married but a 'partner' is filing as single, right? Not sure, since I've been married forever, but who has the advantage taxwise, married or single?

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #8.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:48 AM EDT
                                                      Just_some_guy

                                                      Proud,

                                                      I found these two links for you in regards to which is better. It looks like there really are benefits going either way, depending on your circumstances. In my opinion, it seems that for me it would be better if I could file jointly with my domestic partner. Right now he isn't working. In the second link, it puts it like this:

                                                      Strictly from a tax perspective, getting married makes the most sense when one spouse earns income and the other spouse doesn't earn income. That because one income is being spread over two people, and the income is now tax at the more favorable Married Filing Joint tax rates, and the married couple can enjoy higher limitations on retirement savings and other tax benefits. Again, strictly from a tax perspective, staying single makes the most sense when both life-partners earn income. That's because you can use different tax strategies for each partner. For example, the person with the lower income can take advantage of various child-related tax benefits (head of household filing status, child tax credit, earned income credit), while the person with the higher income can take advantage of various income-related tax strategies.

                                                      Now, when he finishes with his school in a few months and hopefully gets a job, that will change. But he will have spent most of this year unemployed.

                                                      At any rate, here are the two links:

                                                      http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2003-03-03-ym_x.htm

                                                      and

                                                      http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/qt/marriage_tax.htm

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #8.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
                                                      jabbausaf

                                                      That's one of the many things that needs to be resolved with this plan. A spouse who receives these benefits is filing a tax return as married but a 'partner' is filing as single, right?

                                                      This is, incidentally, one of the many strong and practical reasons why supporters of gay marriage want "marriage" instead of "civil unions". Our public and private sectors in the US are effectively programmed to process the word "marriage", not the words "civil union". So even if, on paper, they have the same rights, there are numerous examples where somebody with a civil union doesn't get all civil marriage benefits.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #8.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM EDT
                                                      Just_some_guy

                                                      Jab,

                                                      Excellent point. There are several people on here who say they would be fine with civil unions that grant all of the same rights and benefits. They also say they are tired of wasteful government spending.

                                                      How much more money would it take to change all of the legal documentation that references marriage to read as "marriage/civil unions"?

                                                      For the record, I'm in support of civil unions, so long as the name is the only difference. Even if it's a little off, it would still be huge progress and we could continue moving forward from there. But then I'm not to worried about the financial impact. If they wanted to save money, they would just call it marriage.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #8.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:57 PM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      Rixar13

                                                      Bravo to my President.

                                                      The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that has become impatient with the White House in recent weeks.

                                                      He certainly has more than enough on his plate but he comes through in spite of it.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      Reply#9 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:01 AM EDT
                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                      I wouldn't go that far. It's just a memorandum. He could have done that the first day he was in office but he decided to wait six months. I don't think six months to put out a memorandum is coming through. And we still have to wait and see what the memorandum says. Much like everything else the guy has done so far, I bet it's going to fall way short of everybody's expectations.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #9.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
                                                      Behind My Screen

                                                      considering you're a conservative, is it any wonder he is falling short of what you expect?

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #9.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:42 AM EDT
                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                      What he is not falling short of, and what I expected of him is failure. So far he is failing miserably in everything he said he would do, and in attempting to respond to any and all crisis. He is turning out about like I expected.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #9.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
                                                      Behind My Screen

                                                      strangely, the conservatives are the only ones holding that position.

                                                        #9.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        reaganite09

                                                        It would take 32 states to ratify a National Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, and that isn't likely to happen.

                                                        The Equal Rights Amendment has been sitting unratified in Congress since the 1970s.

                                                        Time to move onto other issues.

                                                        The American public's majority mood is that the very small minority of gay movements are getting far too much attention from the Liberal media.

                                                        Time to boycott ABC, PBS, NY Times and start getting onto issues that are far more important to the majority needs of Americans.

                                                          Reply#10 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:12 AM EDT
                                                          Gaithersburger

                                                          I think equal rights for all Americans is always important and I congratulate President Obama for doing this.

                                                          • 5 votes
                                                          #10.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:15 AM EDT
                                                          proud2bconservative

                                                          I think they call it the vocal minority. Even though they make up a small percentage of the overall population, they have banded together :-) and are doing a pretty good job of making their voices heard. I think that they should persue the Constitutional Amendment venue, which would once and for all legitimize their point of view/way of life, IF they ever garnered enough support for it, which is doubtful. But it is so much easier to just be vocal about it. But I do agree with you, I think there are more important issues that need to be resolved.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #10.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:18 AM EDT
                                                          Dennis Kemmerer

                                                          reaganite09 wrote:

                                                          It would take 32 states to ratify a National Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, and that isn't likely to happen.

