AP source: Same-sex partners to get fed benefits

AP source: Same-sex partners to get fed benefits
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, under growing criticism for not seeking to end the ban on openly gay men and women in the military, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Obama plans to announce his decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office, a White House official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president hadn't yet signed the presidential memorandum.

The official said Obama would release more details on Wednesday.

The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that in recent weeks has grown frustrated with the White House's slow movement on their priorities.

Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a June 25 Democratic National Committee event where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak. Their exit came in response to a June 12 Justice Department brief that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism. Justice lawyers argued that the law allowed states to reject marriages performed in other states or countries that defy their own standards.

The legal arguments — including citing incest and sex with minors — sparked rebellion among gay and lesbian activists who had been largely biting their tongues since Obama won election. They had objected to the Rev. Rick Warren's invitation to participate in the inauguration despite his support for repealing gay marriage in California.

Their January protest won the invitation of Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration as the first openly gay bishop divided and almost split his denomination.

Gays and lesbians later fretted as the White House declined to intervene in the cases of enlisted military members facing courts martial for defying the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policies. White House officials say they want Congress to repeal the policy as part of a "lasting and durable" solution, instead of intervening on individual cases.

"The president agreed that ... the policy wasn't working for our national interests, that he committed to change that policy, that he's working with the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs on making that happen," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said last month.

In the meantime, the administration has tried to make small, quiet moves to extend benefits to gays and lesbians. The State Department has promised to give partners of gay and lesbian diplomats many benefits, such as diplomatic passports and language training.

But without a specific change in the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's promises left out financial benefits such as pensions. Obama's move could make that shift.

Gay and lesbian activists had expected Obama to take action some time in June, which is gay pride month.

Richard Socarides, a New York attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights issues to President Bill Clinton, was taking a wait-and-see attitude on Obama's announcement.

"If it doesn't include health insurance, if he doesn't talk about the military and about the (Justice Department) brief, I think it will fall short," Socarides said in an e-mail late Tuesday. "Right now, people are looking for real action."

John Berry, the highest-ranking gay official in the administration and the de facto human resources chief for the administration, told a gay rally last weekend that Obama planned to take action on benefits soon.

Berry, who heads the Office of Personnel and Management, has repeatedly told reporters that he expected the White House to turn to legislation to give domestic partners access to federal health and retirement plans.

But Obama so far has sent only one piece of legislation to Congress — a pay-as-you-go measure that is part of his wooing of fiscally conservative Democrats.

Instead, Obama will use his signature instead of legislation to achieve the benefits parity sought by same-sex couples.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_gay_benefits/print

He's throwing the gay and lesbian community a bone because he's really dragged his feet with DADT. Hopefully that policy gets reversed soon though.

Yes, but unless they are civil unions, it's not right for the opposite sex couples.

Now I want my girlfriend to have my benefits. Think that will happen, or will we be discriminated against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Now I want my girlfriend to have my benefits. Think that will happen, or will we be discriminated against?

---

It's discrimination, Gravy Train.

The good news for you is someone in the DOJ's civil rights division might actually listen to your complaint now. Under his predecessor, you'd be SOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's discrimination, Gravy Train.

The good news for you is someone in the DOJ's civil rights division might actually listen to your complaint now. Under his predecessor, you'd be SOL.

---

You know that's the next thing to happen.

Now I actually work for part of the Federal Government. When I have referred to my 401k, I actually have a TSP. Almost the same thing. I like my previous 401k better from my last employer though.

Don't bother asking what part I work for. Not saying. They wouldn't appreciate me being publicly political and mentioning what part they are.

This sounds like a half assed attempt by Obama to get street cred from gays and lesbians. He's only giving to benefits to gay people that are federal employees. And he's publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I wonder how gay people feel about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

This sounds like a half assed attempt by Obama to get street cred from gays and lesbians. He's only giving to benefits to gay people that are federal employees. And he's publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I wonder how gay people feel about that.

---

Gay people know how he feels. It's just that he doesn't let his views affect his political decisions like George "constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage" Bush did. Just because he believes that doesn't mean he's gonna go around punishing gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

This sounds like a half assed attempt by Obama to get street cred from gays and lesbians. He's only giving to benefits to gay people that are federal employees. And he's publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I wonder how gay people feel about that.

---

I see it as just another demonrat trick. He does have the power as president to affect some things in federal jobs. He has no such power by himself to extend that to the free market jobs.

Still, where does this slippery slope stop at? If gay and lesbians can claim their partner without some legal binding contract between them, then shouldn't us federal employees be able to do the same with our strait partners?

:lol at demonrat. At least we know that Boutons has a kindred spirit on the right when it comes to childish name calling at parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

:lol at demonrat. At least we know that Boutons has a kindred spirit on the right when it comes to childish name calling at parties.

