Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners

Updated.
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 financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department had prepared to announce a similar extension of benefits last month but has yet to do so formally, though Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called 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.

Obama has signaled his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying that he instead supports civil unions for gay men and lesbians.

Most recently, the Justice Department argued in court that the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples, should be upheld. Gay-rights groups were infuriated by the administration's linkage of same-sex marriages to marriages between cousins or of an underage girl.

The administration's reluctance to reconsider the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members -- after Obama promised during the campaign to repeal it -- has also been a sore point among these activists.

The order Obama intends to sign tomorrow would apply to the Defense Department's civilian workforce but not the Pentagon's men and women in uniform.

This item originally reported incorrectly that Obama had planned to extend health insurance benefits to same sex partners. In fact, the Obama administration has stopped short of such a pledge. As well, though the State Department worked up plans to extend benefits to same-sex partners, no formally announcement has been made.

By Post Editor  |  June 16, 2009; 8:54 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What Republicans Can Learn from the DLC
Next: POTUS Events: Regulatory Reform

Comments

Last fall a national survey asked straights why they married. Around 13-17% said the number one reason: To get health care coverage. Mind you many had been "cohabiting" for years.

Where was the outcry for these "free-loaders" degrading the "sanctity" of marriage.

Oh well. We are in for a long haul in economic recovery, if the majority of Americans can just remember what they did, or said, or thought, last week.

Posted by: ldfrmc | June 18, 2009 2:20 AM | Report abuse

It's hardly about ordinary citizens for gay,bi,lesbian...
"We're going to push some boundaries and push some buttons ..
http://www.FindBilover.com

Posted by: altersteven1 | June 17, 2009 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Speaking only for my partner of many years and me, we really aren't looking to a legally-binding marriage for financial "benefits", though, honestly, I simply don't see why a heterosexual spouse receives social security benefits based on money put into the system by the now deceased , while a same-sex partner cannot. That's absurd. That is clearly unfair and not easy to justify on any grounds.

My partner and I have made many trips to a very good and very expensive lawyer. We didn't do it for the "benefits". We did it to protect our relationship, and we had to jump through multiple legal hoops just to get SOME of the protections that a simple marriage contract provide automatically.

That too is grossly unfair, and completely unnecessary. It helps no one to set up legal roadblocks when we try to protect our relationship, and it clearly hurts us.

It's at best mean-spirited. I'd argue that it also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 17, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

rscott251 wrote, "...If the gay community ever wants true respect and acceptance, they need to police their own better."

With respect, gay people can't "police" anyone. I am gay. It's part of who I am, a trait that I realized I had early on in life. It's not a behavior, it's not chosen, it's not a political philosophy, and it's also not a club.

Gay people are found in every community, including the most rigid, orthodox religious ones. Truly. I've met a number from those communities.

There is no one organized "gay community", even in areas in which lots of gay people live. There are gay social groups, and they range from Gay Mormons to gay volley ball teams to, well think of the groups that the rest of society has.

I have absolutely no power to control anyone else's behavior. My partner of many years and I share common values and are both responsible moral people---but we don't even "control" one another, let alone gay people we've never even met.

Finally, with respect, animus against innocent gay people predates any openly "gay community", any "gay pride parade" or any other manifestation of gay social groups.

They burned innocent gay people at the stake during the Middle Ages.

They submitted innocent gay people to electroshock as recently as the 1970s.

Perhaps "policing" people isn't the real issue, don't you think?

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 17, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

mitchre46, I would rather agree with you that relationships dedicated to the procreation and rearing of children should have a privileged position in any sane society.

But you must admit that the institution of marriage has been so debased (or "expanded" if you prefer) -- by heterosexuals, mind you -- that it no longer has an obvious or inherent connection to children.

So many children are conceived and born out of wedlock -- by heterosexuals. So many marriages are undertaken thoughtlessly -- by heterosexuals -- and then abandoned at a whim -- by heterosexuals. Children are moved about between arrangements of convenience like so much furniture -- by heterosexuals. Married heterosexual couples raising their own biological children together are the exception, not the rule.

With marriage now being all about two adults enjoying each others' company and sharing certain legal and tax benefits together, and only tangentially if at all about raising children, I can no longer see why childless homosexuals should not enjoy the same privileges.

Posted by: nodebris | June 17, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Only a man and a woman can create life, that is have a baby and continue the human race. That was the story of life that Sam Jaffe, who played a medical professor in the early TV series "Ben Casey," put on the blackboard for his interns in medical symbols: man, woman, birth, death, infinity. Until this changes, only a man and a woman should be able to marry and receive the protections and benefits provided under the law, (read: health benefits, spousal retirement benefits, inheritance protection, etc). We cannot change this basic law of nature, so I do not believe we can change our civil laws to go contrary to that basic law. Most religions in the world will support this basic law of nature. In the past in certain religious traditions, a husband was afforded the opportunity to have more than one wife. I feel this was more a method of supporting women who were not able to marry, (in the grand scheme of nature again, more females attain adulthood and survive longer than males... across all species!) and to provide for widows. But, civil laws changed this and most religious traditions also changed to reflect this change. Looking at sheer numbers again, I believe the percentage of the population at large that is gay, and has been in the past, hovers around 10%. Although the percentage of the heterosexual population who live together as husband and wife has increased, I don't feel it is "right," nor should it be rewarded, or supported, or provided for. So...NO benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, NO benefits to gay couples. I argue this view from the point of the sanctity of life, in its creation and continuance. None of us would be here if this were not true yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Posted by: mitchre46 | June 17, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Why not call for civil unions for all couples, regardless of sexual preference or orientation, and leave the word "marriage" to organized religion and out of the realm of the State?

Wouldn't that solve this issue once and for all?

Let organized religion decide who qualifies for "marriage." It's their prerogative, not government's. As far as the State is concerned, the union of any two people (and only TWO people) should be strictly a CIVIL affair.

If a certain religious denomination refuses to recognize gay marriage, so be it.

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 17, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Gay-rights groups were infuriated by the administration's linkage of same-sex marriages to marriages between cousins or of an underage girl."

I think that was anti-same-sex marriage nuts being quoted by someone from our side, wasn't it, and not the Obama administation's viewpoint, wasnt it?

Posted by: bryony1 | June 17, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I did not vote for Obama to advance the gay agenda, and he should not do it because most Americans believe that it's unGodly. Obama says he doesn't want the corupt Bush administration to be held accountable because backlash might jeopardize his agenda, but that's what will happen if he pushes gay marriage or legalizes millions of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: owens1 | June 17, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

YOU’RE ALL MISSING THE POINT!
THIS IS AN EGOMANIAC TAKING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR GAYS AND STAIGHTS!
NOBAMA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THIS WAS HIS BRILLIANT IDEA. IT WAS NOT!

Posted by: matt41 | June 17, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Why do people keep grumbling about who will be paying for this? As a federal employee my total salary plus benefit package is already considered in the budget for my position. I just do not use all my benefits because I am not a married heterosexual. I could have a sham marriage, which I guess is what people who oppose of homosexuality would rather I do, and give my spouse my benefits. The basic question is what do people expect homosexuals to do? Disappear? Live with the fact that they are treated as second class in a country where all are created equal? The fact is we are here, we are your brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, coworkers, etc. Let us live our lives, we aren’t trying to ban your religion or strip you of rights just because you believe certain things.

Posted by: dan1005 | June 17, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Following this line of thought, that benefits can be given to unmarried partners of the same sex, should come the realization that gays are not a danger in the military and the Don't Ask, Son't Tell policy shoudl be scrapped, immediately.

Any pretext for not doing so is foot dragging on promises made during his election campaign. The time for change is NOW. Too many fine servicemen and women have been sacked over an arbitrary rule. Allow them the chance to come back and be all that they can be.

Posted by: ronjeske | June 17, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

AlbyVA wrote: Lev 20:13

You forget to give the full list of things proscribed by Leviticus. It includes a lot of requirements that I am quite certain you do not follow.

19:27-28 forbids trimming your hair or beard, for instance.

And 25:44 tells us, "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."

And so on and so on.

So, are you a slave-owning unshaven true Jewish tribesman from 2,000 BC? If so, I guess I can respect your insistence that we all follow all of Leviticus. Otherwise, why is this *one* restriction so important to you, when you ignore all the others?

Posted by: nodebris | June 17, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... establishing religion. One man plus one woman is a religious definition of maariage. In America all law is gender non-specific. To maintain the current system is tantamount to treason to the ideals of the US Constitution. In other words, IF the government is going to legislate in the legal arena of marriage, then the US Constitution requires it to be religiously neutral and gender non-specific like all other laws under its purview. Its simple really, once you take your religious blinders off.

Posted by: mcalvinlaw | June 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"Also there will be a question as to the Constitutionality of the EO, in the event that it does not cover couples of the opposite-sex.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 17, 2009 10:17 AM"

CFECEW - Did you read the first paragraph? Did you understand it? It is meant to offer "federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners.."

Providing proof is not difficult, having to do this at previous employers. They simply ask for statements that you have been together for a certain length of time, show beneficiary status, lease or mortgage together, etc. This works for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. It is pretty simple actually.

Posted by: GarGar | June 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness, YOU ARE HILARIOUSLY HYPOCRITICAL!

