Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Extends Benefits To Same-Sex Partners

By Ed O'Keefe



President Obama signs a memorandum on federal benefits and non-discrimination as Vice President Biden and other officials watch. Gay rights activist Frank Kameny is to the president's right. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Updated 6:23 p.m. ET

President Obama signed a memorandum today extending some federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers. The measure does not cover health care and retirement benefits.

“Many of our government’s hard-working and dedicated, patriotic public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy, for one simple reason: The people they love are of the same sex,” Obama said at an Oval Office signing ceremony.

After what he described as a “long, thorough review,” Obama signed the measure that, among other things, grants employees' same-sex partners access to a government insurance program that pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also would be allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.

"Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do, he said, noting that several top employers already offer benefits to same-sex partners.

"Those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The federal government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue," he said.

Still, Obama noted that by law, the government cannot grant gay couples the same range of benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. He said he supports the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which would further extend benefits to gay couples.

He also reiterated his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act: "It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it," he said.

Earlier in the day during a conference call with reporters, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said "This is a first step, not a final step."

"This is an attempt to get our federal house in order, and that is very important to do. It’s an example of practicing before preaching, and I believe the president is taking bold action to do just that, to get the federal house in order."

Berry said his office has been working on the issue for several months with White House staffers and lawmakers. He noted that 57 percent of Fortune 500 companies extend similar benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

"I should also point out that Arizona and Alaska provide this benefit to their state employees," Berry said, in reference to the home states of last year's Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates.

"I think the gay community, of which I am a member, can be very proud that this president stands with us," Berry said. (More on Berry below.)

Three things to keep in mind regarding this decision:

1.) Obama Has Faced Criticism From Gay Rights Groups:
Stopping short of full benefits means the president will still face stiff criticism from liberals and other activists that feel he has not done enough in his first 149 days in office to address gay rights. Still, today's move will likely ease some of the bad feelings. Criticism centers around the administration's decision to file a legal brief that supports the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Monday the head of the Human Rights Campaign wrote an angry letter to the White House on the matter and The New York Times editorial board noted yesterday that Candidate Obama once vowed to overturn the act. "Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. ... If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way."

You think a presidential order extending benefits to same-sex couples might ease the burden? You betcha.

2.) "Don't Ask Don't Tell": Today's decision applies only to the Defense Department's civilian workforce and not to men and women in uniform. Obama has also faced criticism for his reluctance to reconsider the military's policy on gay service members, despite his campaign pledge to repeal it.

3.) John Berry: The most senior openly gay official ever in U.S. government, Obama's director of the Office of Personnel Management is a telegenic, well-respected leader that has made several statements in recent months hinting at today's move, essentially test-driving comments you may soon hear from Obama.

During a speech last week at the Justice Department, Berry passionately stated that the federal government had to do more to ensure equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans: "With the help of a president who supports our cause, the aid of courageous fellow countrymen and women who love liberty, and with God's grace, we shall prevail" in the quest for civil rights, Berry said.

He made similar comments in April during his ceremonial swearing in ceremony attended by First Lady Michelle Obama: "It is the president's and my opinion, that employees should only be judged by their ability to do the job and their performance while on the job and not by any other irrelevant factors," he said.

The president will take it from all sides on this decision: social conservatives will criticize the decision while gay rights activists will insist he did not do enough. Regardless, today is an important day for federal employees eager to enjoy the rights and benefits afforded to their colleagues.

Read Federal Diarist Joe Davidson's behind-the-scenes account of how today's events transpired.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

In other federal news...

Read previous Federal Eye Eye Opener posts here.

Eye Opener

Cabinet and Staff News: The new FDA chief says she'll toughen enforcement efforts. Senate panel approves Obama's CPO nominee. A former top aide to Janet Napolitano is expected to be named U.S. attorney for Arizona.

An 'Oh, Hell' Moment in Buenos Aires: The funniest Al Kamen column in recent months: Bill Clinton hits up some Buenos Aires hot spots. 'Nuf said.

Worried Sick Over Sick Leave: Joe Davidson reviews displeasure that the landmark tobacco legislation doesn't include provisions benefiting federal employees once promised as amendments to the bill.

Obama Blueprint Deepens Federal Role in Markets: The plan seeks to overhaul the nation's outdated system of financial regulations. Senior officials debated using a bulldozer to clear the way for fundamental reforms, but decided instead to build within the shell of the existing system.

VA Facilities Improperly Sterilized Colonoscopy Equipment: An internal investigation finds that fewer than half of VA facilities selected for random inspections had properly sterilized medical equipment used to perform colonoscopies, despite orders to comply with safety guidelines.

CIA Fights Full Release Of Detainee Report: Two officials say the agency is urging the suppression of passages describing in graphic detail how the agency handled its detainees, arguing that the material could damage ongoing counterterrorism operations by laying bare sensitive intelligence procedures and methods.

IRS, Treasury Want Cell Phone Tax Repealed: Phew! The Obama administration has asked Congress to repeal the tax on the personal use of company cell phones after sparking an outcry last week when it sought ideas for enforcing the law.

Audit: FEMA Failed to Follow Contracting Rules: The agency did not follow some federal contracting rules, making it impossible to know whether the agency got its money's worth during disasters.

FDA Warns Against Use of Popular Cold Remedy: Federal drug regulators warned consumers to stop using Zicam, a popular homeopathic cold remedy, because it could damage or destroy their sense of smell.

Retirement Savings Plan Reforms Could Unfold Rapidly: Changes to the Thrift Savings Plan passed by Congress last week could begin to take effect in July.

By Ed O'Keefe  | June 17, 2009; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye Opener, Workplace Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Explains Firing of AmeriCorps IG
Next: Third Case of Watchdog Interference Alleged

Comments

Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.

Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.

Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, "That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all."

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.

Stop gay apartheid.

Posted by: boarderthom | June 17, 2009 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less costs) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality. This is because there are thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with the legal contract of marriage (yes, marriage is a legal contract). And gay people deserve these contract rights.

Posted by: boarderthom | June 17, 2009 6:42 AM | Report abuse

You state "President Obama will sign an executive order today that extends federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners." Benefits for UNMARRIED domestic partners of federal workers? Does that mean that federal workers who are MARRIED to their same sex partners are excluded?

Posted by: borgrav | June 17, 2009 6:44 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 6:58 AM | Report abuse

The anger as to the Obama administration's defense of DOMA is not simply at the --idea-- of defending it, but rather the disgusting language and arguments used to do so. Rick Santorum should be very pleased.

Posted by: edallan | June 17, 2009 7:11 AM | Report abuse

why doesn't the wapo mention that the "benefits" won't include the most basic "benefit"... health insurance.

Posted by: newagent99 | June 17, 2009 7:27 AM | Report abuse

This is the happiest day of my life, next to marrying my life partner of 29 years. We paid $1400 per month for her high risk health insurance, until I took a job after retirement at a company who offers partner health benfits. I pay double for my health insurance, so her breast cancer can be treated. Now I can actually RETIRE!!!

Posted by: LaborDeptRetiree | June 17, 2009 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama shouldn't think that this morsel of benefits will excuse him from meeting his campaign promises and from extending full civil rights to gays and lesbians.

Full civil rights NOW! NO EXCUSES! NO DELAYS!

PS: SavedGirl: this is democracy not a skyfairy-ocracy. We've had enough of your "god"-inspired governing! Give up and go pray for yourself.

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

The New York Times reports that this move will NOT include health care benefits.

Posted by: davidkc | June 17, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The disintegration of what the United States of America has stood for over 233 years is in its' final death throes. You have done well, voters. In not even one year a muslim has denigrated every noble belief and tradition of our history and has the idiots wanting more. Well done, soon to be peasants!

Posted by: GordonShumway | June 17, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd hold your excitement, LaborDeptRetiree. The benefits package will reportedly not include health care, and even if it did, you would still have to pay tons of taxes on it, unlike married straight people. And since this policy is under a memorandum, and not an executive order, it expires after the President leaves office.

Don't be fooled by this gays! He's just throwing you some crumbs so you shut up and continue to send your checks to the DNC. We need to keep the pressure up until he delivers real change like he promised.

Posted by: efs5r | June 17, 2009 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Is this accurate reporting?????

If the laws of the civil State are to be modeled on those of the Bible, when will we rewrite child protective laws to include the ability to beat children for disrespect?

But why the Christian Bible? Why not the Holy Quran? They have the same claim to validity. (The claim is that lots of people *think* they are true, nothing more or less.)

The fact that the majority of people in the US are Christians doesn't make the Christian Bible true - if it did, does the fact that the majority of Iraqis are Muslims make the Christian Bible untrue? Or is a Bible only 'true' where most people think it is?

I believe that the moon is made of green cheese, only the cheese is hidden behind the crust of the moon. But nobody's proven me wrong. Therefore, I must be right.

Spot the similarities between that and what the religious political extremists say? Nobody can prove them right, but they want their beliefs etched into our laws.

What if the Pastafarians were right all along?