---

No reason not to address my point. Is it valid or not?

Demonrat: Liberal politician.

Demoncrap: The media people who spews their shit.

Libtard: A voter who believes them.

Benefits should only be extended to same sex couples who are either married or who are in a civil union.

The article just says partners... so I'm not 100% sure as to what the specifics are. I'm thinking it's not just casual partners, because they'd have to know that that would create backlash.

Things should be exactly the same for gays and straights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Benefits should only be extended to same sex couples who are either married or who are in a civil union.

The article just says partners... so I'm not 100% sure as to what the specifics are. I'm thinking it's not just casual partners, because they'd have to know that that would create backlash.

Things should be exactly the same for gays and straights.

---

Yes, but do you think that will happen? I would really be surprised if this will include strait couples under the same circumstances.

I don't know the specifics. If it allows some guys boyfriend to get benefits yet doesn't allow another guys girlfriend to get them... that's blatantly against the 14th amendment and there'd be a lawsuit before the ink dried on his signature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I don't know the specifics. If it allows some guys boyfriend to get benefits yet doesn't allow another guys girlfriend to get them... that's blatantly against the 14th amendment and there'd be a lawsuit before the ink dried on his signature.

---

One would think.

Whatever it is, it's not updated at WhiteHouse dot gov yet.

Quote:

---

The official said Obama would release more details on Wednesday.

---

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's only for civil unions/marriages.

I don't think they'd green light something that would instantly give them headaches.

Unless of course they do it on purpose in order to say "look, we tried guys. Maybe next time" and get it shot down without actually shooting it down themselves. But that's the cynic in me.

Why isn't the gay community angry at Obama for his comments about what marriage is? Why did they vote for him? He believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. How can gays and lesbians support him?

Why do you ask the same stupid question twice in the same thread? The answer is obvious if you understand how far a little respect can go as opposed to demonization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Why isn't the gay community angry at Obama for his comments about what marriage is? Why did they vote for him? He believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. How can gays and lesbians support him?

---

One way to read this trial balloon is as a response to growing GLBT dissastisfaction with Obama.

The search engine of your choice should readily reveal that the *gay community* is pretty upset about Obama's support of DOMA and even more incensed about the language in the relevant brief on it.

Awesome news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's only for civil unions/marriages.

I don't think they'd green light something that would instantly give them headaches.

Unless of course they do it on purpose in order to say "look, we tried guys. Maybe next time" and get it shot down without actually shooting it down themselves. But that's the cynic in me.

---

That's not a good assumption because very few states recognize civil unions/gay marriages.

I don't see the big deal here. Ultimately it's the employees who are going to be paying for the cost of that coverage. If they want to pay to insure someone who they are not in a legally binding relationship with, opposite sex or same sex, then that's fine by me. Those employees would be wise to keep in mind though that while their relationship with said partner is not binding their committment to pay those insurance premiums for the remainder of that enrollment period is. Sure would suck to add your girlfriend/boyfriend to your insurance only to break up a month later and then be stuck paying for their insurance for the rest of the year.

I'm not entirely versed in the workings of federal employment. So my take on the subject is ultimately a shot in the dark.

:lol lesbians! Sure you have some mentally screwed up people out there but self proclaim lezbo's are generally just pissed off a dudes so they get with women for a time or two. They usually come running back looking for some bone.

He's pretty much "makin it rain" for all govt employees right now. I don't have a serious problem with this. Drop in the bucket, quite frankly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, but unless they are civil unions, it's not right for the opposite sex couples.

Now I want my girlfriend to have my benefits. Think that will happen, or will we be discriminated against?

---

Sure, get married. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

He's pretty much "makin it rain" for all govt employees right now. I don't have a serious problem with this. Drop in the bucket, quite frankly.

---

Woot! Go government work. *does the mashed potato*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4cc

wc: in texas, just say you're married and you're married (common law)

enjoy the joint hc benefits

---

Just north Washington has Common Law marriage. I don't think it's that easy though. I think for one, you have to be together for six months, but I'm not sure.

I've never heard of instances used, but in theory, a couple living together can be forced to split assets as if married when they separate. I'm sure it's happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

that's not a good assumption because very few states recognize civil unions/gay marriages.

I don't see the big deal here. Ultimately it's the employees who are going to be paying for the cost of that coverage. If they want to pay to insure someone who they are not in a legally binding relationship with, opposite sex or same sex, then that's fine by me. Those employees would be wise to keep in mind though that while their relationship with said partner is not binding their committment to pay those insurance premiums for the remainder of that enrollment period is. Sure would suck to add your girlfriend/boyfriend to your insurance only to break up a month later and then be stuck paying for their insurance for the rest of the year.

---

+1