Gay people have been arguing FOR YEARS that it is unconstitutional to treat gay couples differently from straight couples. Courts have repeatedly said there is no constitutional violation there. And that doctrine applies exactly the same to whining straight couples if they get treated differently from gay couples. If you think it is unconstitutional to treat gay and straight couples differently, great! That means excluding gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional too. What you don't get, however, is a one-way constitutional doctrine that says reverse discrimination against straight couples is unconstitutional but regular discrimination against gay couples is constitutionally fine.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 17, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Extending benefits doesn't have to cost a penny extra, and here's how. Take all the tax money that is currently collected from gay people and used to fund straight couples' benefits and redirect that money to pay for some benefits for gay couples. Oh, but that would cut the amount spend on straight couples, you say. Absolutely right! Straight couples are currently enjoying benefits that are made better because tax money is being taken gay people but they're receiving nothing back in return. Stop being such parasites on the gay community, married straight people! If you can't afford your luxurious benefits without forcing gay people to subsidize you, then cut your own benefits.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

King Obama will have his come-uppance in 2012, at the ballot box. Trying to be a man-for-all-seasons will cost him and the Democrats at the polls, with his "separate, but equal" approach.

Also there will be a question as to the Constitutionality of the EO, in the event that it does not cover couples of the opposite-sex.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 17, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that President Obama is signaling that his heart is in the right place, but that's about all.

Posted by: dotellen | June 17, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

So he's signing an EO - big deal. The next repug president will simply rescind it.

This is nothing but a sop thrown to the gay community to try to distract them from Obama's insulting stance on DOMA and DADT.

A statement outlining what he was doing to rescind THOSE discriminatory laws would have been much more relevant. Instead, he and Harry Reid and the Pentagon are passing the buck back and forth to each other. Craven, cowardly, bigots all.

Unless Obama takes action against DOMA and DADT - which he has the power to do - he will never get my vote again.

Posted by: solsticebelle | June 17, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

As a conservative, I actually applaud this move.

And I would applaud equally any move to "legalize" marriage between any two consenting adults. Marriage (as a legal concept) is nothing more than a state-controlled arrangement to determine present and future property rights.

Marriage in a church is one thing. Morality and culture and beliefs are involved and rightly so.

Marriage as a legal concept is quite another. It should not be up to the state to dictate culture or beliefs. Morality? Maybe, but every argument I've ever heard by those vehemently opposed to "gay" marriage winds up being religious in nature.

Posted by: jsc173 | June 17, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

banker1 wrote:
"So everyone has a problem with their tax money going to health benefits for same sex couples but no one has a probelm with their tax money going to people who are on welfare that have 6 kids and 8 grandkids but do not have jobs."

##############

No, banker, I'm pretty sure we all have a problem with that, too.

It's just that, you know, this article was about federal benefits for domestic partners. Not welfare queens.

A little touchy this morning, are we?

Posted by: _virginian_ | June 17, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Gays pay taxes. That's nice to know. It's too bad that it's not enough to cover the expenses of the AIDS virus that has been inflicted on us ever since AIDS got its name from Gaëtan Dugas, the Air Canada flight attendant who became Patient Zero. Now we're going to have to pay more tolls on the Hershey Highway in the form of Federal Employees Health Benefits. Marvelous.

Posted by: Calabrese99 | June 17, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

So everyone has a problem with their tax money going to health benefits for same sex couples but no one has a probelm with their tax money going to people who are on welfare that have 6 kids and 8 grandkids but do not have jobs. Why should I pay for your family to have unprotected sex so you can get more money from the government for having more kids?

Posted by: BANKER1 | June 17, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

For all those people who keep spouting that marraige is between and man and a women according to YOUR GOD or your bible--I WANT TO HEAR YOU ALL SAY ONCE AGAIN LOUDLY that all those who are not Christians OR Jews THAT OUR MARRIAGES ARE NOT VALID?????
What about Atheists, agnostics, buddhists, Taoists or any of the other persons in this country who are married but not a true believer like you.

Posted by: kare1 | June 17, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

How much is this going to cost?

It seems to me we're not really in a position right now to just start tossing around even more money to special interest groups.

Posted by: _virginian_ | June 17, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

This is certainly a baby-step in the correct direction but who's to stop the next President from rescinding this executive order? As the ruling of the California Supreme Court so unjustly made clear... gays are subject to the whims of the electoral mob,
apparently no other minority group can be singled out in quite the same way. Just try it and see, if you don't believe me. This is nothing but a short-term political band-aid
for Obama, there is still no federal law that grants gay people equal protection (as well as equal rights)under the law. Until Obama and the Democrats do something about this inequality its all talk and no action.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | June 17, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

This seems like it could be a tricky situation. How does one provide evidence to show qualification as an unmarried partner ? I can imagine insurance companies denying claims because of the lack of evidence or proof. With that in mind, is it possible to have multiple unmarried partners ? I didn't really think gay men and women needed legal proof that marriage provides until now. Same sex marriage will have to follow to be able to implement these benefits.

Posted by: Mathguy1 | June 17, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I am a gay American and I pay taxes too, as do millions of other gay and lesbian Americans. This is money well spent. Offering domestic partner benefits will allow the Feds to better compete with the private sector for talent.

Besides, without domestic partner benefits, how many more people would have to resort to public welfare benefits for their health coverage? Domestic partner benefits are a smart component of the resolution of our national healthcare conundrum.

Posted by: dcheretic | June 17, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

There goes the neighborhood.

Posted by: info40 | June 17, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

To the ranters wailing about how the President is going to use "their" money to pay for gay benefits:

Are you unaware that gay citizens pay taxes too?

Posted by: HydeParker | June 17, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

... and single employees will subsidise the benefits of another grouping of couples.

Posted by: whocares666 | June 17, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

As always, the simple minded refuse to share. Excuse me but do gays not pay the same taxes as you do? Do they not do the same job as your do? Do their children not attend the same school your do? Do they not participate in many of the activities you do? And yet they are not allowed to reap the same benefits you do?
Grow up.
My guess is that you probably know more gay people than you think. Oh, be sure people you take a drink at your local pub or whereever you eat. Make sure you double clean your silverware, cause a gay might have sneezed and you might catch the unfortunate gay virus.

Posted by: kare1 | June 17, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

As always, the simple minded refuse to share. Excuse me but do gays not pay the same taxes as you do? Do they not do the same job as your do? Do their children not attend the same school your do? Do they not participate in many of the activities you do? And yet they are not allowed to reap the same benefits you do?
Grow up.
My guess is that you probably know more gay people than you think. Oh, be sure people you take a drink at your local pub or whereever you eat. Make sure you double clean your silverware, cause a gay might have sneezed and you might catch the unfortunate gay virus.

Posted by: kare1 | June 17, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Great. How much is this going to cost us? Although with the way the printing presses at the Reserve are running 24-7 I guess it won't ultimately matter. Hey Obama! I'm feeling oppressed by my lack of a 12,000 square foot mansion built out of stacks of $50s! This is the greatest injustice that has ever happened to anyone anywhere! Someone from the government should swoop in and save me! It's the right thing to do!

Posted by: zippyspeed | June 17, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"rscott251 wrote: I think we can begin to thank Obama, for he will succeed in the quick resuscitation of the Republican party much faster than Pelosi or Reid ever could."

Good luck w/ that.

Posted by: dcp26851 | June 17, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I would like to know two things:

1.) How is it that how a gay person lives their life or gets married affecting ANYONE else?
2.) If our country was built on the separation of church and state, keep your religious views and church backed protests out of the decisions of the governement.

People, make sure your own yard is clean before you complain about someone elses.

Have a great day!

Posted by: GarGar | June 17, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Good. More needs to be done, but this is a start.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | June 17, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you Obama, Selling out American vaules, Stepping on the US Constitution,
Spending Hard working American citizens tax
money like a fool on a endless holiday,
For not listing to the people of a Free Nation. STOP giving speeches and start listening to The American People.
I am beginning to question as to who and what motives you!

Posted by: akeegan2 | June 17, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I assume Pres. Obama is gonna use his personal savings to extend these benefits ... what a generous guy.

Of course if he expects me to pay for these new benefits then he needs a new campaign director for his re-election.

Posted by: cautious | June 17, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

A $10+ trillion(!) federal debt coming in... a proposed $1.8 trillion(!) fed deficit this year... fed gov needs to get a clue... they haven't been able to afford the employee benefits they've been providing to this point...

Posted by: srb2 | June 17, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"Par for the course considering the fact that gaydom already possesses exclusive rights under our government to adopt, become foster parents, big brothers and big sister..."

I don't think you know what the word "exclusive" means.

Heterosexuals can't adopt?

Posted by: hitpoints | June 17, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"Imagine no liberals, what a wonderful world it would be!"
Posted by: cschotta1

Hey, the Taliban wants their slogan back.

Posted by: hitpoints | June 17, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Hey, freelyb. You don't need to be malicious---what did I do to you? I hooked him long ago--it was I who didn't want to get married at an earlier date. We're getting married in six months---just would like to get the insurance out of the way so it's one less thing to deal with, but I guess your pea-sized brain can't comprehend things like planning ahead.

Posted by: fedlandworker | June 17, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that Obama tries to destroy all that America once believed in? Once a marriage was always between a man and a woman, and adultery used to be socially unacceptable. Not any more though. Now people who are of the same sex can be married in someplaces and even people who aren't married get benifits for living together! This is an outrage!
http://planotexaspolitics.wordpress.com/

Posted by: almek11 | June 17, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

It won't take long for those, whose spiritual life was artificially implanted at an early age, means endless torment as they watch society, as they imagine it to be, disintegrate before their eyes. A pair-bond between same sex people is unthinkable to them. Homosexuality involves forbidden thoughts and actions. Official recognition by the Federal Government in some way makes homosexuality "normal," which is anathema to True Believers. First thing you know, we'll have a Jewish president. Then where will we be?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | June 17, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

What happened to "Pay-Go"?

Did President Obama say what he would cut to pay for this additional spending?