Think it possible you may be wrong. That's all I ask.

Posted by: AngloAm | June 17, 2009 8:33 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!!!!"

Really, SavedGirl?

Prove that God exists and is not an irrational construct of a need to make sense of a frightening world. That's surely a reasonable request if God's doings are to be made the law of the land.

Citing your belief is not proof. Citing anecdotes is not proof. I can find a Hindu who firmly believes his view of the Deity. And who felt transported in prayer.

So it's reasonable to think that we deserve more, that we base our laws on something that is demonstrably not a myth or legend, don't you think?

Something isn't true for you believing it is.

I believe you're a nice person.

See?

Posted by: AngloAm | June 17, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Ed:

The Post appears to have this story wrong, and you guys keep repeating it as truth. Check your sources. Health benefits will not be included in this announcement. This announcement isn't worth spit.

Posted by: gilbert6 | June 17, 2009 8:51 AM | Report abuse

It seemed too good to be true didn't it? All the hype and hysteria when the black got makes good and makes President. I mean who would have entertained a Muslim educated guy with the name of Hussein being elected for President on Sept 12th eh?

Anyhoo, our worst fears have been realised. The US has a leader who seeks accomodation with Islam (a pseudo religious ideology that is opposed to everything Christian and Godly). Then he supports abortion. Now he is giving a stamp of approval and 'Rights' to people who practice a deviant sexual perversion, as if that entitles them to honour and cash benefits. Huh?

Well what about other sex offenders such as child molesters and rapists? I mean they also choose a sexual deviancy - shouldn't they get 'benefits' in kind? What about burglars, Peeping Toms and drug dealers? It's only a chosen lifestyle afterall.

Well in this life you reap what you sow. Be sure that the US, with so-called Gay Marriage and rights for those who indulge deviant sexual acts, will certainly reap a whirlwind.

If the sex, abortion, pornography things don't get ya, then be sure that getting into bed with Islam will finish you off.

Posted by: man2man | June 17, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse


Many companies, especially those who operate internationally, have extended benefits to "domestic partners." Since the laws in the various countries (or states) allow or deny same-sex marriage to different degrees, the company will extend these benefits to partners regardless of gender.

Since the federal government has employees in many countries and states with varying marriage laws, it makes sense to extend these benefits.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | June 17, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Most religious people think that God loves gays. Read that again: most religious people think God loves gays. I'm tired of arguments between bigots like the self-styled "SavedGirl" (not likely) and frothing-at-the-mouth atheists who conveniently assume she represents religion. Why doesn't somebody argue against her homophobia and her racism instead?

Let me give a religious perspective another try. Between saying not to eat pork or shellfish or to mix milk and meat, and saying not to wear clothes of a mixture of fabrics, the Bible says pretty clearly that men should not engage in homosexual acts. This part of the Bible is 3000 years old and was written in an ancient language. I highly doubt that people like the so-called "SavedGirl" (sic) follow all these arcane laws.

The New Testament also says slaves should serve their master, a passage that was used by morally desperate white Americans for centuries to justify black slavery in our country. And yet that very same Bible, read in a more sensible and less selective way, provided a clear message of justice and liberation that inspired the American civil rights movement. Today, an increasing number of religious people recognize our spiritual responsibiltiy to give up bigotry and support equal civil rights for gays and for everyone.

It's only dinosaurs and bigots who call themselves things like "SavedGirl" (is she really so sure?) who still think God didn't create Adam and Steve. Both science and simple common-sense observation demonstrate that, apparently, God did indeed create Adam and Steve as part of the human race. Halleluyah!

Posted by: jdsher00 | June 17, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

And now man2man comes to prove the point: people who disagree with President Obama's decision all seem to be bigots. They can't keep their other bigotries -- their racism, their my-god-is-bigger-than-your-god, their hatred of anyone different from them and their narrow little life -- separate from their homophobia.

It proves my point that homophobia comes not from the Bible, but from the bigoted mindset that is a human flaw in some of us.

Posted by: jdsher00 | June 17, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Ed, can you please talk to some gay people before you opine how they're likely to react to this odious, anachronistic, day late and a dollar behind sop? Thanks!

"...should ease some of the bad feelings..."

Er, no, actually. It won't. Grudging tokenism never does.

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

John Berry does NOT command respect in gay circles, as he has become an Uncle Tom apologist for the Administration.

And this flimsy memorandum that extends a few crumbs to same-sex partners of federal workers does NOTHING to counteract the DOJ's wholesale declaration of war on lesbian and gay equality.

Not only will Obama still face criticism, that criticism will INCREASE because of the disrespect in thinking gays and lesbians can be handed a few crumbs and told to go shut up.

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

IT'S TIME TO ORGANIZE A MASSIVE DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE MANDARIN ORIENTAL WHEN THE DNC TRIES TO PUMP MONEY OUR OF THE GAY COMMUNITY!

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

@borgrav: Under federal law, no federal worker (and no one, period) is married to his or her same sex domestic partner. That's DOMA. Your state's mileage may vary.

Posted by: arc410 | June 17, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

...B I G...Q U E S T I O N...

Does this extend to Social Security payments?

A single person, who is receiving SS payments, upon their death, can only leave a small lump sum payment to a beneficiary, but a married person can leave their spouse with monthly payments for the duration of their lives, which can equal hundreds of times more money than the single lump sum payment.

Posted by: ChipShirley | June 17, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"The president will take it from all sides on this decision," and there are more than two sides. How about some noise from single men? We are innately predilected to seek sex without marriage. Why should we be disadvantaged by our sexual orientation? Can we become "domestic partners" without finagling each others' genitalia? Society derives no actual benefit from sexual fidelity, and sexuality should not be the basis for federal benefits. "Commitment" based on sex is fleeting. I say let straight singles "commit" to domestic partner benefits. Else we are an Oppressed Class.

Posted by: Religulous | June 17, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

watsonja ... your comment "give up and go pray for yourself" is almost verbatem how satan tempted Jesus. Please be aware that satan is alive and driving this. Sexual urges are God's design for procreation. Sure there is a lot of recreaction and it certainly feels good but often the result is that someone gets pregnant. Again, by design. Homosexual passion is strictly about pleasures of the flesh and is not natural nor by design. Your argument that "it happens in the animal world" is weak because it lowers humans to the level of animals. If you want to do that, then please keep it to yourself. I don't care that you are gay but don't want it waved in front of my face nor the faces of my children.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

It's about time! This is one Gay voter who enthusiastically supported Obama who expects this, and a lot more, before I support him again. Clinton let us down terribly in the 1990's; we can't have a reprise by the Obama administration.

Posted by: acboatman | June 17, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

If same sex partners have benefits similar to married couples, then they should be taxed as married couples (including the marriage penalty) or else married couples should not have a marriage penalty tax. This tax gives married couples a requirement to pay more tax than if they were not married. The same discriminatory tax should apply to anyone who has benefits similar to those of married couples; or better yet the tax should be repealed!

Posted by: mark367b | June 17, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The gays keep crying about civil rights. This is incorrect. They have the same civil rights as everyone else does to marry anyone of the other sex, What they want to do is expand civil rights to include same sex marrage. So quit crying about not having the same rights. You do.

Posted by: rchayes | June 17, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

What other Federal benefit is there that is worth anything besides the health care benefit? Moving allowance? This is a joke...pure politics at its worst. President Obama...this is a huge disappointment.

Posted by: behemoth98 | June 17, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Does unmarried domestic partners include heterosexual couples who are simply living together?

Posted by: loved1 | June 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

@mark367b: Heterosexual married couples have the option to file separately if it would be advantageous to them. On the other hand, I have no option to file jointly with my partner, and I would have taken it gladly this year - we'd have saved $800. And that's not even counting that the government taxed his health insurance coverage since it was paid by my employer.

That's right... all of these domestic partner benefits? Get taxed. Because we're not legally related. Going on about the "marriage penalty" doesn't take into account all of the things heterosexual couples are getting that homosexual couples either can't get or can't get without getting taxed.

Posted by: arc410 | June 17, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

1. I think it is shameful how many people on this discussion board make hateful comments backed by so-called Christian values. The fundamental values behind Christianity teach respect and love for all people. The ignorance that many show towards people who are different than themselves, in this case gays and muslims, goes to show how they pervert Christian values to compensate for their own insecurities and ignorance.

2. Religion should not even be a factor in a discussion about whether or not people should receive government benefits.

Personally, I am not in favor of this new law because there is so much room for interpretation for who you can consider a "domestic partner". There will likely be many people who take advantage of the system. Furthermore, giving partial benefits (not including health benefits) is going to make both sides of the issue angry at this decision. This is the sort of issue where you cannot try to appease everyone to make it go away. Especially because it has such a huge impact on the quality of life.

Posted by: outsideobsrvr | June 17, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The federal government's arrogance is astonishing. The government is broke, running unbelievable deficits and facing declining revenues in the face of a severe recession. Common sense would say they should be cutting pay and benefit packages for their workers. To expand benefits and entitlements that we cannot afford is just stupid. But of course, they are not paying the bills, we are.