                                                          Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

                                                          • 4 votes
                                                          #10.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:50 AM EDT
                                                          jabbausaf

                                                          6 states currently have (or will have when the dates are reached) legalized gay marriage. If things continue at the current trend, eventually you'll get to a point where you have a patchwork of states that do allow gays the right to marry, states that recognize gay marriages from states that allow gay marriage, and states that just prohibit the lot. From a bureacratic standpoint, it'll unnecessarily complex, and you'll see something done at the federal level to legalize gay marriage rights nationwide. My prediction is that this will kick off when you have 10-15 states with legalized gay marriage, and 15-20 states recognizing those marriages, and this will happen within the next 10 years.

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          #10.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
                                                          reaganite09

                                                          You wrote: Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

                                                          According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution when instituting a national policy of all fifty states, Au Contrare.

                                                          It's the same principle as the Equal Rights Amendment that has been introduced into Congress every year since its inception back in the 70s, waiting for the correct number of states to ratify said amendment.

                                                          But, of course, the gay rights movement is so emotional they never look at the Constitutional legalities.

                                                          A minor trifling little bugaboo.

                                                          So, while the gay rights groups go bouncing around looking for a way to nationalize gay marriage, without looking at the legalities.....well, no wonder they are going nowhere fast.

                                                          But, what do we care (shrug). Gives them something to protest about.

                                                            #10.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:10 PM EDT
                                                            reaganite09

                                                            You wrote: 6 states currently have (or will have when the dates are reached) legalized gay marriage

                                                            Tell that to those who've been trying to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment for the past thirty years.

                                                            Yeah, yeah. I know. Gays are different than others who are trying to pass an equal rights' amendment.

                                                            There must be some gay Constitutional lawyers out there who can explain to you how the legal system works.

                                                            Hey, even a straight Constitutional lawyer can explain it to you....if you'll only listen.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #10.6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:16 PM EDT
                                                            Behind My Screen

                                                            reaganite,

                                                            I wish to god all mighty that you conservatives would pay attention to the 17 amendments AFTER the bill of rights.

                                                            read the 14th amendment.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #10.7 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:37 PM EDT
                                                            reaganite09

                                                            I wish to God you Liberals could make a plan without getting an erection and use the appropriate hemisphere of your brain when attempting to co-ordinate a political effort.

                                                              #10.8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:51 PM EDT
                                                              Behind My Screen

                                                              pretty sure we did that last year.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #10.9 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 PM EDT
                                                              Reply
                                                              Da Quiet One

                                                              I'm all for the equal rights thing but it had better be just that and not extended rights with added privileges..

                                                                Reply#11 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:23 AM EDT
                                                                lvingbarefoot

                                                                My neocon, racist, bigoted self supports gay marriage.

                                                                What I don't support, is the President spending more of my money without my permission. He has taken my money and given it to "his" people way too much already. That is what the tea parties were about. Also, if the same rights are not given to straight unmarried couples, that is discrimination.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                Reply#12 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
                                                                Just_some_guy

                                                                lving,

                                                                Again, not having read the bill, I'm not sure how it pans out yet, but with most companies, domestic partner benefits cover any domestic partner, whether it be a same-sex couple or a hetero couple.

                                                                I know that with my company, you need to have had a shared residence for more than six months, a joint checking account, and several forms that get notarized stating that you are domestic partners.

                                                                I'm very anxious to see the actual statement.

                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                #12.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:31 AM EDT
                                                                lvingbarefoot

                                                                That would make it fair, but still not good right now. We need to step back from all of this spending and start looking at ways to save money until we get our feet back on the ground. This man has spending going like a runaway train downhill, it scares the hell out of me.

                                                                The government wants to be in the health insurance business, fine. Let them compete with no tax dollars supplementing them and if they are as good as they say, they will prevail.

                                                                Also, this is not a bill, this is something he alone decided to do.

                                                                  #12.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:37 AM EDT
                                                                  Just_some_guy

                                                                  You are right, this isn't a bill, and I am sorry I mis-spoke on that point.

                                                                  See my other comments regarding stopping spending on any new spousal benefits going forward. If you are married before, say, tomorrow, you get your benefits. After that, no dice. Would you consider that a fair move at this point in time, considering the economic problems we face?