Posted by: jdcw | June 17, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: gilbert6
There was a time men and women in this nation respected their belief, and held a perceptive admiration in a higher power. Yet over the years our elected officials apparently have twisted this notion of separation of church and state to fulfill their campaign promises. I offer proof from a next door neighbor to our founding father President George Washington, my grandfather from generations long past, Mr. Moses Ball:

Fairfax County, Virginia Will Book F, No. 1, p. 176
In the name of God, Amen, fifteenth day of December, in the year of Our Lord God, One thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, I, Moses Ball, being in perfect memory, thanks be to Almighty God, and calling to remembrance the uncertainty of this transitory life and that it is appointed once for all men to die, do make, constitute and ordain this to be my last Will and Testament....

This is what our nation was founded on! Prayer was a daily occurrence in our schools, in local government chambers, during athletic events, even on the steps of our local Courthouse. Our faith is greater than any ill advised politician set on corrupting this nation's moral values. Say what you will, but my house shall serve the LORD!
**************************
I will now have my slave Ezekiel, whom I own by the Grace and power of God, deliver this writing to the all male Council along with my writings on the extermination of the foul heathen Indians who populate our new land, given to us by the Grace of God.
Sound about right to you?

Posted by: overed | June 17, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The religious superstition that homosexuals will contribute to the downfall of society is simply one more canard offered by the religious right. Religion has been responsible for the death and persecution of hundreds of millions of people through war and church/state-sponsored oppression, yet the religious right is obsessed by the notion of a romantic relationship between two people of the same gender. Religion does not equate morality and religious people do not have a lock on morality. The world would be a much better place if religious people, including Christians, spent less time judging and oppressing and more time reflecting on the crimes against humanity that have been committed in the name of religion.

Posted by: dcheretic | June 17, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Extend benefits to unmarried people who live together under the same roof. Such as brother sister, parent son or daughter,
etc.

They did this in Massachusetts some years ago and it provides health benefits to more people.


who took this post off and why? I postd about an hour ago------

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | June 17, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Fedlandworker,

It took ten years to hook this guy and now you have to bribe him with health insurance? I'd say you have problems that have little to do with the gay population.

Posted by: freelyb | June 17, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Priorities?

My father, a 100% service-connected wounded in combat in Korea veteran, was granted retroactive compensation, under Congressional law, for his injuries. His eligibility was over looked, then granted and he was notified of his rights to retro pay.

Unfortunately he died December 1, 2008, and our family is still waiting for this payment. We are told by DFAS that yes congress granted these wounded veterans this compensation, but they neglected to approve the funds.

Where are the Congressional/Executive priorities?

Signed,
A 100% service-connected Vietnam veteran also waiting for other approved but not received benefits.

Posted by: BobCrandall | June 17, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The difference in education level between conservatives and liberals is nowhere more evident than on this blog, and I've read a lot of them. The red can't spell, punctuate, or reason. Blind faith is all they can mentally put forth.

Posted by: freelyb | June 17, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

This is a welcome and sensible change. Innumerable private employers across the country have the same policy and have had experience with the practical issues that arise with any change in coverage. This decision treats gay and lesbian people fairly and equally with straight people instead of discriminating against them. I would still like to see a repair to the don't ask, don't tell policy disaster, but I believe this change actually affects more people and is welcome, too.

The reason the State Department made its changes first, I think, is because of the immediate life or death effect of evacuation policies that used to exclude gay partners in potentially dangerous, emergency situations while straight families were evacuated and they were not.

Some private employers also cover straight but unmarried couples. I don't see a reason to do that here, since they can marry. By contrast, gay couples do not have the choice of marriage in most states and DOMA does not provide true marriage equality.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | June 17, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Well, our president caved to the pressure. I for one thought he was completely in control of his agenda and was biding his time on social issues so that the could pass radically left health reform and other measures. But the negative press from the left drove him to react. Conservatives everywhere should be pleased, because he just left the center on social issues and is tilting now way left. Prediction: he will lose significant political momentum and many of his initiatives will now be mired.

Posted by: davidm4 | June 17, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

WRONG! THIS ARTICLE IS INACCURATE!

There will be no extension of health benefits in Obama's announcement today. Basically, he is doing a little window dressing in advance of a DNC fundraiser scheduled for next week tapping GLBT donors. The announcement will not extend health benefits, as The New York Times reports this AM. It is a sham. Federal employees want the health benefits, but Obama is afraid to do it unilaterally, so he is taknig the position that Congress must pass the Lieberman legislation, which he will likely sign. Of course, that legislation, as we all know, could get held up in the Senate for years. What a joke this is!

DON'T BE FOOLED BY THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS! THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS A SHAM!

Posted by: gilbert6 | June 17, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

There was a time men and women in this nation respected their belief, and held a perceptive admiration in a higher power. Yet over the years our elected officials apparently have twisted this notion of separation of church and state to fulfill their campaign promises. I offer proof from a next door neighbor to our founding father President George Washington, my grandfather from generations long past, Mr. Moses Ball:

Fairfax County, Virginia Will Book F, No. 1, p. 176
In the name of God, Amen, fifteenth day of December, in the year of Our Lord God, One thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, I, Moses Ball, being in perfect memory, thanks be to Almighty God, and calling to remembrance the uncertainty of this transitory life and that it is appointed once for all men to die, do make, constitute and ordain this to be my last Will and Testament....

This is what our nation was founded on! Prayer was a daily occurrence in our schools, in local government chambers, during athletic events, even on the steps of our local Courthouse. Our faith is greater than any ill advised politician set on corrupting this nation's moral values. Say what you will, but my house shall serve the LORD!

Posted by: edball | June 17, 2009 8:42 AM | Report abuse

My dog has a hitch in her gitalong and needs health benefits, too.

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | June 17, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

And tjhall1, YOU scare ME and you need to get help. I feel bad for you that you live with such paranoia.

Posted by: fedlandworker | June 17, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Reply to tedlpearson:

"WE ARE U.S. CITIZENS AND WE WANT EQUAL RIGHTS! WE ARE PEOPLE!"

What "rights" exactly are you talking about? Is marriage a "right?" Are health benefits a "right?" I think not. The former is a foundation for society, the latter an employment perk.

ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE A SORE POINT WITH GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE WE ARE FED A DAILY HEAPING OF DEMEANING, UNEQUAL, & UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY A HETEROSEXUAL MAJORITY WHICH IS DENYING US FULL CIVIL RIGHTS!

What civil rights are you lacking? Are you unable to vote? Are you unable to speak your mind? Unable to bear arms? Please tell me what constitutional rights are being denied? Or is your complaint really about privileges?

Can you please give me some (non-recent) historical precedent where a society recognized or legitimized marriages between homosexuals? That is to say, give me an historical example of a society that believed homosexual marriage provided the same societal foundation as heterosexual marriage. And tell me, how well did that society function?

Posted by: RogerGoldleader | June 17, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I'm a single female, engaged to a wonderful man after 10 years of being partners with him (See? You CAN be "partners" AND be heterosexual.). It appears that, according to this article, I will be able to put him on my health insurance for a bit before we get married. Is this correct?

Posted by: fedlandworker | June 17, 2009 8:30 AM | Report abuse

It's about time, Mr. President. You ran on change but have morphed into a cautious version of Bush2. Pick up the pace!

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | June 17, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times is reporting that the 'deal' won't include health care access. So one article is wrong. Scott Butterworth: Are you sure of what you are saying????????

I would think that insurance would require a statute and be beyond what the POTUS can do merely by Executive Order. It would appear that he's free to do anything that doesn't impose a cost over what is budgeted, but reappropriating funds is, in my uninformed opinion, less feasible.

But to me the more interesting question is the accuracy of this reporting....

Posted by: AngloAm | June 17, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Don't stop there.

Extend health benefits to close adult relatives living in the same household. Sister and brother, parent and son or daughter and the like.

Or any two unmarried non-gay adults living under tha same roof.

In that we can provide more people with health benefits.

This plan was adopted in Massacusetts some years ago.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | June 17, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Don't stop there.

Extend health benefits to close adult relatives living in the same household. Sister and brother, parent and son or daughter and the like.

Or any two unmarried non-gay adults living under tha same roof.

In that we can provide more people with health benefits.

This plan was adopted in Massacusetts some years ago.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | June 17, 2009 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Replying to Tiki79: "Your opinion on homosexuality is based on your religion."

And your opinion is based on what, please? Why is the basis for your world view valid, but a religious basis is invalid?

"Unfortunately for you, the First Amendment that protects your right to believe what you believe, does not give you the right to make me adhere to your beliefs." For some reason, homosexuals are unable to see the irony and hypocrisy in such statements. People like dem4life1 can say unkind things about Christians, but if I were to say similar things about homosexuals, its "hate" speech. In our increasingly PC society, I must curb my thoughts and words, lest I be accused of "spiritual violence" (1984, anyone?), but homosexuals are given free reign to vent on and attack anyone who opposes them.

"In the words of George Carlin: 'Keep thy religion to thy self.'" OK, keep your sexual activity to yourself, and stop equating things that are merely benefits and privileges of a free society with those that are truly rights.

Posted by: RogerGoldleader | June 17, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Great another spending increase at a time of economic uncertainty. This runs right in line with the Obama Liberal Extremist Activist Agenda.

Not only should Government Healthcare not be given over and above that available, and afforded by the private marketplace, it should not be continued to be expanded to even more people, with questionably immoral behavior.

I'm not saying a Gay or Lesbian is better or worse than any other person. Just that their activity, and lifestyle should not be Government condoned. Its' government sanctioned immorality.

This expansion of Government Healthcare to even more people is however, the signature of the Obama Administration. Spending, increased spending, and even more spending. This would seem like the type of thing that the average politician might wait to do when they have balanced the budget and can afford to do so. Not the irresponsible spenders of the liberal extremist activist democrats.

