NDNdancer
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 292
- Location
- On the Edge
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Updated 9:23 p.m.
By Scott Butterworth
President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said tonight.
Obama will sign an executive order implementing the change in the Oval Office, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president's announcement.
The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department announced a similar extension of benefits last month, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling it "the right thing to do."
The action will come as welcome news to gay-rights activists, who have voiced loud disappointment with Obama's handling of several issues important to their community.
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.
what it is...
... and I'm opposed to these special recognitions ...or taggings if you will of various special interests in the USA.
'Unmarried Partners' is alot of people but somehow I doubt they mean everyone..IF they do then hey whatever all good everyone is equal.
..if they do not then Constitution?
Who needs a congress?
I wonder how many billions this adds to the federal deficit?
I wonder how many billions this adds to the federal deficit?
Who cares? It wouldn't be an issue if they were married, would it? So why is it an issue because they're not?
Except they aren't married, so that doesn't matter. Why should you, as an employee of the government, be able to get taxpayer funded benefits for your boyfriend or girlfriend just because they move in with you? I wouldn't have an issue with doing this for gay couples who have actually been married in states that recognize it, but this bill is extending these benefits to everyone's unwed partner, gay or straight. Celticlord is correct. We can't afford it.
Gays shouldn't be punished just because they're not allowed to get married.
This would be in keeping with those who say that gays should not be allowed to use the term "marriage". Instead, they should have civil unions with all the rights, benefits, and privileges that married couples enjoy. Are you someone who won't even allow them that?
Stop dancing around issue. This isn't about civil unions or gay people. He is extending benefits to anyone in any relationship. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not. You can be a heterosexual couple that is not married and your significant other can still get Federal benefits paid for by us. And Reverend_Hellh0und is correct. The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?
Stop dancing around issue. This isn't about civil unions or gay people. He is extending benefits to anyone in any relationship. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not. You can be a heterosexual couple that is not married and your significant other can still get Federal benefits paid for by us. And Reverend_Hellh0und is correct. The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?
The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.
Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners | 44 | washingtonpost.com
So wait?
If I get a new federal job at a different field office that pays for relocation fee's, I can get that money not just for me but for my girlfriend that I live with if she wishes to come, despite being married? Likewise, I just need to wait for another open season and can put her on my health insurance despite not being married?
is this what this is saying?
Think about it, why would he do this.
To drive up the costs of healthcare for the private sector to make the desire for public healthcare grow.
The correct action would be to strip federal benefits from all married couples instead of expanding them to all couples regardless of marital status.
Tax dollars should not be wasted on benefits for married couples.
Now this won't be rife with fraud. :ssst:
Just for the record. Obama has a very long way to go before even approaching Bush's record on EO's (284). Everyone joked that he ruled by EO rather then governed.
I'm assuming that that's the exact reason Obama doesn't change don't ask don't tell, or DOMA, he's waiting for congress to do it.
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.
Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners | 44 | washingtonpost.com
Just another chip taken off of marriage.
Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
Just another chip taken off of marriage.
Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?