I would love to see a state secede from this disgusting mess that is our federal government.

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

Let the nonstop spending orgy continue!! Does ANYBODY in Washington have any sense? I should have known that the liberals once unleashed would be worse than the conservatives.

The American people have been abandoned by both parties. Both parties are controlled by the extreme fringes and Obama (the great changer) is even more of the same - at a time when somebody needs to stand up and say no!! HE CAN'T DO IT!! How can I stop paying taxes for this nonsense?? I am sick of it and so are most people.

Posted by: putzel | June 17, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Here is the problem.

The Bible says that the reason for the continuance of sin is because there is no fear of God within the people.

The US has only ever had one President that feared God. All the others fear the voters. That is the root cause of nations under judgement. Leaders who think God is asleep while they preside.

Of dear, not so. Try telling truth and stop trying to please sinners by condoning, applauding, venerating and rewarding sinners, especially those in blatant, shameless, lethal sin. See what happens when you do that Mr President.

Forget the lobbyists and pressure groups, they will be nowhere around when you stand at the Judgement Seat.

Posted by: man2man | June 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I wonder who is going to pay for this, it seem that Obama wants to keep giving to people that don't work in the govt or people that don't work at all. I wonder who will be paying more taxes if those making less than 250k will not have a tax increase. Obama keeps giving money without knowing where it comes from. This needs to stop now, his spending has turned into a joke. I wonder if he is trying to bankrupt this country on purpose, his is doing a good job of it. Saying I will get the money later sounds like the banks that got the bailout.

Posted by: peilr | June 17, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

without heath insurance, this is total crap. i am NOT impressed President Obama. corporate America has been offering full benefits -- including health insurance -- to same sex domestic partners since the early 1990's.

talk about pathetic.

Posted by: priusdriver | June 17, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

How dare he limit federal employees to only a single partner? It's time to stop 0bama's radical religious discrimination!

Posted by: NeverLeft | June 17, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Well guess he had to do something to payback everyone encluding Sec/State for her dropping out of election. Now all he has to do is sign another EX-order so that all the single workers can take thier girl/boy friend overseas with them. That way everyone is covered under the ""share the wealth"" idea. I say let them take thier parents with them also just like we support the mother-in-law in the WH. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It is only tax money to support them all and the WH knows how to spend it for sure on anyone that does not need it. Pretty soon the UAW will have office space in the WH (may the VEEP's)...

Posted by: STAN21 | June 17, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Of all the things that Obama could have done for gay rights, including pushing for the repeal of DoMA and ending Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, he went with the one option that requires the government to spend more money.

Is there any spending that Obama doesn't like?

Posted by: wapo9 | June 17, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

NeverLeft and Stan21: Same ol' same ol' Republican hysteria. You would do well to note that the state of Massachusetts has yet to pass a law that one can marry his dog/cat/fish/sister/daughter/refrigerator. Fear is your only motivator. How sad.

In the meantime, yeah, we are fed up with Obama ignoring a faithful consituency. His Gay supporters may want to take a look at his new website set up to communicate to these supporters: http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com/

Posted by: FactChecker1 | June 17, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Why do same sex couples get benefits when normal unmarried couples do not?

Posted by: Alangc2 | June 17, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Can you please explain the difference between "FULL health benefits" and "SOME health benefits?

Separate and unequal.

Shame, shame, shame on Obama!!!!!

Posted by: solsticebelle | June 17, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

'Why do same sex couples get benefits when normal unmarried couples do not?' Duh. When same sex couples CAN get married, then ask the question.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | June 17, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

fr SavedGirl:

>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!!!!!<

1. Mel White, a GAY activist, wrote the "adam and steve" garbage when he worked for the (thankfully) late jerry flubwell, when he thought that he was straight. He has since regretted ever writing that piece of trash.

Your rant about: "If a homosexual can be identfied, they should get spiritual help to save there soul from hell, not special rghts!!!! " is more garbage. GLBT's are NOT asking for 'special rghts (sic)", just EQUAL ones which we do NOT already have, so don't even go down that tired old road.

Furthermore, your "I HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS NEGRO PRESIDENT AND HIS ANTI CHRISTIAN AGENDA!...< trash is extremely racist. Grow UP, get help for your hatred towards everyone except those who march in your little lockstep.

Posted by: Alex511 | June 17, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

As I understand it, Obama cannot change the rules for health coverage, it is regulated so only congress can do that. I think Obama intends to bring about full equality for homosexuals (as it should be), he just has soooooo much on his plate it will remain a back burner issue until health care reform is sorted out, and the economy seems to be consistently healthy. The risk of course is that it gets put off indefinitely.

Posted by: rapchat1 | June 17, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much money Obama will save with this new entitlement.

Posted by: Peejay | June 17, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I hear we're going to save a bundle by spending 1.6 trillion dollars on the public health insurance plan.

Posted by: Peejay | June 17, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"You think a presidential order extending benefits to same-sex couples might ease the burden? You betcha."

Are you kidding me? Do you really believe the LGBT community is so stupid that this contrived "benefit" extension is going to assuage our anger? This is a crass political ploy aimed at keeping the GLBT money flowing to next week's DNC fundraiser in DC in light of the recent DOMA brief filed by DOJ, and the Administration's timid approach to gay rights. This kabuki theater will backfire as it is actually a larger insult than the damn DOJ brief!

Posted by: gilbert6 | June 17, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

FactChecker1: There are a lot of benefits to NOT being married - among other things, above about $120,000 combined taxable income, married couples still pay more tax than two singles with the same income. If failure to extend marriage to same sex couples contstitutes discrimination, then I would say that failure to extend benefits to unmarried opposite sex couples is they are available to same sex unmarried couples also would have to consitute discrimination.

That said, I have no issue with gay marriage, but the fact of the matter is that at the federal level it is not legally recognized at this point. I will be interested to see what the benefits being extended are, since, as noted above, he cannot legally extend health benefits. Not sure about legality of extending survivor benefits. Can't think of too much else that could be of real significance, except things like paying partner expenses for relocation, and other pretty minor stuff. (Disclsure: I am a retired 25-year Fed, married to a 40+ year Fed. If there are a lot of significant benefits about being married to a federal employee that I have missed out on all these years, I'm going to be really disappointed!) Hilary already extended the diplomatic passport privilege at State, which is really a benefit for the government, not the individual, designed to put the shield of diplomatic immunity over a diplomat's family to prevent the host country from jerking the US government around or blackmailing a diplomat by trumping up bogus charges against a diplomat's family.

I guess my main point is that this seems like a pretty shallow exercise designed only for PR, which is not going to get him much benefit from the gay community but will give the right wing a bunch of red meat, while at the same time raising questions of equity about the treatment of unmarried opposite sex partners. Obama can't really come out for same sex marriage at this point because of the political costs and his own stated positions, so it seems it would be better just to make some moves on getting Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, to which he is alread committed and leave the rest alone for a second term, which he may not get if he allows the right wing to heat up the culture war again.

Posted by: exgovgirl | June 17, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

FOR--FactChecker1, for information to you, I am neither a Dem or Rep. But for sure I am a TAXPAYER and any expense outside the normal regulations(laws) I am concerned about. I do not like my money being used for anyone's special fun in life, right or wrong.......

Posted by: STAN21 | June 17, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

As this will increase costs to the government, doesn't this spending bill have to originate in the House of Representatives? Giving pensions to unmarried domestic partners will cost taxpayers billions.

Why no mention of the cost to the taxpayer? Or isn't that important?

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 17, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"The president will stop short however of pledging full health insurance coverage to those partners."

Well, then that's simply NOT extending benefits, now then is it ? Stopping short of giving the most important benefit reduces the action to a gesture tantamount to "I have friends who are gay!"

Posted by: Telin | June 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

@savedgirl...
Really? You're still using the word Negro and someone is suppose to listen to anything you have to say

Posted by: crazyeagle | June 17, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Obama:

Where's the beef?

Posted by: trambusto | June 17, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Health benefits for federal employees and their partners is a good thing. Health benefits ought to be extended to all citizens of the U.S.A.

This new federal health benefit is a necessary step towards comprehensive health care reform.

I am not an employee of the federal government; however, years ago I was on military active duty. I cannot imagine receiving medical care for myself, and excluding my spouse/children. Such is the plight of some federal employees. This new regulation fixes that blatant omission.

Posted by: rmorris391 | June 17, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

from savedgirl "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!!!!!"

And who will save us from such uncritical and racist thinking as yours, saved girl? If anyone needs spiritual help, it has to be you.

Posted by: beargulch | June 17, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

@exgovgirl
I hear what you are saying..however opposite sex couples CHOOSE not to marry. They can legally do so if they so desire. Same sex couples do not have the option. The choice to or not to marry is determined for them.

Posted by: crazyeagle | June 17, 2009 1:14 PM | 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 6:58 AM

-------------------------------------------

SavedGirl - you're a fake christian. enjoy your time on earth because after that you're gonna burn in hell.