Did anyone see strange bedfellows? I wonder how many freinds will be claming they are gay and duping the Government into getting their buddies healthcare? I wonder if they can have more than one gay or lesbian partner, and still be covered?

What a bunch of idiocy.

Obama is a disgrace.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | June 17, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.


Posted by: tjhall1 | June 17, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Extend Federal benefits to all Americans on Social Security. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments...

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000..00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer), We can expect to get an average of
$1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

Then sit back.....

And see how fast they would fix it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

Posted by: mharwick | June 17, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

What about costs of Obama's many programs?

What about accountability??


This is hard to believe.... We the people are idiots to have people like this in charge.............


YOU WILL BE BE STUNNED WHEN YOU WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO.

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

Posted by: sagereader | June 17, 2009 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The following are canadian statistics -- but just think the USA will have to fork out for the following (except for suicide of course) --

Here are some of the statistics that Hellquist cites:
· Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
· GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
· GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
· GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
· GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
· GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
· Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
· Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
· If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
· GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 12:30 AM


carrisima....good post

Posted by: charlietuna666 | June 17, 2009 8:03 AM | Report abuse

There will be massive fraud & a massive bureaucracy to regulate it.
I don’t want any of my hard earned money & taxes to go for this.

We don't need to do this during these tough times.
This is just another step down the road of our rapidly deteriorating society. When will it end?

The government needs to work hard on helping people & businesses to get back to work. The energy spent of this stuff is ridiculous.

Posted by: porchfan | June 17, 2009 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Also, religious people don't have a monopoly on values. In the history of the world almost every war began because of religion.

Posted by: dan1005 | June 17, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

If this were a law instead of an executive order, I would be impressed.

Posted by: DuaneNoVA | June 17, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

tjhall1 wrote:
"Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God. Questions?

1) Where did you learn such an ignorant, hate-filled, bigoted lie?
2) Are you a closeted homosexual?
3) Do you currently have love in your life?
4) Have you ever been loved in your life?
5) Were you abused as a child?
6) Did you finish High School?
7) Would you consider getting help?

Posted by: AJBF | June 17, 2009 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Wow! I don't often read comments to online stories, but the sampling of these that I've read scares me. It's not only the extreme level of ignorance, bigotry, intolerance and vitriol they display, it's that I'm terrified that, once the major printed newspapers have all ceased publishing, this may well be the level of 'disinformation' that we'll have to settle for from the online community. I mourn the loss of journalistic ethics, editorial moderation and basic good taste.

Posted by: hlesbrown | June 17, 2009 7:53 AM | Report abuse

More political pandering from this leftist slug. What an embarrassing, valueless lowlife this bozo is.
What's next, "My gal Bossy?"

Posted by: LarryG62 | June 17, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

What is ironic about all these comments using religion as a basis is that the only reason they are allowed to practice their religion is because we live in a country that separates church and state. If you don't think gay people should exist don't let them in your church. But the constitution allows me the freedom to not be religious, so your religion should not oppress me and my family.

Posted by: dan1005 | June 17, 2009 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Wow, SavedGirl. You're deloozhuns are SO strong. I'm amazed you can do anything other than pray. Fortunately, our government is slowly recognizing that your taliban-esque ideas need to end. ALL people are equal and deserve equal rights!

Full civil rights NOW! No Excuses! No Delays!
Full civil rights NOW! No Excuses! No Delays!
Full civil rights NOW! No Excuses! No Delays!

Posted by: watsonja | June 17, 2009 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Heck, its not like we don't have tons of extra money in the budget. Once again, Obama uses cronyism and bribery to keep his political contributors happy and screw the American taxpayer.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 17, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse

It's about time! I'm fed up with the conservatives, homophobes and religious jacka$$e$ telling other people what to do all the time. Clean up your own house you bigoted morons.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 17, 2009 7:46 AM | Report abuse

To tjhall1:
Your opinion on homosexuality is based on your religion. Unfortunately for you, the First Amendment that protects your right to believe what you believe, does not give you the right to make me adhere to your beliefs.

In the words of George Carlin: "Keep thy religion to thy self."

Posted by: Tiki79 | June 17, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

I applaud this move by the Administration. Yet, I keep getting the sense that this Administration has a "half a loaf" philosophy on too many important issues and throws a bone when it is the subject of criticism (e.g., the DOMA brief). This incrementalism is getting tiresome.

Posted by: AliceinAwe | June 17, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

To all you bible thumpers out there screaming "sinners", I offer a heartfelt "GO F YOURSELVE"! What a bunch of pond scum SOB haters you all are. Do you honestly believe that if there really were a god that she would allow any of you haters into her paradise? HA! Again, and I say this with love in my heart, GO F YOURSELVES!

Posted by: dem4life1 | June 17, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Are you kidding me!!!! Where are his advisors?? This is going to dig us, our nation, even deeper in debt. I can't even articulate my feelings without stuttering on the moral tragedy this is. Christian values??? Muslim values?? No values?? Are Nation is under attack and it is from within!

Posted by: MartynVA | June 17, 2009 7:31 AM | Report abuse

"I disagree. This is a faulty argument. People who want to commit fraud can do it with a heterosexual partnership as easily (if not more so) as with a homosexual one. There have been studies about this in countries where immigration rights have been granted to same-sex couples and there have been no marked increases in fraud."

Key flaw in your point...."other countries". Second, I was explicitly referring to a heterosexual man and woman. I guess that did not get through to you. Further, read my earlier post regarding I support homosexual unions. And immigration was not even a part of my post. So where do you get that from? Learn to read and comprehend, because obviously you did neither.

Posted by: rscott251 | June 17, 2009 7:31 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be a conflict somehow. The only way that I know that you are married or commonlaw is through either a marriage contract or a set of laws in a particular state defining the status. Now, if most states haven't acknowledged gay marriage or civil unions and there is no Federal mandate, then how can Obama extend benefits toward something that does not exist in the eyes of the law. It's not that I'm against the notion, but I have to prove that I'm a head of household or have dependants and none of the Federal health insurance carriers acknowledge that "+1" is anything other than immediate family. I can't even get my mom included on my health plan, because she is not my child or adoptive daughter. So will this new law rectify this too?? or are the Feds finally going to declare civil unions/gay marriage legal on a Federal level, which would trump the states. Moreover, how can you grant benefits for gay civilian DOD workers and not enlisted. Isn't that a set up for a discrimination lawsuit, which is going to cause the repeal of don't ask don't tell anyway? Since gay people aren't going anyway, the Feds just need to make up their minds once and for all--just like they did with the gun law interpretation in the constitution.

Posted by: lidiworks1 | June 17, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

your article is WRONG>
Obama has NO intention of extending Health benefits to partners.

Posted by: newagent99 | June 17, 2009 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Questions?

Posted by: tjhall1 | June 17, 2009 7:17 AM | Report abuse

I disagree. This is a faulty argument. People who want to commit fraud can do it with a heterosexual partnership as easily (if not more so) as with a homosexual one. There have been studies about this in countries where immigration rights have been granted to same-sex couples and there have been no marked increases in fraud.

QUOTE: "I only oppose access to government pensions after death. But this opens the door to fraud on a massive scale "Hey, kelly, you don't have insurance? Just list your address as mine, and the Feds wiill pay for it. We'll say we're BF - GF" "Hey wanna move to Seattle? I just got a Fed job opening there, say we're BF-GF, you can go too". As in prior para. brilliant on the marriage play, disastourous in a fiscal way."

Posted by: moli1 | June 17, 2009 7:14 AM | Report abuse

God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Is Ombama so blind that he would enact a law direct opposite to God's laws. If a homosexual can be identfied, they should get spiritual help to save there soul from hell, not special rghts!!!! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS NEGRO PRESIDENT AND HIS ANTI CHRISTIAN AGENDA!!!!!

Posted by: SavedGirl | June 17, 2009 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Questions?

Posted by: tjhall1 | June 17, 2009 7:12 AM | Report abuse

WHEY MAH CHECKS BE?? ODUMBO BE DONE PROMISED ME MAH CHECKS!!

Posted by: tjhall1 | June 17, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

about freakin' time, Obama. now step up on immigration rules for binational same-sex couples, "don't ask don't tell," etc.

Posted by: moli1 | June 17, 2009 7:07 AM | Report abuse

President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, or is this incorrect.

I think everyone is really missing the boat here, what is the definition of an unmarried domestic partner (same sex or not)?

Fictional Example: (Bill speaking a 54 year old straight Park ranger speaking) Tough break, Joe, my 33 year girlfriend Brittany of a year, who has 3 kids and is divorced from a husband who does not have health insurance and pays only $600 a month in support, has a kid with diabetes and her teenage son needs braces, she lost her job and her health insurance and can't afford the COBRA benefits of $800 a month, I think I'll let her and the kids, move into my house, I don't think I want to marry her but I'll just claim she is my domestic partner after she changes her legal address to mine for four months.

Then I'll file for federal domestic partner health and dental benefits, she can help pay, problem solved.

Would health benefits also cover dependents of the domestic partner in this case?

Would they follow the IRS rules to define who is a head of household and who is legal dependent or create new rules?

Single person benefits are a whole lot less than family health benefits even after paying your share. Are taxpayer now on the hook to pay the difference.

Now under the other Obama plan would the employer sponsored health insurance benefits be now be taxed, if it is over the limit?

Posted by: nonneocon | June 17, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Horray for the Obama adminstration for taking postive steps towards equal rights.