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  #12.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
                                                                  lvingbarefoot

                                                                  Yes, I own a company, I supply benefits for my employees but not for spouses or dependents, they can pay the cost and add them if they chose.

                                                                  I was not trying to point out your mistake, I was just emphasizing how much power the man is using to spend my money

                                                                    #12.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:28 AM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    mrkirchner

                                                                    Another unfunded mandate. For days he's been talking about the health care crisis in terms of the dollars it's costing us, then he turns around and adds to the crisis by putting more people on the public dole. Let's see: Health care costs are a crisis, let's spend a bunch more money and add people to the health care system, that will fix the problem! The stupidity is amazing. Where are "we the people" in this decision? If he can dictate like this, does that make him a dictator? We certainly had no say in this matter. As usual, say 1 thing and do another. This guy is certified nuts, just look at the illogic involved in this. This country is going to hell and this administration has floored the accelerator. The former admin. at least kept the accelerator to hell at 55 mph.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    Reply#13 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:28 AM EDT
                                                                    lvingbarefoot

                                                                    Bush was bad, President Obama is at least four times worse, but some sheople will support him because he is on "their" team. Stupid, real stupid.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #13.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 AM EDT
                                                                    proud2bconservative

                                                                    mrkirchner -

                                                                    I couldn't agree with you more. But the people of this country that elected him continue to adore him. Only in this country can a man say how big a problem health care is and then turn around and say he's going to increase the problem and get away with such doublespeak.

                                                                    It is nice to hear of a few democrats/liberals coming out and speaking against some of the things Obama has done, or better yet, hasn't done.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #13.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:42 AM EDT
                                                                    Just_some_guy

                                                                    Mrkirchner,

                                                                    Would you be ok with putting a freeze on all spouse benefits? In particular, those that will be starting up as hetero couples get married? After all, we are in a crisis as far as the economy goes, and we need to save money where we can. There are far more hetero people (and thus, presumably, hetero marriages) working for our government. It would save far more money to not only stop this new program, but also suspend benefits going forward.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #13.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
                                                                    lvingbarefoot

                                                                    Okay.

                                                                      #13.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:16 AM EDT
                                                                      Brad_440

                                                                      So should he eliminate all federal employees health insurance since there is a health care problem? The health insurance problem is not just the costs but the fact that millions of people don't have coverage. Also, this article isn't just about health care but equal rights for everyone. It is wrong to say heterosexual domestic partners get these benefits but homosexual domestic partners don't.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #13.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:18 AM EDT
                                                                      proud2bconservative

                                                                      Brad -

                                                                      He can't eliminate federal employees health insurance because under his 'vision' EVERYONE gets healthcare insurance whethere they can afford it or not, whether they want it or not. So you don't even have to talk about that when you talk about benefits being extended to partners.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #13.6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
                                                                      lvingbarefoot

                                                                      Brad, I think everyone in this country should be treated equal. I just think, right now, we need to watch our spending. My President does not agree.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #13.7 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:33 AM EDT
                                                                      Brad_440

                                                                      proud2conservative, how many people out there do you think don't want health insurance? It's more like there are a lot of people that don't want to give health insurance to the poor.

                                                                      livingbarefoot, so everyone should be treated equal, but only when it is convenient. We could save a lot of money if we stop extending benifits to anyone who isn't white and in a heterosexual relationship but the saved money doesn't make it ok.

                                                                      On a side note, when Obama complains about the cost of healthcare he doesn't mean how many people have insurance but the actual cost of the medical bills and the fact that they are rising at an incredible rate.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #13.8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:28 PM EDT
                                                                      Reply
                                                                      Motherlessgoat

                                                                      Way of life. Way of life, what the heck does that mean?

                                                                      Going to work, paying the bills, mowing the lawn, walking the dog, community support, washing the car, taking a vacation, contributing to charities, a little grocery shopping, home improvement, saving for retirement, family time, hoildays, birthdays, highs, lows, good and bad, living each day committed to one's partner.

                                                                      That's the GLBT way of life.

                                                                      Sound familiar?

                                                                      The denial of civil rights based solely on a person's innate difference is unabashedly unConstitutional, therefore UnAmerican. Oh wait - *remembering women's sufferage, Jim Crow laws, Separate by Equal, Internmemnt camps, etc. - I stand corrected.

                                                                      • 7 votes
                                                                      Reply#14 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:39 AM EDT
                                                                      mrkirchner

                                                                      A week ago he says we have to fix the deficit. The national debt in now in unpayable territory. When we can't pay the debt, the jig is up for this nation. This will certainly help fix the deficit!