Posted by: htruman | June 17, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Is this accurate reporting?????"

Nope it wasn't. But who will ever know, since the post just 'updates' 1984-ish, its coverage so it's right and therefore has always been right.

Posted by: AngloAm | June 17, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

As this will increase costs to the government, doesn't this spending bill have to originate in the House of Representatives? Giving pensions to unmarried domestic partners will cost taxpayers billions.

Why no mention of the cost to the taxpayer? Or isn't that important?

Posted by: Cornell1984 |

-------------------------------------------

The gay population is the most affluent minority after Jews in the US. As it sits they pay a hell of a lot more taxes into the pot than the fake christians who line these boards with their cries of tax travesties.

Message to fake christians, quit mooching off the blue states' federal tax dollars to fund your pork projects. You don't pay a disproportionate percentage of the tax dollars you flaming hypocrites. All you do is sit around and whine while mooching off the more progressive and productive east/west coasts and upper great lake states. That's why we laugh at your arguments for tax relief.

Posted by: htruman | June 17, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the DNC have completely abandoned gay Americans, and somehow this tiny, insignificant gesture is supposed to win us back?

They are perfectly capable of repealing DADT and DOMA, and enacting a federal ENDA. If they fail to accomplish this by 2010, they won't have earned our votes. And I for one will be voting for a moderate Republican--since their stance on gay rights won't be any different than the current one we see from the President and Congress.

Posted by: 700milesituation | June 17, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

separate, but not even equal

obama is scum

Posted by: newagent99 | June 17, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

This is insulting to the LGBT community that helped get him elected. First DADT, a lack of action on DOMA, and now just a memo, not an Executive Order but a memo saying that same-sex and domestic partners get PARTIAL benefits. Mr. President, how dare you insult us. I say scrap the damn memo and until you can give us FULL EQUAL RIGHTS I'd rather stay with what little I have.

Posted by: beltwayrob | June 17, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the DNC have completely abandoned gay Americans, and somehow this tiny, insignificant gesture is supposed to win us back?

They are perfectly capable of repealing DADT and DOMA, and enacting a federal ENDA. If they fail to accomplish this by 2010, they won't have earned our votes. And I for one will be voting for a moderate Republican--since their stance on gay rights won't be any different than the current one we see from the President and Congress.

Posted by: 700milesituation | June 17, 2009 1:33 PM

------------------------------------------

Fair enough. But I guess the larger question is, is there even any such thing as a moderate republican, outside of New England that is?

Posted by: htruman | June 17, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed in the Obama Administration.

As a gay Federal employee who, along with my husband, has relocated many times over the last 20 plus years for my career, I have got to say this Executive Order isn't worth a bucket of spit. The bottom line is that married Feds get substantial benefits that we don't get - only because they are recognized as married. They get relocation benefits, housing benefits, health care benefits, retirement benefits, annuity benfits, leave benefits and so much more that my husband and I don't get -all because the government recognizes the piece of paper that says they are married and doesn't recognize the one that says I am married. Same piece of paper, same State Marriage License. It's time to do the right thing and be fair to all Feds.

Enough of this BS already. It's time for the President to be brave and live up to his ideals. It's not about special rights or benefits - it's about EQUAL rights and benefits.

Posted by: mdnc | June 17, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

King Obama can wave his magic scepter and cut the EO, but who is going to appropriate the money? Just because I object to where the spending goes, doesn't relieve me of my tax liability.

Once again, King Obama sez, "See people, it takes no talent to spend your money. You can all eat Waygu beef!"

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 17, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This is a joke. The Administration is hoping to get gratitude without actually offering anything substantive. I'm actually more upset than if they'd offered nothing at all; they've actually made it now easier for Congress to oppose extension of health benefits and nondiscrimination laws to sexual orientation. First, opponents can point to this worthless Executive Order instead of actually doing anything, and second, the Order strongly suggests the Administration doesn't really care so why should Members risk doing anything either.

Posted by: behemoth98 | June 17, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

SavedGirl, do not worry about the attackers. I disagree with you on using race but agree with your theory that the current president is more afraid of angering voters than angering God. I thought he was strong but he is proving that he is a very weak man. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. There is no higher moral authority than the Bible. Sure it was written thousands of years ago but can anyone provide a greater authority? Mankind has been trying to discredit it since it was written but cannot. It still stands as THE authority of the world. The infant constitution of the USA is no match for these words, no matter how good it sounds or how good it makes you feel.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

SavedGirl, visiting us from her 15th century American Taliban compound in Utah, opined:

"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!!!!!"

According to the Bronze Age artifact you base your life around, "God" created Adam, Eve, Steve, you and I. And "he" apparently created us each a little differently, or have you not noticed this yet? Try to get over that and learn to live with your fellow human beings, as JESUS CHRIST spent the whole darned New Testament trying to get through your thick skull.

If you cannot do this, then please go back to Afghanistan where your fellow fundamentalists try to run everyone else's lives and beat them with sticks if they fall out of line. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey johnmoran1 and savedgirl, if you really believe that the bible is the ultimate moral authority, then why aren't you pushing for a theocracy in the United States? If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, then that's really what you're arguing for.

Of course there's a perfect example of a theocracy right now- look at Iran. Fun times, huh?!

Posted by: novatom1 | June 17, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

AngloAm:

"If the laws of the civil State are to be modeled on those of the Bible, when will we rewrite child protective laws to include the ability to beat children for disrespect?"

You're sugar coating this, you realize. If we are to style our laws around the Bronze Age religious artifact you mention, to make us more like the fundamentalist Islamic countries as our evangelicals crave so badly, where Sharia Law reigns supreme, then children are to be STONED TO DEATH BY THEIR OWN PARENTS (along with the rest of the town) when they are stubborn or lazy.

It is right there in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, precisely in the same ancient section of the Old Testament where our religious nutcakes get the basis for their anti-gay discrimination. I encourage everyone here to remind themselves of the primitive state in which the hearts and minds of our deranged pseudo-christian conservatives are stuck:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=9%3B

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

johnmoran1 boldly states:

"The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. There is no higher moral authority than the Bible. Sure it was written thousands of years ago but can anyone provide a greater authority? Mankind has been trying to discredit it since it was written but cannot. It still stands as THE authority of the world."

People haven't been *trying* to discredit it for centuries, they've been clearly and directly succeeding. It is YOU who have failed to be intellectually honest. Or do you believe that a divinely-inspired writing would command parents to deliver their misbehaving children to the town square for STONING TO DEATH? Read the scripture from your Book of Hate and ANSWER MY QUESTION. You people always dodge these sorts of uncomfortable points.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

QUESTION: Is God a deranged and violent child abuser, or is the Old Testament a discredited archeological artifact written by severely flawed control freak HUMAN BEINGS?

You simply CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot claim its supremacy over our modern laws, but pick and choose which parts you think should be followed and which not.

I have nearly infinite faith that you will not address my question. You people are quite reliable that way.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

B202 and others, I will not get into a verbal with you. Do I punish my children when they are out of line? Yes - that is my job as a parent.

It is easy for you to take the Biblical passages out of context. That is what the scholars have been trying to do for thousands of years without success. The Bible also has examples of what happens when homosexuality is condoned. Read for yourself. The Bible stands strong, just as it always has. I don't need to defend it.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

johnmoran1 - I really don't think it would take much for you to explain the extraordinary "context" in which commanding a people to drag their misbehaving kids to the town square for stoning to death is a reasonable thing for a divine being to do. Could you share it with me? After all, aren't you asked to help "share the good word?" with infidels like me?

I promise to check back in here periodically today. This should be enlightening for one of us, I would think. Which one of us will it be?

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"It is easy for you to take the Biblical passages out of context."

Nice dodge. So, what exactly _is_ the proper context for Bible verses instructing parents to have their stubborn children stoned?

Waiting.

Posted by: hitpoints | June 17, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

B202, like I said, I will not get into a war of words. If you choose to take the Bible and attempt to discredit it, good luck. You will not succeed.

I am not powerful enough on my own to battle satan and this evil on my own. I'll just defer to God. Again, good luck.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

And I mean to add a more direct response to your post:

"Do I punish my children when they are out of line? Yes - that is my job as a parent."

But do you take them into town for a public stoning? THAT is the question. If you do not, then you are violating/ignoring one of "God's" clear commandments in the very same section of the Bible where "He" gets obsessed with men laying with other men (along with pig skins and women's menstrual fluids and all of His other bizarre OCD-related thoughts).

In other words, in laxing up with your kids, and not killing them at the first sign of uppitiness, you are doing like men who have sex with other men: YOU ARE DISOBEYING GOD'S DICTATES.

Why do you get off the hook for going soft on childhood execution, but gays do not get a similar entitlement? Assuming your book should be the basis of our Sharia Law, that is.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Happy Wednesday indeed!! Obama just lost 20% of the gay vote, 7% of the Catholic vote, and 5% of the Black vote. Haha! Keep it coming!