Posted by: naejyllek | June 17, 2009 6:48 AM | Report abuse

If they give it to gay partners, then legally they must give extend Federal benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners. If they want to admit openly gay applicants into the armed forces, then they must provide appropriate housing so that a heterosexual will not have to room with a homosexual (the same as we would not expect heterosexual men and women who are not in a relationship to be forced share a room for permanent housing.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | June 17, 2009 6:38 AM | Report abuse

didn't clinton sign a law that says marriage is between a man and a women and doesn't this violate that law by letting a mans man patner get benefits...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 17, 2009 6:19 AM | Report abuse

" Same Couples" they are not married!
One Man and One Women is Married in the eys of God and the United States Constitution. Be careaful Obama they will be paying less income tax and what about Health Care.....Well there is one good aspect the population of the United States
will decrease, and in time they may become
extinct. Never fool around with Mother Nature.

Posted by: akeegan2 | June 17, 2009 6:17 AM | Report abuse

doesn't the congress have to pass a law to grant those benefit's?...
did you all elect a king?...
obama, wait until your nanny turns your daughters...
2010 can't come early enough to change the tide...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 17, 2009 6:17 AM | Report abuse

"In Vietnam all we cared about was your ability to kill the enemy."
I may have seen one that made it past basic training. He said he caught an incurable disease and wasn't going back to the States. I thought he was just trying to scare me and am not even sure of his "orientation." Our unit had topless dancers at on base parties and a 98.9% VD rate at X-Mas. We could give crap about killing the enemy, since even Congress was saying it was US. We cared more about getting four little needles, rather than the two big ones, to cure the burning and how "short" we were.

Posted by: PrisonBridesforObama | June 17, 2009 5:48 AM | Report abuse

whiteflintguy
Orientation? Is that imbued between your legs? genetic? divinely inspired? How about obsessive compulsive? Maybe, taught no self control and allowed the freedom to experiment same sex friends and advanced no further? Maybe rejected or "belittled" by opposite sex and not able to cope successfully? Maybe, no desire to procreate and have a genetic impact on the future? Fine, your genetic history ends with you. Your "god" set that plan in motion for you? Sex is what you do, not who you are. What you do defines the type of person you have become, but does not dictate the future. You make the choice everyday, but without thinking you choose to let your "feelings" decide. Those feelings exist between your ears and will not be intered with your bones. Silly? You are smarter than than that. Be more creative and think of a new rational reason that I may be right. Right? Wrong? New concepts? Don't exist in your world?

Posted by: PrisonBridesforObama | June 17, 2009 5:30 AM | Report abuse

"All in the company knew who was gay, and who was straight. Just join together and kill the enemy.

Posted by: COWENS99 | June 17, 2009 3:27 AM " Unfortunately, homosexual men do not behave as straight men. They tend to transfer to units with known homosexuals. Once there, they abuse their power, such as the unit of MPs at one army base, when catching a soldier coming back late, gave him a choice of being gangbanged or taken to the stockade. You have the incident of the Iowa over a lovers spat.

And don't try to deny it. People laughed at the rest area scene in "Something about Mary". Except, that is real. We had two that were shut down and torn up here in Frederick county. Straight people and even Lesbians don't do that stuff. Homosexual men are their own worse enemy when they argue for equal treatment. I have met many in my lifetime, and generally, don't have a problem with them. Have gotten drunk with them, had them introduce me to their girl friends, offered them jobs, had them follow me to new companies and ask to come along, didn't out a gay man to his neighbor (the neighbor, I went to HS with) when he came on to me, because he was in the closet. It was mutual respect.

If the gay community ever wants true respect and acceptance, they need to police their own better. Walking around in assless chaps during Mardi Gras will not get them any.

Posted by: rscott251 | June 17, 2009 4:26 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times is reporting that Obama's memorandum will not give health insurance coverage to gay Federal employee's partners. It will only confer lesser benefits, such as relocation costs. I hope the Post is right and the Times is wrong.

In any case, I hope the Obama Administration is not under the illusion that this will restore good relations with the gay community. Gay people are very angry with Obama right now, both because of the DoJ's DOMA brief (which compared gay marriage with incest) and because of the Administration's inexcusable delays on DADT repeal. If the Democrats want to get gay votes or gay campaign contributions in 2010 or 2012, they will need to take more substantial action, such as enacting ENDA, repealing DOMA, and allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.

Posted by: equalrights | June 17, 2009 4:24 AM | Report abuse

Actually, this is a brilliant move. I am opposed to it, but it is brilliant. This is "ok, I can't support gay marriage, but because of the outrage over this, it will force Congress to act to counter the argument it is opening a flood gate to those not committed to marriage, 'I reluctantly sign this bill recognizing same sex marriage'". And then his hands will be clean.

But, I think he is over-reaching. He will be called out on civil unions. Grant these benefits to those in civil unions. Simple enough. I don't oppose that. I only oppose access to government pensions after death. But this opens the door to fraud on a massive scale "Hey, kelly, you don't have insurance? Just list your address as mine, and the Feds wiill pay for it. We'll say we're BF - GF" "Hey wanna move to Seattle? I just got a Fed job opening there, say we're BF-GF, you can go too". As in prior para. brilliant on the marriage play, disastourous in a fiscal way.

I think we can begin to thank Obama, for he will succeed in the quick resuscitation of the Republican party much faster than Pelosi or Reid ever could.

Posted by: rscott251 | June 17, 2009 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't get it. Those of us who support same-sex marriage support *marriage* as an institution, and simply believe it should be available to everyone. Marriage is a bright-line commitment, and opening federal benefits to "significant others" reduces the incentive to marry, and weakens families and society. I hope Congress will pass a law like Maryland's, giving employment benefits to same-sex couples who aren't permitted to marry, while refusing them to unmarried straight couples who just don't want to make the commitment.

Posted by: pundito | June 17, 2009 3:47 AM | Report abuse

another example of disgusting political pandering. changing the law every time some special interest group is against it is wrong. what happened to the citizens right to vote on these issues? not that the sickos respect the law

Posted by: pofinpa | June 17, 2009 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Until Obama repeals "Don't Ask,Don't Tell" we will be a divided country. It is a stupid law, and dedprives Americans from thev right to die for their country.

In Vietnam all we cared about was your ability to kill the enemy.

All in the company knew who was gay, and who was straight. Just join together and kill the enemy.

Posted by: COWENS99 | June 17, 2009 3:27 AM | Report abuse

What constitutes a domestic partner?

Do you just have to say it to make it so?

Can these people have a new "domestic partner" every 6 months?

It is not about sexual orentation, it is about tax payers dollars being spent unwisely.

Posted by: rlkidd58 | June 17, 2009 3:08 AM | Report abuse

ldfrmc wrote: "Jesus already returned, last summer. He's living in California. Married a man who is either Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, no one's sure. His husband writes scripts."

Really? Are you sure? I thought it was John the Baptist who came back as the gunman who splattered Harvey Milk's brains all over the floor.

Posted by: garrafa10 | June 17, 2009 2:57 AM | Report abuse

This is completely illogical.

We have a way to determine who should receive benefits. It is called marriage.

Obama opposes gay marriage but then does this. Let gay people get married. Then there is no problem.

Why do this and not let gay people get married?

Posted by: jazbond007 | June 17, 2009 2:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a creature and a servant of the health insurance industry, a liar, a fraud, and a defender of the status quo. His only interest is in rediscovering his Muslim roots and helping out precious homosexuals. What about heterosexual non-married partners, do they qualify as well?

Posted by: garrafa10 | June 17, 2009 2:51 AM | Report abuse

well.. isn't this just wonderful.

i have been a small business paying MORE than my share into this federal government for 17 years.. and i don't get ANY federal health benefits.

and now.. obama is giving health benefits to SPOUSES OF LESBIANS BEFORE ME?????

F* YOU OBAMA!

SEE YOU IN 2012!

Posted by: DriveByPoster | June 17, 2009 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Under this proposal a double handful of "life partners" will have access to health-care benefits. What are the corollaries that we can expect.

Access to health-care benefits = use of preventive care. Use of preventive care = less use of acute care / advanced-disease care. Less use of acute / advanced-disease care = less expense to society overall.

Isn't this a win-win situation?

--

I have no quarrel with making benefit access conditional upon presenting a marriage certificate. The corollary, though, is that "marriage" -- civil, not religious -- has to be made available to persons outside heterosexual pairings. (Give it time; it'll happen.)

--

Against extending "marriage" to same-sex couples? Worried about financial scams against the partnership system? Require presentation of a year's worth of bank statements from a joint account, and check back six-monthly for the same. That should do it.

Or, hey, what about a single-payer insurance system, universal coverage, and reform of tort law? Takes away an incentive for scamming and, again, reduces health-care costs -- by whatever the insurers are skimming off in administration fees / profits.

That liberal gay agenda: Clever sons-of-guns, coming up with something that fits together so well and makes so much sense.

Well, as the Bible says: If it's logical, it must be Satanic.

And if the Bible says it, I believe it, and THAT SETTLES IT.

Posted by: Wondercat | June 17, 2009 2:19 AM | Report abuse

It's not going to be an executive order... I'm surprised that hasn't been corrected yet.

Posted by: eagle221 | June 17, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

crumppie, it is bigots like you who compare a human being to a dog that are why your side will ultimately lose.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 17, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

My dogs need vet care too. I want them covered.

Posted by: crumppie | June 17, 2009 1:41 AM | Report abuse

PrisonBridesforObama - Your statement is silly. You chose not to have sex with a person of the same gender, not your sexual orientation. Your response suggests that you were clueless on whether you were straight or gay until that very exact moment in time, that you had no inclination whatsoever either way. It was not your cup of tea and you said no, nothing wrong with that. You decided not to have sex, not your orientation.

Posted by: whiteflintguy | June 17, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

@whiteflintguy
YES -- you decided this all by yourself and maybe a little deviant sexual coaxing. Give it up before it's too late! I bet you would make a splendid "natural" father some day. Need help?

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

I thought the Post was moderated. Oh well.

