100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: President Obama to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of F | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
President Obama to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees June 16, 2009 9:46 PM ABC News has learned that tomorrow President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum extending benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees. The move was long planned, sources say, though it comes at a time that gay and lesbian supporters of the president are expressing anger and disappointment at his inaction on rescinding Don't Ask/Dont Tell, his opposition to same-sex marriage, and his support for the anti-same-sex-marriage Defense of Marriage Act in a legal brief that compared same-sex unions to incestuous ones. - jpt http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-to-extend-benefits-to-samesex-partners-of-federal-employees.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good as I think this is...what about non-federal couples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess one step in the right direction is better than steps backwards in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good as I think this is...what about non-federal couples? in theory, if a federal law states that same-sex couples can get benefits, than states have to adhere. however, I doubt that he will do so out of fear from the potential outcry from social conservatives. I'm still missing the part why this should even be an issue in the first place, but that's a whole 'nother topic and I'd rather not start a threadjack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of July 1, 2005, the city of St. Louis extended healthcare benefits to the domestic partners of all city employees, including same-sex partners and others living in committed but unmarried relationships, as well as children of such families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good as I think this is...what about non-federal couples? Baby steps, I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good as I think this is...what about non-federal couples? in theory, if a federal law states that same-sex couples can get benefits, than states have to adhere. however, I doubt that he will do so out of fear from the potential outcry from social conservatives. I'm still missing the part why this should even be an issue in the first place, but that's a whole 'nother topic and I'd rather not start a threadjack. do you know which federal law??? I, personally, don't see an issue with gay couples getting benefits when straight couples do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good as I think this is...what about non-federal couples? in theory, if a federal law states that same-sex couples can get benefits, than states have to adhere. however, I doubt that he will do so out of fear from the potential outcry from social conservatives. I'm still missing the part why this should even be an issue in the first place, but that's a whole 'nother topic and I'd rather not start a threadjack. do you know which federal law??? I, personally, don't see an issue with gay couples getting benefits when straight couples do well that was an if. it hasn't been done yet and I doubt it will anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhhhhh gotcha Andrew. I didn't know if there was already somethng out there or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about non-gay couples that are not married
is this going to ba a double standard when the marriage amendment passed in ohio it took away all rights of those not officially married what will this do in this arena and why should adam get benefits for steve if adam can not get benefits for eve if not officially married why should a hetro couple be forced to marry yet a gay couple is not permitted to get married this is just wrong from every angle if the ban on gay marriage was done away with this will not be an issue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about non-gay couples that are not married is this going to ba a double standard when the marriage amendment passed in ohio it took away all rights of those not officially married what will this do in this arena and why should adam get benefits for steve if adam can not get benefits for eve if not officially married why should a hetro couple be forced to marry yet a gay couple is not permitted to get married this is just wrong from every angle if the ban on gay marriage was done away with this will not be an issue well I can see right now the argument is "well you won't let us get married so that's a double standard" but i totally agree. what is good for one should be good for all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about non-gay couples that are not married is this going to ba a double standard when the marriage amendment passed in ohio it took away all rights of those not officially married what will this do in this arena and why should adam get benefits for steve if adam can not get benefits for eve if not officially married why should a hetro couple be forced to marry yet a gay couple is not permitted to get married this is just wrong from every angle if the ban on gay marriage was done away with this will not be an issue yes, domestic partners covers living together couples if they sign a common law voucher. The common law voucher is only used for the insurance company and is not put into public record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imo it is a slap n the face of the gay community
it is just as the black issues were pre 1970 you can do what ya want but not around us nor in the arenas of the public eye this is one of the most hypocritical contries in the world yes it may be one of the best but you never know where you stand no wonder the rest of the world finds contempt for the u s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imo it is a slap n the face of the gay community it is just as the black issues were pre 1970 you can do what ya want but not around us nor in the arenas of the public eye this is one of the most hypocritical contries in the world yes it may be one of the best but you never know where you stand no wonder the rest of the world finds contempt for the u s I disagree. I think it's a step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imo it is a slap n the face of the gay community it is just as the black issues were pre 1970 you can do what ya want but not around us nor in the arenas of the public eye this is one of the most hypocritical contries in the world yes it may be one of the best but you never know where you stand no wonder the rest of the world finds contempt for the u s I disagree. I think it's a step in the right direction. it is a road block to equality just like the schools were (separate but equal) we seen how good that worked 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of July 1, 2005, the city of St. Louis extended healthcare benefits to the domestic partners of all city employees, including same-sex partners and others living in committed but unmarried relationships, as well as children of such families.
This was a good thing not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never said it was a bad thing that they are trying
imo marraige should be done away with completely or enforced completely but to have multiple standards causes confusion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imo it is a slap n the face of the gay community it is just as the black issues were pre 1970 you can do what ya want but not around us nor in the arenas of the public eye this is one of the most hypocritical contries in the world yes it may be one of the best but you never know where you stand no wonder the rest of the world finds contempt for the u s I disagree. I think it's a step in the right direction. I tend to agree with adj and Andrew on this one. However personally I think Obama is not quite honest about his real views on all of it, and frankly I don't think that any president can be with out having the issue cause so much crap that nothing else can get done. What I wonder is, can the next president turn this completely around, if so then it's just throwing a bone to gays that voted for him to appease them temporarily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never said it was a bad thing that they are trying imo marraige should be done away with completely or enforced completely but to have multiple standards causes confusion I agree, and I think the standards thing just causes more anger on the part of those that are against it all together. They already think that gays what something special. I for one do not want anything more than what others are allowed. Period. Prove me wrong, I will be happy to be so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about non-gay couples that are not married is this going to ba a double standard when the marriage amendment passed in ohio it took away all rights of those not officially married what will this do in this arena and why should adam get benefits for steve if adam can not get benefits for eve if not officially married why should a hetro couple be forced to marry yet a gay couple is not permitted to get married this is just wrong from every angle if the ban on gay marriage was done away with this will not be an issue yes, domestic partners covers living together couples if they sign a common law voucher. The common law voucher is only used for the insurance company and is not put into public record. i remember when they passed the mandatory seat belt use law oh we will never ticket you or stop you for the seat belt issue alone we seen how honest of a statement that was click it or ticket is now the national slogan believe what they tell ya if you want i know better |
|
|
|
|