Posted by: forgetthis | June 17, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

It is typical of the non believers to take something like that passage and try to capitalize. That would be similar to me saying that male homosexuality is all about anal sex. I'm sure you will say it is all about the loving relationship, etc. etc.

My effort here is to lead those on the fence to consider the right path and not follow the path of least resistance - which would be the popular movement of the moment - gay rights. Those of you who are already gay or pro gay, I can only hope you come to your senses before it is too late.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"B202, like I said, I will not get into a war of words. If you choose to take the Bible and attempt to discredit it, good luck. You will not succeed."

Oh but I have. You are just trying to walk away from the evidence. Good luck with that.

"I am not powerful enough on my own to battle satan and this evil on my own. I'll just defer to God."

You haven't "deferred" to "God". You have clearly and arrogantly decided to hide from "His" commandment to slaughter your misbehaving kids (I'm assuming here that like all kids they have been stubborn/whiny/disobedient at times).

[I'm also assuming - I dearly hope correctly - that you are not one of the more extreme religious types in this country and will not go and do something awful to your kids now.]

You are dodging his Word. Unless, of course, the Bible was actually written by *human beings* who were indulging their own weak and despotic need to control the other human beings around them (like women - but that would be a huge side discussion).

Just something for you to think about while you're oppressing your fellow Americans.

If you're an honest man.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

B202, sorry to anger you but again you are off the mark. In order for me to get "off the hook", I would have to be "on the hook" to begin with. Not the case here. I don't claim to be a Biblical scholor. Simply a believer who sees a problem brewing.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

About time we joined the 21st Century.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 17, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Actually B202, the "commandment" is "Thou shalt not kill", etc. I'm done here and again, sorry to have angered you so deeply.

My drunken nephew says that "sure gay people can get married - they deserve to be miserable just like any other married person."

Reminds me of my first marriage.

Good luck but I won't be on your side.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

So, johnmoran, if as you say, the Bible is THE moral authority of the world, how are we to determine which parts are morals and laws we should have, and which we shouldn't?

You choose to say we should consider homosexuality immoral because Biblical Authority says it is, yet you are silent about why we don't (or whether we should) have morals that dictate that disobedient children are stoned to death. But that edict comes from the same supposed God-given moral authority of the Bible!

I'll agree it's rather pointless to attempt to discredit the Bible - its followers can't even credit it. Logic and reason have no place in discussions involving irrational beliefs. It's like trying to convince Linus the Great Pumpkin doesn't exist.

Posted by: hitpoints | June 17, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"It is typical of the non believers to take something like that passage and try to capitalize."

But what am I capitalizing on then?

A mistranslation perhaps? Did some medieval scholar at some point mistake the Hebrew phrase for "sternly lecture" for the one for "stone him with stones, that he die"?

Or am I just capitalizing on the transcript of a Really Bad Day "God" was having when he dictated that. Maybe he was just venting because some God from a rival Universe was teasing him about what slow learners the subjects on his Earth seemed to be, and he went a little over the top in trying to get our kids in line. What other parts of the Bible did he say things he didn't mean in then?

This is your chance to teach a wayward infidel. I'll wait.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm still holding out some hope for the Obama Administration, but as a member of the LGBT community, my faith in this administration is on a decidedly downward trajectory. I did not expect a tremendous amount of equal rights legislation to be passed in the first year. What troubles me is the response (silence) from the administration to various issues since coming to office. Rather than having elected a 'fierce supporter' of equality, it seems we have a 'tepid supporter'. This latest piece of legislation is a great example. Instead of offering full benefits, as every major corporation in the U.S. now does, this legislation offers only 'some' of the benefits available to hetero married couples. And... while important, equal benefits for federal workers applies to only a small segment of the LGBT community. We'll see how things play out over the next few years, but at present, It's been a pretty poor showing from the Obama administration.

Posted by: daharvill | June 17, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"Actually B202, the "commandment" is "Thou shalt not kill", etc. I'm done here and again, sorry to have angered you so deeply."

So the rest of the Bible (outside of Moses' tablets) are just, what, suggestions? Small talk from the Big One?

Then the ban on homosexuality, in those same dark recesses of Deuteronomy/Leviticus/etc. where the child stoning dictate (and other obvious nonsense) comes, IS JUST A SUGGESTION TOO. But one that you have earlier stated here that people need to follow or they'll answer to God.

You are one very confusing "religious adherant", if I may be blunt.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

johnmoran1, we are all animals, and we are all God's creation. Comparing humans to animals doesn't "lower" them; most animals know how to take better care of this planet than humans seem to.

Homosexuality extends across all species of animals. I know you have made the assumption that your sexual behavior, because it has the possibility to create children, is somehow inherently more valuable and less selfish than gay sex, but that's only because you choose to ignore the other many gifts of sex: intimacy and bonding being two of the most important.

Lots of stuff is going to be "waived in front of your children," get used to it. It might be helpful when one or more of your children is trying to explain to you that he or she is only attracted to their own gender.

Gay people have a place in this world, and if you believe that God created everything, you have to admit he created us as well. If you would stop trying to socially engineer the world at the expense of some people's humanity, you might find that there is a greater joy in trying to understand gay people than marginalizing us.

Posted by: beargulch | June 17, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The costs for engaging in alternative sexualities are high for the participants but also high for the society, so high that they threaten our freedoms of speech, religion and even our democracy. In the hope of finding their elusive peace of conscience, they hope to stifle any voice to the contrary, thinking that they will gain self-acceptance this way.

Choice places privileges above responsibilities. Choice elevates sex and desire above truth, values and commitments.

This is a canadian survey -- magnify these numbers in the USA.

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 3:46 PM | Report abuse

this is all immorale, equating benefits and rights to sexual orientation as done to race or religion. America is quickly disintegrating.

Posted by: jim000122 | June 17, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I am a little confused here. If a federal worker has a partner and they are not married they will have health coverage for their partner. Ok, I have two daughters that will be turning 22 soon and they will be cut off from my health benefits. TELL ME WHY. Why should partners or whatever, can get health coverage and my daughters/true family CAN"T!

Posted by: DIMMY | June 17, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Muslim parents teach their children to respect their teachers. From a very young age, we are taught that Islam teaches us that after our parents, our teachers are most deserving of respect.
It must be an extremely confusing time for the Muslim parent in Leytonstone, London. For up to 30 parents may face prosecution for withdrawing their children from school, disobeying the teachers in the school, simply to secure a decent moral upbringing for their children. The school had decided to have a week of lessons about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history. Part of this was a special adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet retitled Romeo and Julian as well as fairytales and stories changed to show men falling in love with men. Rather than filling the heads of impressionable boys and girls with fatuous drivel about gay penguins, schools should be ashamed of the fact that they are sending children out into the world barely able to read, write and add up properly. Muslim children are leaving schools without learning their cultural roots and linguistic skills.

The action was being taken against the parents as part of a policy of ' promoting tolerance'. So why not tolerate parents, who, for sincerely-held reasons, consider their children too young to be taught about gay relationships? This isn't education, its cultural fascism. A record numbers of pupils persistently played truant in 2006-07, with around 272,950 pupils persistently absent in 2007, missing more than 20% of school. We rarely see councils prosecute the parents of these persistent truants. Yet, the parents who removed their children as a one-off to protect their morality may be prosecuted!

If the local council does decide to go through with a prosecution, it would be in line with the government's approach to the Muslim community. Muslims who believe homosexuality is a sin would be labelled as extremists. Liberal totalitarianism is a growing phenomenon in Britain and the west in general but many people will be shocked that the school can override a parent's view of what's appropriate or inappropriate to teach their children.

This latest episode should be a wakeup call for Muslim parents. Muslim parents MUST explain our moral standards to schools and be prepared to take steps to protect our children’s morals and values from a growing agenda to impose liberal values upon them. This is an eye opening for those Muslim parents who keep on sending their children to state schools to be mis-educated and de-educated by non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

The solution of all the problems facing Muslim children is state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. Those state schools where Muslim children are in majority may be designated as Muslim community schools. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk


Posted by: info20 | June 17, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

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 --

A sign of IMMATURITY is using your bodies in unnatural ways to PLAY sex. TAKE THE HIGHER ROAD -- have real sex the NATURAL way -- make beautiful babies in the confines of a loving relationship with the opposite sex.

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

If anyone wants a chuckle, here is a great illustrated Bible (using lego people and blocks to deliver God's Word):

http://thebricktestament.com

I got a little hung up with johnmoran1 on the commandment to stone your kids to death, but "God" has lots of other important dictates in that same section of the Bible that is obsessed with gay sex. Like...

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

TO ADMIT YOU ARE HOMOSEXUAL IS TO SAY YOU ARE SEXUALLY AND EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE -- not ready or willing to carry off a real relationship with the opposite sex -- but wanting to PLAY sordid sex instead

Posted by: carrisima | June 17, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Yes B202, you certainly took it to heart to attack me when all I was doing was stating the truth as indicated by God's word. The fact that you will continue to attempt to discredit the Bible through whatever means does nothing but feed your own agenda. Satan himself did the same thing. As I have stated previously, this world is owned and operated by satan. Simply read through some of these posts for evidence of this.