Dear Saved Girl: You missed the other news story. Jesus already returned, last summer. He's living in California. Married a man who is either Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, no one's sure. His husband writes scripts. Jesus works in the film industry too. They're planning on making a few movies - out of this world plots - then one or both will run for political office.

Watch out. They are said to be staunch education reformists with an eye for literacy. That includes you, too, Saved Girl.

Start preying.

Posted by: ldfrmc | June 17, 2009 12:42 AM | Report abuse

"Gays don't decide to be gay." That kind of BS lack of responsibility is the Barney Frank mentality that bankrupt this Country. I made the decision to be straight when a gay friend invited me over for some fun. Straight people make the decision every day, just as gays do. Homesexuality is a behavior, not a physical trait. When your hormone level is high any outlet will do in a pinch (beast, fruit or fowl). Your preferred outlet is is exactly that, a learned preference. I have nothing against gays, except the attitude of many that I owe them a living through my tax dollars. I support replenishment of the species by supporting marriage for procreation. I support not allowing benefits for childless marriages and after children reach maturity. Love is a decision made daily. To say you do not choose who you love is to say you don't really know yourself or the object of your love.

Posted by: PrisonBridesforObama | June 17, 2009 12:42 AM | Report abuse

@camera_eye_11

G-d has already judged by his Holy Word -- the Bible -- we imperfect followers spread the word of the L-rd as we are commanded to do. G-d will stand in judgment at the end of our lives. It is so hard to fight against our natural propensity to do evil -- it is also a struggle trying to overcome the spiritual portion of G-d within us that causes us to rebel ONLY against him.

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Which gay spouse will not be able to participate in the Federal plan that will be available to all Americans? The one on the right or the one on the left?

Posted by: matt41 | June 17, 2009 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Everyone responding to carrisima, the study "Crafting Gay Children" by Judith A. Reisman PhD can be found here, shocking and DISGUSTING, indeed the most innocent of America's society are being sacrificed for the sake of "political correctness", I must call it POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS to be for real:

http://defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf

Posted by: nakiberu | June 17, 2009 12:36 AM | Report abuse

The following are canadian statistics -- but just think the USA will have to fork out for the following (except for suicide of course) --

Here are some of the statistics that Hellquist cites:
· Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
· GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
· GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
· GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
· GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
· GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
· Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
· Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
· If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
· GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

THIS CAN NOT STAND. IT IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAWS!! OUR LEADER'S ARE REGENTS IN CHARGE UNTIL JESUSES RETURN AND THEY MUST UPHOLD HIS LAWS LEAST THE FATHER SHEW HIS RATH ON THOSE WHO SPIT IN HS FACE!!! OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED BEFORE THIS ABBOMINATON AND PREVERSION OF GOD'S LAWS CAN BE EFFECTUATED!!!

Posted by: SavedGirl | June 17, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

@jpandchris

My mistake -- I said 5 times more likely --check this out -

A 14 year old female relative was told by her appointed Big Sister (Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America) that she was a lesbian -- now can you tell me why a 14 year old would have to know this -- unless to recruit the child?

Mark my words -- sooner or later this will become an explosive issue -- right now the courts and so-called experts ignore the statistics -- apparently political correctness overrides the welfare of our children -- the massive lawsuits will come.

A homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, said Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky. But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said. Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 TIMES GREATER than heterosexuals, she said. "You're looking at a much higher rate of abuse," said Reisman, a former university research professor who recently completed a study titled, "Crafting Gay Children." "The Department of Justice just released data and the rate of abuse are off the charts."
(A book written by Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of mental disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.)

One last note: Homosexuals do not want you to know that many of them were sexually abused when young, because many people who were so abused go on to molest others. And homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are.

and my expression gaydom is in response to the gaydom expression homophobic --

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

AlbyVA - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
-Lev 20:13

"A woman must listen in silence and be completely submissive. I do not permit a woman to act as teacher, or in any way have authority over a man." 1 Tim 2:11-12

"To the slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men but in all sincerity and out of reverence for the Lord." Col 3:22

. . . . and many others.

So go ahead AlbyVA, feel free to pick and choose which bible verses you want to interpret literally. If they all apply literally, please then adhere to 1 Tim 2:11-12 and refrain from further comment.

Posted by: whiteflintguy | June 17, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

In response to cschotta1 sick comment, lesbians have the lowest rate of AIDS infection of any group. In your narrow world, I guess I have a "straight" ticket to heaven!


All the sick anti-gay comments are just unbelievable. Hopefully, someday there will be a cure for homophobia.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 16, 2009 10:49 PM

Hopefully AIDS will take of it!

Posted by: cschotta1 | June 16, 2009 10:53 PM

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 17, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

From day one I said gay marriage has NOTHING to do with love and EVERYTHING to do with insurance--the way Barry plans to set this one up will see fraud and abuse on a scale heretofore never seen. And you and I will get to pay for it.

Posted by: Skerns0301 | June 17, 2009 12:14 AM | Report abuse

curious23
In 1982, The Village Voice in New York City became the first private employer to offer domestic partner benefits. Two years later, Berkeley, Calif., became the first municipal employer to do so. In May 1997, San Francisco began requiring all businesses with municipal contracts to offer same-sex benefits if they offer benefits for married couples.
April 2000, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean signed the first "civil union" law that grants gay couples nearly the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. The law, which took effect July 2001, covers taxes, inheritance and medical decision-making.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont currently recognize same-sex marriages and provide couples with the same rights as traditional married couples. The California Supreme Court upheld the state's Proposition 8 in May 2009, which restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.
New Hampshire and New Jersey have legal unions for same-sex couples that provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington offer legal unions for same-sex couples with varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage.
I can go on but I think you get the point. So let me reiterate:
YOU’RE ALL MISSING THE POINT!
THIS IS AN EGOMANIAC TAKING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR GAYS AND STAIGHTS!
NOBAMA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THIS WAS HIS BRILLIANT IDEA. IT WAS NOT!

Posted by: matt41 | June 17, 2009 12:11 AM | Report abuse

carrisima, I don't know where you get your information from because you don't cite your source.

As for me, gays don't affect my family since I don't live under the same roof with any. I do have gay friends and would rather hang out with them because I don't have to worry about any of them trying to step in on my dates.

I say let God pass judgement. It's not up to us to do God's job and I'm sure he wouldn't like it too much.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | June 17, 2009 12:11 AM | Report abuse

The Feds will eventually require the States to similarly cover their employees. It would cost trillions because every Chuck and Larry would be covered, every Chuck could sell the care benefits to every Larry and you would end up with the same universal care which we cannot afford. When that happens, healthcare will become socialized because the Govt will be the only customer. A better way to attack rich doctors would be to build more medical schools. But, then there would not be enough rich people to pay taxes. Big deal, who gives a crap about this CS financially and morally bankrupt country anyway. I guess Osama was right after all.

Posted by: PrisonBridesforObama | June 17, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Matt41 - sorry, I thought when you said to look at ANY insurance application that you meant this coverage was a legal requirement everywhere. I didn't know you just meant California.

Posted by: curious23 | June 17, 2009 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Here is an article by David Todd a licensed school psychologist in Florida putting forward his professional observations on how the promotion of the gay lifestyle in schools disguised as freedom of expression is detrimental to still mentally, emotionally and physically developing adolescents.

http://www.fbnewsleader.com/articles/2009/02/05/opinion/00editavpttodd.txt

Posted by: nakiberu | June 17, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Carrisima - " . . . to recruit, propagate by indoctrination to grow in numbers -- the only way they can survive to raise up another generation of their kind. The most defenseless children are given to the dogs in their formative years. . . "

PLEASE do enlighten me, at what point in your life did you make a conscious decision to actually be heterosexual? I mean really, you apparently thought at some point, "Shall I be gay or straight . . . I think I'll go with straight. If I don't like it, I can always change my mind."

Gays don't decide to be gay. Who in their right mind would make that decision knowing they would have to endure a lifetime of baseless attacks from bigots like you? Gays cannot recruit straight people to be gay. Think about it, could I "recruit" you to be gay, of course not, you weren't born that way, you're not wired that way. This whole recruitment concept that some people have is amazing. Have you ever had a heart-to-heart talk with a gay person about who they are and what they feel. I suspect not, perhaps you feared they would recruit you. Again, you're straight! How can I recruit you or any person, regardless of age . . . from teenagers to seniors. You are who you are and no person can "recruit" you to be who you are not. Likewise, gay people are born who they are, they are wired that way. You and noone else cannot change that.

Posted by: whiteflintguy | June 16, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

After the election, I told my daughter the talk of succession was BS. Big O may bankrupt the Country, but we've been there before. Now it looks like the Country will split and this time the South is morally right. I see no reason for the Federal government to pay my tax money for someone who can work and get their own benefits, just because they are gay. The "proposed" policy violates the Defense of Marriage Act. The nice thing about it is that anyone in the North with enough testoterone to fight will not give a crap about the cause.

Posted by: PrisonBridesforObama | June 16, 2009 11:55 PM | Report abuse

@camera_eye_11
You are not the only one in the world suffering hurt from a broken marriage - sin caused this. You need
G-d more than you know.
Homosexuality is sexual deviancy representative of immature attempts at "consummation" of a relationship. There is only ONE way to "consummate" and it takes a man and a woman. But again I say give the hellbound in gaydom the world -- they already have our children. PRAY for your son -- he doesn't need to go that way. I will PRAY. ca

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

curious23
California Insurance Equality Act
What is the California Insurance Equality Act?
The California Insurance Equality Act (AB 2208) is a non-discrimination statute that prohibits insurance providers from issuing policies or plans that treat registered domestic partners and married spouses differently. It requires all policies and plans that provide benefits to spouses or registered domestic partners to provide them to both categories and do so in an identical manner.