                                                                      It reminds me of his promise of no earmarks and then signs a bill with over 8000 of them in it. This admin is very large on doing the opposite of what it preaches. Too bad there are so many Americans who cannot see the destruction of this nation before their very eyes. Both parties are guilty but the dems cannot get this nation to the implosion stage fast enough. I just hope enough people wake up before it's too late.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      Reply#15 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
                                                                      cromagnnman

                                                                      Speaking of Czars, I wasn't aware the president could enact this on his own accord. Is there a bill in the works? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the executive branch has that kind of power yet.

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #15.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:58 AM EDT
                                                                      jabbausaf

                                                                      This is what you get for supporting 8 years of a guy who believed in a unitary executive and signing statements.

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #15.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:30 AM EDT
                                                                      lvingbarefoot

                                                                      jabbausaf, you don't think what happened for eight years has been multiplied by four. I can prove it has.

                                                                        #15.3 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:36 AM EDT
                                                                        jabbausaf

                                                                        I'm sure you can spew out numbers somebody else gave you that you personally don't understand. It's not convincing. Or proof.

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #15.4 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:01 AM EDT
                                                                        Shirley Draeger

                                                                        Cromagnnman you read my mind. Is this out of his own pocket? I mean really, how does the president just "decree" things? Doesn't Congress usually debate and vote on laws? Isn't that like what a king or Czar does-decree that something will be? Good grief! Also, did he decree that opposite sex live-ins get this benefit as well? When gay marriage is legal then those married should be entitled to the benefits any married couple gets. That is where all this should start. Where is the money for all these new bennies going to come from? The evil rich again? This is just political dealing, with our money! Do they get there isn't money for anything extra?

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.5 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
                                                                        proud2bconservative

                                                                        I'm surprised he didn't appoint a 'Life-Partner Czar'.

                                                                        Obama (and his adoring audience) don't seem to worry about where the money will come from, or the long-term fiscal result of his actions. He'll continue merrily on his way, spend, spend, spend, leave office (after 4?) and then live on his faded glory. Meanwhile, we'll be stuck with paying for his follies for the rest of our lives (and our children's children's lives).

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #15.6 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
                                                                        Root Boy SlimDeleted
                                                                        Dennis Kemmerer

                                                                        The "czars" (admittedly a really bad term) are part of the EOP (Executive Office of the President), established by Congress in 1939 under FDR.

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #15.8 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Root Boy SlimDeleted
                                                                        rebel-conf

                                                                        this guy is a fool im so sick of this moron that calls himself a president . he,s a baffoon .if all the people out of work would just put it aside and marry another girl or guy for convience they could live pretty good on welfare under this idiot .

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        Reply#17 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:58 AM EDT
                                                                        lgold212

                                                                        Ughhhh, hmmmm, he wants to make socialized health benefits for the rest of us and give regular benefits to gov. employees, maybe the whole country should become gay....

                                                                        Ya know, could it get any worse? Obama patronage, wish i was another color, gender, and sexual preference..Maybe I would get some gov. satisfaction...

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        Reply#18 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
                                                                        nohandouts

                                                                        Yes, it can and will get worse.

                                                                        Obama's new slogan:

                                                                        "Yes we can get worse"

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #18.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Kitti J

                                                                        I'm being patient.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        Reply#19 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
                                                                        proud2bconservative

                                                                        How long will your patience last?

                                                                        Four years?

                                                                        Or until you've forfeited all of your income to support his programs?

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        #19.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Readitwell

                                                                        Why should gay's get a special right that NORMAL people don't? As I recall, all men are created equal. That means nobody is deserving of special rights applying only to their culture/ideaology/preference. Heterosexual couples living together do not recieve health coverage as would come with marriage. Giving such to gay couples is a violation of equality, thus should be quashed as a violation of the US Constitution.

                                                                          Reply#20 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
                                                                          Just_some_guy

                                                                          readitwell,

                                                                          I still haven't seen the official policy, but most domestic partner policies are available to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. I'm failing to understand, given that it's available to anyone who needs it, how that is not equal?

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #20.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
                                                                          Dennis Kemmerer

                                                                          Domestic partner rules vary from place to place.

                                                                          Here in California, an opposite-sex couple can establish an RDP only if one or both of the parties is 62 or older. Otherwise, it's limited to same-sex couples.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #20.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          jackson-866183

                                                                          I don't care if you are gay or straight to be quite honest but giving benefits to people who can not legally get married is just another taxpayer paid benefit that will cost billions. Can you imagine the fraud and abuse that will take place? this is just another stupid idea by the idiot in office.