Some of the other posts are interesting as is your obsession with stoning children. I'm particularly surprised by the statistics carrissma provided. I had no idea that the sickness was that deep.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 17, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

No health insurance? That has always been the crux of the matter. Money. So Lance can put his boyfriend on his medical for $30K of HIV drugs each year (or is it a month?) to live another 20 infectious years.

The medical is the mother lode, and nowhere to be found in this executive action.

Posted by: oracle2world | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Yes B202, you certainly took it to heart to attack me when all I was doing was stating the truth as indicated by God's word."

Hmm. I guess I "took it to heart" by quoting you a section of the Old Testament and asking you what on Earth a decent "God" could mean by it. You have bobbed, weaved, dodged and just plugged your ears, but you still haven't faced it. Some vague handwaving about Satan isn't really a response. Is it? Any reasonable person watching (and several apparently have) would conclude that you have no way of reconciling this obvious problem with the Bible. There are many others like this.

I actually feel for you, because you obviously have been subjected to some pretty heavy brainwashing, probably from an early age. You are likely here arguing with me - in your own understated and standing-back way - because deep down you know there has been some severe mental abuse thrown on you. You would probably like to get beyond it. I do sincerely wish you luck, assuming that is true.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Some of these comments are truly bizarre. I am so glad I don't practice a religion. If I did I would be humiliated by the level of discourse offered here by the "religous community." Let me offer some Biblical advice to my firends, turn the other cheek. Don't engage these folks. You will never change their minds.

Posted by: gilbert6 | June 17, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that apparently only one comment preceding mine has asked the cogent question: isn't this just an opening of certain benefits to COUPLES, regardless of sex?

What is a "partner," anyway? Is a shack up a "partner?" In order to receive the benefits, do couples need to attest to their "partnership" somehow?

What is the cost of extending benefits to all the girlfriends and boyfriends of federal male and female workers (Gays, DO NOT get your pantyhose all in a knot --- I am addressing this question in reference to heteresexual couples only)?

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | June 17, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

fr johnmoran1:

>...SavedGirl, do not worry about the attackers. I disagree with you on using race but agree with your theory that the current president is more afraid of angering voters than angering God. I thought he was strong but he is proving that he is a very weak man. ......My effort here is to lead those on the fence to consider the right path and not follow the path of least resistance - which would be the popular movement of the moment - gay rights. Those of you who are already gay or pro gay, I can only hope you come to your senses before it is too late....<

Look, buster, I AM a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year. In two weeks we will celebrate our first wedding anniversary (on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, no less!). We firmly believe that God made us this way and He led us together. We HAVE "come to our senses". Why don't YOU???

Posted by: Alex511 | June 17, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This is just an end-run around the issue of gay/lesbian marriage. The problem, what if a "partner" falls out of favor with the employee? Can the "partner" then immediately be dropped from the benefit roles and a different one quickly added? And, how much will this cost? Gay/lesbians would be better off with legalization of gay/lesbian marriage. Because, in reality, this will still be a second class status for them, no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | June 17, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Great news. If the homosexual community really wants to come out on top with this, they had better stop demanding marriage when this all goes through. Show all the anti-Gay lunatics that this isn't about their loose idea of marriage but an issue of equality for all.

Posted by: MisterJ8 | June 17, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Spidermean is either banished from Mom's basement today and therefore off the computer or he's in a blind drunk stupor.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | June 17, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the religious men posting here actually found evidence for their wife's virginity on their wedding night. If not, "God" commands them to have the wife STONED TO DEATH.

'But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.'

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_20.html

But watch out, men. If you are just the suspicious sort and you got it wrong - if her parents came come up with a bloody sheet - you owe her parents big time and will also have YOUR SKIN FLAYED FROM YOU.

Deuteronomy 22:18-19
'The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl's father.'

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_18-19.html

All part of the "Law of God" that our friendly local Taliban folks base their obsession with gays upon.

Happy stoning folks!

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

SavrdGirl, besides being a bigot, you clearly have no grasp of the simple foundational tenet that this country was founded on separation OF church and state. I'll take a pass on living under the religious regime that you would love to impose on all of us.

Posted by: jpandchris | June 17, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The gay community has never looked at the bigger picture...they only look at the picture as it affects them...and not collectively but individually. I'm surprised the media hasn't opened up the archives to the pre-inauguration debacle that was caused by the gay community demanding President-elect Clinton change the policy regarding gays in the military. Before the man even took the oath of office his administration was in shambles b/c he was at odds with a leading democrat, head of the armed services committee....Sam Nunn...over this issue. It caused Clinton midyear to lose the House and later the Senate which thereby caused his administration to seek more compromise with issues near and dear to the core of his campaign. The Whitewater probe cost taxpayers 10s of millions b/c republicans needed to defame or politically assassinate him b/c they had the power to do so....the national medical coverage failed miserably b/c of the lack of enough bipartisan support. The list is endless and all b/c the gay community resorted to the Biblical stories depicting gays as being demanding without compromise or respect. They pushed and pushed until he submitted the proposal and it fell flat and the best that could be done was 'don't ask, don't tell.' And the gay community was still pissed....go figure!

There are mixed feelings b/c of the lack of health insurance provided. Well the percentage of heterosexuals who stay married for more than 5 years has been dropping considerably...whereas most same-sex partners don't stay together 1/2 that time. It's the burden of costs to the insurance company to add, subtract the partner...making certain once deleted, no more claims get processed. It's paper costly and time consuming. So as a result, yes I do support gay marriage...perhaps when the greater of the responsibility hits them square in the pocket they'll be a little more reserve about the things they say and do, realizing there are consequences they have to deal with directly instead of passing the buck...or being so tephlon about them. Common sense should tell one with each new venture there are foreseable responsibilities as well as the unforseen. If one can assume the foreseable ones the unforseen are easy to hurdle...and they haven't acquired that understanding and put it worthwhile use collectively....

Posted by: ewjazzed | June 17, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Sister Berry...

It's NOT enough. It doesn't go far enough. It's not EQUAL rights.

Don't you get it? We aren't stopping until we have EQUAL rights, EVERYTHING, period!

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

Great! But why should only partners with whom one has a genital relationship qualify as "partners"? Why can't we single celibates claim our un-benefited elderly relatives, adult or disabled children, best friend from college --- why should a plausibly sexual/genital bond define "partnership"?

As a single person, I am then unable to access benefits that sexually partnered gays and straights have to share around - unfair.

Posted by: practica1 | June 17, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

There is only one thing in the world that makes gay "wrong." It is religion. People get their religion (and their belief that gay is wrong) before they can even think, typically 4-5 years old. The truth is religion is a "story." It isn't true or real.

In the last few decades young people have realized this and they have rejected the idea of religion-as-truth. In fact, as the human race progresses and gains more knowledge, religion is shrinking. But, the damage has been done to the gay community. People need to be awakened to the truth and the whole idea that gay is wrong needs to be erased.

That's what The Faith Project is preparing to do. Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year with lobbying, marching and playing politics. This effort misses the point - religion is the enemy.

Posted by: Religion_Hurts | June 17, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is certainly a big step for gay rights. I can't see many private companies extending health insurance for gay partners though.

Posted by: davidwayneosedach | June 17, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

While I have friends that are gay - I am getting very tired of their demands...Hell get in line like everyone else...

All this blackmail about Obama better be careful is sickening too me!

I am going to treat you just the way you wanted to be treated - equally!

Enough of your whinning!

Posted by: danders5000 | June 17, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

practial1 and DIMMY, agree with what you both wrote up. Some what of what I did earlier in the day. Some how the big ""O""
just don't get it or ""SCAR's/Writers"" don't or do not care cause it is not their
money....

Posted by: STAN21 | June 17, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Was the president not aware of his own justice department ruling, he is the President of the United States and agreed to protect the Constitution of the United States. What is the purpose of awarding a choice group some benefits when they do not legally qualify for others? Being a hate monger trying to force deviancy whether it is pedophilia or homosexuality because you are president or any other elected official is plain out hate.

Posted by: phjesuswarrior7 | June 17, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Why no health insurance or retirement benefits?? Seems like just a token offering to me.

Posted by: wwdmvician | June 17, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

if marriage as of today is legally between a man and woman .........then how can obama be giving same sex partners benefits ? this is one more thing all taxpayers must support ! he is just throwing them crumbs to get more votes for
2012!!!!

Posted by: cmt138 | June 17, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Best solution is to end all benefits for anyone other than the actual wage earner. Take charge of your own finances and save your money instead of spending it on plasma TVs, new cars, mega-homes.

Posted by: VVVV1 | June 17, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Some trailer trash wrote: "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 6:58 AM"
-----------------------
Who gave a library card to this woman!