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Apparently it's going to be a memorandum, not an executive order, and it's not going to provide much. Does Obama think we're idiots? Please join this group on Facebook showing your support for a 100% boycott of any fundraising for the Democratic party. Money is the only argument they will listen to it seems. The only argument the Dems and Obama are going to listen to is money. Lack thereof. Boycott all donations to all Democratic party elected officials.

Join this Facebook group now: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=97997751331&ref=mf

Posted by: lenny2 | June 16, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

matt41 - i believe it depends on the employer and its policy definitions. Some offer, some don't. there's not a legal requirement one way or the other. yet.

Posted by: curious23 | June 16, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Um, Carrisima, please cite your sources, as I'm sure you've done exhaustive research in this arena. And, BTW, WTF is "gaydom."

Posted by: jpandchris | June 16, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Reading between the lines, it seems like insuring self-destructive behavior might be too expensive.

Posted by: Thinker1 | June 16, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Our tax dollars are given to support all kinds of horrific causes from the rights of gaydom to abortion. Those with high moral standards should have a personal choice where our tax money should and should not be used on income tax forms.

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

YOU’RE ALL MISSING THE POINT!
This is an egomaniac taking credit for something that is already available FOR GAYS AND STAIGHTS!
Look on any health insurance application. NObama wants you to believe this was his brilliant idea. IT WAS NOT!

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Statistics show that children given to gaydom by the courts are 5 times more likely to be sexually abused than by heteros. So if we dissenters are labeled haters and homophobes by gaydom -- it's only to further this disgusting agenda of filth and indecency. Healthcare should be for ALL regardless of the sexual activity we chose.

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
-Lev 20:13

Posted by: AlbyVA | June 16, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

ldfrmc @ 11:28 - just as some hetero couples live together unmarried, I would assume that some gay couples may choose the same. Not everyone wants marriage.

Why the name calling?

Posted by: curious23 | June 16, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

All the old, worn out hypotheticals come out of the closet when gay couples who work for the government finally get some equal rights.

Domestic partners in California are gay AND straight.

Unmarried straights? They get married, if they want the benefits. Or did all the gay couples who are married make it impossible for straights to marry now?

Maybe they just don't want to commit to anyone or anything anymore.

Posted by: ldfrmc | June 16, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

I read on another site that health care will not be one of the items included. So what exactly is he planning on other than relocation fees? I also find the comments here to be disgusting towards other human beings. The hate spewing forth from some people make me wonder what your spouse sees in you, if you have one. And if you are so against giving gay couples in a committed relationship the same benefits you have with your marriage certificate then why are heterosexuals so messing up the institution anyway with an almost 50% divorce rate? I think it more than fair if everyone doesn't get certain benefits then no one should. No one should get any benefits from being married until either everyone has the same chance to marry or everyone should get no advantage then at all over any other human being. And while we are at it and marriage is so wonderful to be only maintained for one man and one woman, then when are those same people going to say they will support a ban on divorce - no more divorces ever - remember your promised to God til death do us part, didn't you?

Posted by: justmyvoice | June 16, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Pope09:

You are a completely intolerant person. You can't tolerate anyone who has a different view of the world than you do. You call them names, "homophobe' or "hateful."

Hey, I think two men mating is not natural or healthy -- there's no fear or hate in that viewpoint. To me, it's obvious. But if you want to do it, fine. I'm tolerant of your lifestyle. I just don't want you calling me names because I don't endorse your view, which is completely twisted in my view.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | June 16, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

You said it carrisima .. Hope to see you are Kings Fest. We must fight to stop the evil.

Posted by: AlbyVA | June 16, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm straight...and divorced after finding out my wife was having an AFFAIR with another man. My son is still having a hard time dealing with it.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a joke. I say if gays want to marry, then let them. Why would gays want to put themselves through the same hell that 2 out of 3 unhappily married heterosexual couples go through?

Gays didn't ruin my marriage, my NOW ex-wife did.

Get your bible out of other peoples lives. You're the reason people are dropping organized religion.

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | June 16, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Flying in the face of Almighty G-d, we will not go unpunished for this gross error in supporting the open reprobate.

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

1ofamillion: "Will straight couples who choose not to get married be able to take advantage of the rule in states that allow gay marriage? Only seems fair."

They get married, stupid. Only seems logical.

Posted by: ldfrmc | June 16, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow, now my straight son can get benefits by finding another straight young man with a government job and claiming to be partners.

Hey, are live-in straight partners counted to?

Suppose I want to marry two people -- do they both get benefits? Why not?

Posted by: InTheMiddle | June 16, 2009 11:27 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners"

Does these mean Boyfriends and Girlfriends of Heterosexuals can now qualify for benefits? No Marriage License required? I hope so, else I can see the lawsuits now. Gay Unmarried get benefits, but Hetero Unmarried get nothing.. LawSuit!!!

Posted by: AlbyVA | June 16, 2009 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I can't believe many of these comments. Where did all the hate come from?

Posted by: pope09 | June 16, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

NewEra
It was already available. NObama and his giant look at me ego just wants credit for it. He didn’t do squat.

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 11:24 PM | Report abuse

daman says: incest, pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality...society sets the rules.

Thanks for pointing out why the Republican party is headed for the trash heap of history.

Vitter, Gingrich, McCain, now Ensign? How many women can a man marry, or screw while married before your society calls it polygamy?

A young person in a church has a better chance of being molested than married by the keepers of your "morals."


Posted by: ldfrmc | June 16, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

What about retirees? I'd love to cover my SO with my Govt. health insurance. It should be a no brainer since in doing so I pay MORE than twice what I pay as a single.

Posted by: jc1123 | June 16, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

1ofamillion
I’m in the health insurance industry and I can tell you here in California (yes California) a domestic partner can be added to a plan. I see it all the time. For proof just find any Anthem Blue Cross of California Individual health insurance application and look in section 3C. It reads “*Spouse includes domestic partner (when applicable). Domestic partner enrollment requires submission of a copy of a valid Declaration of Domestic Partnership filed with and stamped by the California Secretary of State.” A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples.

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Also -- How about hetero shack ups -- are they legally covered too?

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Another great step forward for the Gay and Lesbian community.

Posted by: NewEra | June 16, 2009 11:18 PM | Report abuse

under what premise can the feds now disallow hetero partner benefits? An unmarried couple is an unmarried couple.

or what if a female employee lives with aunt ethel? a gay roommate is covered, but not another same-sex roommate?

in other words, how the hell will they administer this one?

Posted by: curious23 | June 16, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the RISE AND FALL OF THE USA -- Another sad day in the USA where a tiny few in gaydom have insurmountable power and influence to cause the government - the president - to bow in the midst of a world financical crises. I predict new strains of the AIDS virus may wipe us out. Par for the course considering the fact that gaydom already possesses exclusive rights under our government to adopt, become foster parents, big brothers and big sister only to recruit, propagate by indoctrination to grow in numbers -- the only way they can survive to raise up another generation of their kind. The most defenseless children are given to the dogs in their formative years. If the government places preferential politics over and above the health and safety of our children -- then all else is moot. Poor little children.
G-d help us all.

Posted by: carrisima | June 16, 2009 11:12 PM | Report abuse

nix101: "I don't care about the gay or unmarried partners. I think that benefits should go to family first." "The government needs to treat our senior citizens properly before dishing out money to every gay, lesbian and unmarried "partners"."

Well, stupid, guess what, I'm gay, senior, a caretaker, we're married and we both had parents in need of help.

I pay the same GD taxes you do and expect the same government treatment.

Sleep on this, idiot: An unmarried partner can render caregiving and get paid by the government because you say we're not a family.

You are a complete, selfish, idiot.


Posted by: ldfrmc | June 16, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Homo behavior will never be viewed as normal...despite what Obama does...as it has been historically viewed negatively in all cultures and religions. Sorry. And it it is no different than denying Mormons the right to have multiple spouses or denying someone the 'right' to marry a ten year old or a goat...society sets the rules.

Posted by: DaMan2 | June 16, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Hoganandbligh is the only commenter to mention what seems to be most logical question - how does this work? If you think this is a bad idea as a facial matter, then you're confusing legal and religious marriage or you just don't like gay people. Whatever.
Anyway, the obvious question seems to be what are the eligibility requirements? Will straight couples who choose not to get married be able to take advantage of the rule in states that allow gay marriage? Only seems fair, but probably not likely. In states that do allow gay marriage, will only married gay couples be able to take advantage? Again, only seems fair, but probably not likely.

Posted by: 1ofamillion | June 16, 2009 10:58 PM | Report abuse

All the sick anti-gay comments are just unbelievable. Hopefully, someday there will be a cure for homophobia.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 16, 2009 10:49 PM

Hopefully AIDS will take of it!

Posted by: cschotta1 | June 16, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

To Jaxmax: I realize that the Washington Post discourages personal attacks, but after reading your post I can only conclude that you are a small minded bigot. As a straight married man, I must ask this question: How can gays possibly debase marriage more than Ensign, Gingrich, Vitter, and even Clinton? If you don't obsess over the homosexual lifestyle, you will soon realize that it has little, if any, effect on your personal life.

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE USA

A significant step in the decline of the USA occurred in mid June 2009, when Obama decreed mandatory US Government insurance for homosexual partners of Government employees.

This was a predictably certain step, as
Obama's actions will always be the converse of the Biblical worldview, regardless of what Obama SAYS.

NEVER in recorded history had a nation or empire survived long after embracing homosexuality.Homosexuality is always the terminal sign of the beginning of the end of a Nation or empire.

The Bible had long ago prophesied the embrace of homosexuality as a primary sign of God's terminal judgment:

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27

By June 2009 many realized that soon quoting these verses, and other Bible verses, would be decreed illegal "Hate Speech" by Obama.