                                                                          But the reason this is done is to get another "special interest" to vote for them. And if you oppose this you will hear "your a homophobe" etc... they are just playing the words game. This is the way the democrats get thier way and the special interest groups get to play "victim" one more time and convince everyone that they are just mean poeple and they should feel guilty.

                                                                            Reply#21 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
                                                                            Lakes-1108723

                                                                            I think we can clear this up very easily. Why not repeal any laws protecting 'heterosexual married couples' and make it the same as 'same sex' couples. Treat everyone the same. Then we will see how the problem is viewed by the American masses. Would this enable understanding?

                                                                            This is about equality, not pocketbooks. Don't tread on my rights to save your dollars. I resent that. One gets tired of living as 'second rate' citizens while paying first class rates. As for the Civil Rights laws that have languished since the 70's; that something we should all be ashamed of, straight and gay alike, black and white.The double standard must end.

                                                                            If only we had a Congress and a President that would be brave enough to simply 'go the mile' and get it over with. Make every person truly equal in the eyes of the law. Utopia? Maybe. (But we know personal, political agendas come first.) I don't care what you believe. I'm not going to penalize you for it. Now, don't do it to me or anyone else. And keep your religion to yourself too!

                                                                            It is a dangerous game to dangle the apple and not give rights to the tree. It only angers people and tantalizes. The gay and lesbian community should not settle for less. Then, why should anyone settle for less? Gay and lesbian money is green too. We are Americans too.

                                                                            Equality for all. Now stop all this self-righteous, holier than thou crap and let everyone enjoy their rights.

                                                                            Get busy Mr. President, and Congress and 'go the mile'. Anything less is not acceptable! And as for you whining masses who don't approve...get out of my way..I've got to go to work so I can send another unmarried pregnant woman to the hospital for free birth services or finance some other charitable 'family' oriented services that are 'looked upon as acceptable'.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            Reply#22 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:37 AM EDT
                                                                            mrkirchner

                                                                            It is wrong to say heterosexual domestic partners get these benefits but homosexual domestic partners don't.

                                                                            I agree, neither should get it.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            Reply#23 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:37 AM EDT
                                                                            seastar

                                                                            Amazing that this measure is being seen as anything other than long overdue. Take a look at the US companies who have been offering benefits to same sex partners for years; they tend to be our best performing companies. Any organization that is dependent on employee performance knows that making employees feel secure and appreciated is the number one catalyst for productivity. It's called enlightened business management. There is no reason for business, nor the federal bureaucracy, to stick with the Dickensian values of the conservative right.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            Reply#24 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
                                                                            Sam Ware

                                                                            This will be happening this afternoon according to the White House website.

                                                                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                                                                            Office of the Press Secretary
                                                                            __________________________________________________________________________
                                                                            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 17, 2009

                                                                            TODAY: Conference Call to Discuss Presidential Memorandum Regarding Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

                                                                            Today at 3:00PM EDT, OPM Director John Berry will hold an on the record conference call with reporters to discuss President Obama’s Presidential Memorandum regarding federal benefits and non-discrimination. The President will sign the memorandum and deliver remarks in the Oval Office today at 5:45PM EDT. An RSVP is required to participate in the call.

                                                                            What: Conference call with OPM Director John Berry to discuss President Obama’s Presidential Memorandum regarding federal benefits and non-discrimination

                                                                            When: Today, June 17th at 3:00PM EDT

                                                                            How: Interested reporters should RSVP to media_affairs@who.eop.gov

                                                                              Reply#25 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:38 PM EDT
                                                                              Rick W-1161241

                                                                              Now when are you going to cover the firing without notice of the IG for Americore? You know the story that you won't cover? The story where your do no wrong President was required to give a 30 day notice and a reason to the Congress? A law that the President was infavor of and even voted for as a Senator. Sex sells but what about covering a real story that effects us all.

                                                                                Reply#26 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
                                                                                Behind My Screen

                                                                                You mean This story?

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                #26.1 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:46 PM EDT
                                                                                Mark in Worcester

                                                                                Do your homework, Rick. Then maybe you won't embarrass yourself like this. The president gave 30 days notice.

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #26.2 - Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:00 PM EDT
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                • The Greenhouse
                                                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                                                • Company Info |
                                                                                • Contact Us |
                                                                                • Jobs |
                                                                                • User Agreement |
                                                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                • About our ads
                                                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com