Posted by: johng1 | June 17, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Those who feel Obama hasn't gone far enough here need to consider what Bush did and McCain would have done, what Romney or Palin or Huckabee would do.

Our system of government is designed to slow radical populist change (see, US Senate) and to promote incremental change, and that's not an altogether bad thing.

Obama doesn't have the legal capability to do everything that gay activists would like, with the stroke of a pen. Even if he did, the results would include vicious resentment of gays from people who might have adapted to incremental change, but found a sudden "command from on high" impossible to digest.

I can't say it often enough, Obama is nobody's fool. And I might add, he is the most progressive Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

If change is what you want, please get on board. It's coming.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Well said douglaslbarber!

Posted by: johng1 | June 17, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

All hail the Liberal Culture of Death!

Why should I embrace a lifestyle that, on average, takes 20 years off of a fellow human being's life?

Before the Militants forced emptyheads to become PC, it was called G.R.I.D.S.

It's a gay disease...period!

Posted by: ANTILIB | June 17, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Are people born gay or do they choose gay? I believe the answer may be both. I know several women that couldn’t get along with men so they chose women. If a person can go to prison and get ‘turned out’, where is the civil rights issue? If a child’s sexual identity can be corrupted by abuse or misinformation, where is the civil rights issue? These are criminal and social issues, not civil rights issues. If you can choose who you sleep with, or who you don’t sleep with, where is the civil rights issue?

Benefits? I would like to take care of my Mother by putting her on my insurance, but I can’t she is only my Mother. Where is the civil rights issue for a widow? I would like to take care of other members of my family, my blood, but the law doesn’t allow for that either.

If you are gay that is your business, why are you making it mine?

Posted by: DrivingWithSkill | June 17, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR GAY PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND that their issues are second term issues? Bringing up gay issues, in a major way, during Obama's first term is a will only ensure that there will not be a SECOND OBAMA TERM. Its not about values. Gay people deserve all types of equality. Rather, the gay people's leaders and/or political advisors have demonstrated poor strategy. The best time to make a push for their very contentious issues is immediately after Obama wins a second term. If gay people make major efforts to have their issues addressed during the first term, they will only loose ground when Obama is voted out of office.

Posted by: dbruce1973 | June 17, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

ANTILIB stridently wrote, "Why should I embrace a lifestyle that, on average, takes 20 years off of a fellow human being's life?"

Did you roll dice to come up with that statistic? If not, perhaps you could post your source (Glen Beck?) here.

By the way, allowing your neighbor the legal right to the same benefits you enjoy is not the same thing as "embracing a lifestyle". I think it's called "being a good neighbor" (knowing that all neighbors are different) and "toleration of differences" or if you prefer "tolerance". I'd guess it's a virtue that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams agreed upon in contrast to the intolerance manifested in the wars of religion which had plagued Europe for two centuries before 1776.

Perhaps once you realize (if you ever do) that the US Constitution is a reaction against the intolerance of wars of religion, combined with a reaction against the too-weak national government established by the Articles of Confederation, you will come around to some more reasonable point of view.

Perhaps not.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

If
"He also reiterated his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act: "It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it," he said."
and if
"Obama Has Faced Criticism From Gay Rights Groups. Criticism centers around the administration's decision to file a legal brief that supports the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act."

Then I'm really confused. Which is it? Do you or don't you think DOMA is constitutional and just or unconstitutional and unjust?

Posted by: trambusto | June 17, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

DrivingWithSkill would like us to compare apples and lobsters, rather than apples and apples:

"I would like to take care of my Mother by putting her on my insurance, but I can’t she is only my Mother. Where is the civil rights issue for a widow? I would like to take care of other members of my family, my blood, but the law doesn’t allow for that either.

"If you are gay that is your business, why are you making it mine?"

----------------

The issue for long-term gay couples is, for instance, that the equivalent of a spouse may be turned away from making funeral arrangements for their partner because they are not legally married.

Similarly, they may be denied access to their partner in a hospital's intensive care unit if only spouses, parents and children are permitted.

No one is trying to make their sexuality your business. They're simply asking that long-term partners not face hurdles at the crucial junctures of life which, to tell the truth, I find incredibly mean-spirited and offensive and wrong.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

In reality this is such a minor benefit, it won't make any difference. Gay and lesbian people pay taxes and there is no discount for being gay or lesbian, so the benefits from the government should be the same. I am torn between thinking that Obama really does want to end the inequality for gay and lesbian people, to him just not wanting to not upset the fundraising machine his people put in place with the gay and lesbian community. Let's not forget that David Geffen was one of his initial and most generous supporters for his campaign to become President. And executive order can end the prosecution of gay and lesbian military members, this Obama can do. So, it is up to Obama. He can follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman, or he can smokescreen his way through socially progressive issues and do nothing.

Posted by: paris1969 | June 17, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

This President has no shame. By the way, how many billions is this going to add to Obama's already out of control deficit?

Posted by: rwikert | June 17, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

So Obama wants healthcare for all, but the benefits do not include healthcare. Anyone else find that a little ironic?

Posted by: lashadow | June 17, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Somebody sane PLEASE explain to me how a SEXUAL LIFESTYLE and/or Preference should be covered by civil-rights! I guess that means that pedophiles can qualify too? How about rubber freaks or toe/foot fetishists? Sexual orientation should not be a civil rights issue! It is just bizare how all of these politicians have been railroaded by the special interest lobby to cowtow to the social deviates! Oh, and when all of you people who think that God is just not politically correct enough, make sure you say hi to Him before you are shown how real He is. Live your lives enjoying every pleasure of the flesh but don't complain when you don't make the cut and find that you should have been worried about your obedience to your maker. You were born to worship him, not things of this world. It is not too late yet but time IS running out. If you think it is a fairy tale then don't let me waste anymore of your precious time. Enjoy the very limited time you have left.

Posted by: killsing@yahoo.com | June 17, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

dbruce1973 wrote, "WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR GAY PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND that their issues are second term issues?"

I'm reminded that JFK was not at all pleased to have to address civil rights issues during his first term.

He had positioned himself on the right of the Democratic party in 1960 (hard as that may be for folks to believe today).

Part of the reason I remember John F. Kennedy so fondly is that when push came to shove and stayed there, he showed that he had a good political conscience.

He sent federal marshals to integrate the University of Alabama and the University of Mississippi against southern intransigence.

During his first term.

When you're president, you don't have the privilege of asking the world, "only bring me your issues at my political convenience."

You ran for the right to sit at the big desk where the buck stops, and there you sit, having won.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

paris1969 wrote, "In reality this is such a minor benefit, it won't make any difference. Gay and lesbian people pay taxes and there is no discount for being gay or lesbian, so the benefits from the government should be the same."

That argument is so weak it hardly bears refuting, but you asked for it, so here it comes. Child molesters pay taxes too.

Think a little harder before you post next time, especially if your ambition is to diss Obama.

You'll get Palin soon enough, if you keep it up.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Our president is trying to give rights to ALL Americans, not just crazy freaks, pretending to be Christians and waving guns at anyone who disagrees with them. America is NOT a Christian nation, it is a nation that welcomes peoples from all over the world, all cultures, all walks of life, not just evangelical Christians! Our "melting pot" is what makes this country to great. Gawd, I am sick of their Bible rantings!

Posted by: GenuineRisk | June 17, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

@savedgirl...
Really? You're still using the word Negro and someone is suppose to listen to anything you have to say

Posted by: crazyeagle | June 17, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

======================================
The comment above really intrigued me. Is negro now considered an epithet? Negro is a perfectly good word in the dictionary that identifies a person of the negroid race of people. Jesus , are you politically correct idiots now going to start changing the dictionary?
Is caucasion a racial epithet? The two word are interchangable as far as the appropriate use of a word. the only difference in their definition is the race to which they apply!
I am sick of this political correct Bull Sh!t! A negro is a member of a race of people and saying that a person is sick of that negro is no different than saying that a person is sick of a caucasion person! Face it idiots there is more than one race of people on the planet!!!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Homosexual behavior is deviant and destructive. Even animals in the wild don't do what homosexuals do to themselves and each other. Gays need compassion and understanding, not enabling. It helps neither them nor society, to approve of their perverted lifestyle. We should dispense with politically correct foolishness, and do the right thing by everyone.

Posted by: jans1 | June 17, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I once again feel buggered by a Politican. Obama is throwing a small bone to members of the GLBT Community in hopes that this small bone will shut us up from demanding our Rights as Americans.

Well Mr. President, it won't shut us up and we will continue to demand that you honor your Promises during your Campaign, and until you do, I hope every Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered person stop giving you, you Party a dime in contributions. This Memo you signed is only good as long as you remain in office it does not have the weight as an Executive Order. I'm angry and tired of being treated as a second class person in my own Country. And Shame on Barney Frank to be even seen in the presence of the President throwing us this "gift". Shame on you President Obama!!

Posted by: Tommytoons | June 17, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama can do what he want. He won't change the bigoted, hateful, uneducated, backward-thinking US populace. The majority of people in this country don't have sufficient education to take part in a critically developed debate on gay rights. (I work in education; I see what low standards the US has for its high school students, especially compared to other countries. Bye bye America.)