Romans Chapter 1 in the Bible reveals the Biblical death spiral of judgment.

Rome, Greece........the USA.

Posted by: JaxMax | June 16, 2009 9:47 PM

Posted by: jimestw | June 16, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Marriage was created for a specific type of relationship; one man and one woman. End of story. Create your own tradition.

Posted by: davis_renee | June 16, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Another point I’d like to make. If it’s a federal benefit, why would it be withheld from anybody anyway? What does same sex spouses have to do with anything?

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

All the sick anti-gay comments are just unbelievable. Hopefully, someday there will be a cure for homophobia. Comparing my partner of 15 years and myself to 3 dogs and a monkey is beyond any concept of human decency. Giving taxpaying gay and lesbian employees the same benefits as heterosexuals is a no brainer. I'm a fed -my partner works for a private company. I have long had domestic partner benefits with my partner's company. It's way beyond time that the fed govt. policy caught up.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 16, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

What will "Newt-Three-Marriages" say about this?

Or "Rush-Multiple Brides/Drug Addict" say?

And what "John, My Cheating Heart-Ensign"

The Right is DOA

Posted by: bobnsri | June 16, 2009 10:41 PM

_________________________________________

There is nothing normal about another male putting a C O C K in his mouth. For some reason, the preverted left thinks that this some sort of victory for american. How about we vote on this issue libs, along with abortion and immigration? lol

LIBERALISM....The gutless choice!

Posted by: cschotta1 | June 16, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

What will "Newt-Three-Marriages" say about this?

Or "Rush-Multiple Brides/Drug Addict" say?

And what "John, My Cheating Heart-Ensign"

The Right is DOA

Posted by: bobnsri | June 16, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This is a small but significant step. I know several couples who have been together for decades but who remain legal strangers in the eyes of their own government. At least two of these couples have kids. The entire family is affected in ways that other families are not, and that is completely unfair.


I cannot imagine anyone objecting to treating these families fairly.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 16, 2009 10:34 PM

I can't imagine putting kids through that type of lifestyle. Talk about needing mental help!

Posted by: cschotta1 | June 16, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

So, the nation's largest employer now has the same policy as many of the nations other largest employers.

Big Deal.

Posted by: kamdog | June 16, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

This is a small but significant step. I know several couples who have been together for decades but who remain legal strangers in the eyes of their own government. At least two of these couples have kids. The entire family is affected in ways that other families are not, and that is completely unfair.


I cannot imagine anyone objecting to treating these families fairly.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 16, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Next thing you'l see is Bossy on social security.

Posted by: LarryG62 | June 16, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Not in a million years would I expect this. Then again, the way this admin is going I shouldn't be surprised.

I don't care about the gay or unmarried partners. I think that benefits should go to family first. One of the hardest things we are facing as baby boomers is becoming the "caretaker". Why can't an individual or family that supports, provides and care for a senior claim them for any benefits.

There are no options other than Medicare and no benefits via employee or private insurance for this. The government needs to treat our senior citizens properly before dishing out money to every gay, lesbian and unmarried "partners". There will be a lot of them moving in and signing up. I really am disgusted with this proposal. I am sure there are many out there that understand how much it would mean to extend benefits to the caretakers before the others. This is just plain disgusting and another round of needless spending.

Posted by: nix101 | June 16, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Score a plus for just plain folks, and a huge minus for the republican right wing nutcases . ( Keep on making babies, everybody.} democracy is about 51% And every year the republicans are being sqeezed out of the mainstream

Posted by: pvogel88 | June 16, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

As a federal worker and a tax payer, I am happy I am finally seeing this day come. For all those who have made comments about how liberals and homosexuals are going to bring down the fall of the government, I will argue that this won't be the cause. As a gay Republican I am finally happy to have a President that values me just as any other employee. The US Gov't is falling in line with what private industry has given their employees for some time now. At least I won't have to pay money out my own pocket to move my partner and I around as we go from post to post. I will finally be equal to my colleagues. There is nothing 'special' about this. This is just equal treatment.

Posted by: TravisM | June 16, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Private Insurance companies already Extend Benefits to Unmarried Partners. So this big tadoo by the almighty Obama is a bunch of hewy and hype for the drones out there. It’s another case of Nobama taking credit for something he didn’t do. It’s been around for years.

Posted by: matt41 | June 16, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

OK -- we don't seem to have any say about this latest edict from great leader BHO -- that will add significant cost to the budgets of every federal department. Has anyone calculated the cost?? As usual are we going to have this one stuck in our b**t too? Excuse the pun.

Posted by: hairlessbear | June 16, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Can we have a national vote on this issue?

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | June 16, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

URGENT NOTICE! URGENT NOTICE! URGENT NOTICE!

CONGRESS IS HEREBY DISSOLVED. THERE IS NO FURTHER NEED FOR ANY MEMBER TO REPORT TO WORK SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN OVER ALL DUTIES OF THE CONGRESS. THE SUPREME COURT IS THE NEXT TO BE DISSOLVED BUT NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN IN DUE COURSE.

Posted by: pardonme | June 16, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

These queers should have to pay higher premiums for their preverted and high risk lifestyle. Hopefully, they will seek help for their depression, high suicide risk, and mental disorders that go with being a liberal!

"Imagine no liberals, what a wonderful world it would be!"

Posted by: cschotta1 | June 16, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

Posted by: srd1 | June 16, 2009 10:17 PM | Report abuse

BRAVO!!

Posted by: Pitt_Muscle | June 16, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I have 3 dogs and a monkey. I love them all so much. Am I/we covered?

Posted by: MRGB | June 16, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

What's that popping noise? Oh! It's the exploding heads of right wing bigots all over the country. Way to go O-man!!

Posted by: PepperDr | June 16, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"A significant step in the decline of the USA occurred in mid June 2009"

Pretty small step compared to the one that occurred January 20, 2001.

Posted by: nodebris | June 16, 2009 10:09 PM | Report abuse

OMG! I NEVER thought I would be hoping to have George Bush back but I certainly do now. All the angry gay people are just beginning to make their demands on this declining country. This will simply expedite the decline. Listen, I really do not care that you perfer sex with your own but please stop pushing it on me and my kids. Marriage was never intended for you by any authority so why are you demanding that you are suddenly owed something when it was never yours to begin with.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 16, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I think that we all know at this point that Obama and the Democrats are going to take capitalism down with unsustainable debt and replace it with some form of communism or dictatorship. The liberals love that, and the conservatives can't stop it without a revolution.

Posted by: lclifton | June 16, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

JAXMAX ... please tell me more.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 16, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

For those who say WAIT, the bill to protect lesbians and gay men from workplace harassment and discrimination has been pending in Congress SINCE 1974!!! THAT'S ***35*** YEARS ALREADY!!!! NO MORE WAITING, PERIOD.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

I'll say amen even if he was forced to do it because of the push-back from our community. Political power can move even a president when he forgets a little too long about a large group of people who helped get him his latest job. Congratulations to everyone who spoke out on the DOJ fiasco!

Posted by: harmiclir | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE USA

A significant step in the decline of the USA occurred in mid June 2009, when Obama decreed mandatory US Government insurance for homosexual partners of Government employees.

This was a predictably certain step, as
Obama's actions will always be the converse of the Biblical worldview, regardless of what Obama SAYS.

NEVER in recorded history had a nation or empire survived long after embracing homosexuality.Homosexuality is always the terminal sign of the beginning of the end of a Nation or empire.

The Bible had long ago prophesied the embrace of homosexuality as a primary sign of God's terminal judgment:

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27

By June 2009 many realized that soon quoting these verses, and other Bible verses, would be decreed illegal "Hate Speech" by Obama.

Romans Chapter 1 in the Bible reveals the Biblical death spiral of judgment.

Rome, Greece........the USA.

Posted by: JaxMax | June 16, 2009 9:47 PM | Report abuse

the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members -- after Obama promised during the campaign to repeal it -- has also been a sore point among these activists.

"activists?" "Earth to the Washington Post!!!"

WE ARE U.S. CITIZENS AND WE WANT EQUAL RIGHTS! WE ARE PEOPLE!

ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE A SORE POINT WITH GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE WE ARE FED A DAILY HEAPING OF DEMEANING, UNEQUAL, & UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY A HETEROSEXUAL MAJORITY WHICH IS DENYING US FULL CIVIL RIGHTS!

Not all gay people are activist, and why would someone who presses for their rights be labeled as such?

Posted by: tedlpearson | June 16, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Not acceptable, thecheddar. There is NEVER a convenient time for straight politicians to push for gay rights. NEVER. There's always a non-gay issue that straights want to put ahead of gay equality. ALWAYS. Do you honestly think your comment is the first time any self-centered straight person has demanded that gay people wait? We've been waiting for DECADES. No more waiting. EQUALITY NOW!

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 16, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

The unfortunate couples who are not yet able to marry legally will benefit from this change in policy. However, I think unmarried couples who have the option to get married, should be required to do so in order to receive these benefits. Our society is slowly realizing that civil marriage is different from religious marriage, and before too long I hope that same-sex couples will have to make the same commitment choices that opposite-sex couples have long had to face. Stability is in the best interests of society. Let's have more rather than less.

Posted by: hoganandbligh | June 16, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing pathetic about iterative progress. The country may not get where it should in the next four years, but all great journeys start with a single step.

We can expect more in this President's tenure but it's just not politically possible for him to go all the way just yet. In a second term, it will.

Posted by: thecheddar | June 16, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

This is just pathetic. Clearly, this is designed to appease the gay community for all of their screw ups concerning gay issues since January.

Don't fall for this ploy. No more money to ANY Democrat until all promises to the gay community actually occur. Period.

BTW -- how many gay couples will this help? Not too many I suspect.

Posted by: chadhenson | June 16, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company