Since I can't leave this country yet, can I ask those heterosexuals going through divorce to PLEASE KEEP IT TOO YOURSELVES? Your friends, family, and coworkers are sick of listening to you boo-hoo over the failed relationship. Face it: with a 50% success rate you might as well toss a coin as to say you are going to be in a marriage. We don't want to hear about the households you developed and now have to break up, the children you've been raising and how they are "being difficult because of the divorce", nor do we want to hear about the long, drawn-out divorce proceedings, the judge for which is often being paid through our tax dollars. Your marriage is nothing more than a contract between a person with a penis and one with a vagina.

This country is so rotted when it comes to its thinking abilities, its humanity and its humility that its only path is to failure. Watch out US: the other countries are surpassing you in all of these areas.

Posted by: peteyathome | June 17, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

What's really going to be neat is having federal (and private) benefits extend to any two friends who live together. After all, it's not like these domestic partner regulations require anyone to have sex in front of a magistrate or bureaucrat. Any two people will qualify so long as they can jump through the hoops.

Posted by: fabio9000d | June 17, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber wrote:

"By the way, allowing your neighbor the legal right to the same benefits you enjoy is not the same thing as "embracing a lifestyle". I think it's called "being a good neighbor" (knowing that all neighbors are different) and "toleration of differences" or if you prefer "tolerance"."

I think it's also called "being a decent American". This country has been about equality and fairness since its inception. Conservatives had the chance to be good Americans during the black civil rights struggle, and they dropped the ball miserably. Now they are being given the chance to be real Americans again and, as we can see from some of the comments, they are again dropping the ball.

One wonders why they do not simply move to Afghanistan, if a reactionary theocracy is where they prefer to live. They can shoot AK-47's at our troops as an expression of their hatred for American ideals. Sad.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Every American on earth thinks, "I won the Civil War and freed the slaves. I won WWI, and WWII. I decided Brown v. Board of Education, and gave victory to the civil rights movement."

That's all well and good until you have a generation which was raised, not to take their temperature when they felt sick, but to measure their self-esteem. Lacking self-esteem? The solution is not "take two aspirin", it's "somebody is denying me my birthright, which is to believe at every minute of every day that I am the greatest thing since sliced bread".

See "Paris1969". And if I were to go back further in the comments I'll bet that one out of every two could be described this way.

Moral of the story? Quit being a nation of whiners. In global perspective, you're all rich, and most of you are fat, and you all whine an awful lot.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

jans1 (another proudly science-phobic conservative - there are so MANY of you!) wrote:

"Homosexual behavior is deviant and destructive. Even animals in the wild don't do what homosexuals do to themselves and each other."

Homosexual behavior has been observed in detail in almost every species ever studied. Try again with a different line of ignorant bigoted garbage maybe.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

--

Why, but why will people keep repeating such utterly embarrassing stupidities? I understand a 5th grader might get hooked on a phrase like that... But newspaper-reading adults? For real? Did you finish high school?

Posted by: alarico | June 17, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

For all of you Christian bashers on this thread... I am not even a religious person...any religion.... I simply can't stand queers! It is unnatural , sick , perverted , and disgusting!
You aren't a bit different than any other sexual pervert. why don't necrophiliacs insist on special treatment from the government , after all they are sexual perverts too.. don't they have special rights? How about all of the pedophiliacs , I mean they are really perverted sickos , shouldn't we give them a special tax break or something?
Let's face it , most normal Americans really are disgusted by all of you perverts , and we don't think we owe you squat, except maybe a jail cell and three square meals for breaking sodomy laws. I know you queers got that off the books federally.
It has nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to queers ..I am a proud BIGOT!!!!!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

This is a great political cartoon about the topic. Finally a little Obama reality. http://www.markfiore.com/political/obama-vs-obama

Posted by: chelshaw | June 17, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Again, there's more to the issue than meets the deadline. See:
Medicare and Bad Math
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3478

Posted by: hillhopper | June 17, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

When an incumbent politician has to expend time and energy pandering to his hard core constituencies, you can assume he's on the way down.

Posted by: zjr78xva | June 17, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

So, my unmarried son and the girl having his child would not get benefits, but if he moved a GUY in with him then that guy could get benefits, right? And NOBODY can see that this allows any unmarried person to offer federal benefits to anyone that they want to if they are the same sex and want to move in for awhile? I knew many many straight men when I was in my 20's and early 30's that lived together for years. I promise you they would have no problem with filling out the forms to get the thousands and thousands of dollars worth of benefits. Many, now in their 50's and 60's are divorced and once again have same sex roomates. What a deal!

Posted by: flyingtree | June 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Everybody should be gay. Anyone who isn't gay is a jerk.

Posted by: Syzygy7 | June 17, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

flyingtree wrote, "So, my unmarried son and the girl having his child would not get benefits"

If they're up against a same sex couple that's been together ten years, that concatenation would warm the cockles of my heart.

Something's wrong when people want to boast of hypothetical (I hope) unmarried sons impregnating women they're not married to.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize immoral lifestyles.

Posted by: zjr78xva | June 17, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Someone wrote, "Taxpayers should not have to subsidize immoral lifestyles."

Now if we could just come up with a definition of "immoral lifestyles" to which taxpayers could agree, we could all go out for drinks.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 9:04 PM | 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

--------------------------------


No SAVEDGIRL, you are a hypocrite, racist and hateful deranged person. Here is one for you and all of you religious numbnuts to think about:

Nevada Sen. John Ensign's infidelity admission to an ever-growing list of woes for the out-of-power GOP.

One senator's predicament hardly condemns an entire party. But the episode is an unwelcome distraction as the Republicans, their ranks shrinking, seek a turnaround after disastrous losses in consecutive national elections.

Since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have struggled to counter his popularity and the Democrats' command of Congress.

The GOP's new national chairman, Michael Steele, got off to a rocky start. Moderate Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter defected to the Democrats. And Democrat Al Franken is favored to eventually be declared the winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race over incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman.

Now this.

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life," Ensign said Tuesday at a hastily arranged news conference in Sin City itself, Las Vegas.

He didn't name the woman, but Cindy Hampton came forward later to say through an attorney that she regretted Ensign's decision to "air this very personal matter." Federal records showed that she was on his political payroll and received a promotion and a pay raise around the time he said the affair began in late 2007.

--------------------------------

Oh my GOD.......another HYPOCRITE caught with his pants down.

Wrapped in the holy shroud of "moral, religious, family, ALBEIT ALL SO WRONG VALUES", was almost crying when making his statement.....reading from a piece a toilet paper. See he can do that without a "tele-prompter"

Stop trying to push your no-values on us intelligent Americans.

Crooks, liars, hypocrites....all of you.

And now go back and deride Letterman for making a joke about the inbreed offspring of a deranged family

Posted by: mackiejw | June 17, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Lets see. Gay man dying of AIDS or Cancer can GIVE 90 percent of his federal retirement, which is usually 85 percent of his last years pay to anyone he chooses FOR LIFE. Now that's fair. If he retired at say a GS1 that would be worth on average about 75-80 thousand a year for life. Now I would certainly pay someone a quarter million dollars in return for 80 grand for life. If I was 40 I have a life expectancy of 40 years times 80 grand which is...3.2 million? Not bad for filling out a few papers and agreeing to live with some guy until he dies. I mean the hospice doesn't pay anything like that.

Posted by: flyingtree | June 17, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber wrote:

"By the way, allowing your neighbor the legal right to the same benefits you enjoy is not the same thing as "embracing a lifestyle". I think it's called "being a good neighbor" (knowing that all neighbors are different) and "toleration of differences" or if you prefer "tolerance"."

========================================
I have a question for the poster who just posted the above quoted comment.
Let's say that you have a child , let's say he , or she, is ten years old. Let's say that a known pedophile moves in next door. Are you going to lead the welcome party? Are you going to be tolerant of his perversion? Maybe you could use him as a baby sitter..Yeah that would be real tolerant!
Homosexuality is just as perverted as pedophilia! They are both deviant ways of sexual gratification that is unnatural. I see homosexuality just as disgusting as any of the other myriad sexual deviances.
I am not tolerant of the practice , and would never knowingly "accept" a homosexual in my circle of friendly acquaintances. Further , I definitely don't think they should be given rights that are given to married couples.
I would not harm a person because he , or she is queer , I simply don't wish to have any personal dealings with them. I most certainly don't respect them as normal human beings...they are not normal.
If you are queer, keep it to yourself , no one except other queers even wants to know.
Don't ask for special treatment , marriage rights for couples (hetero) do not apply any more than they do to hetero couples that aren't married.
Be thankful you can survive as a pervert! There are many places where you can't!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

This is a disaster. These benefit programs are based upon actuarial models which predict how many people are paying in and how many are receiving the benefits. That math was just flushed down the toilet by Obama.

I get the whole "empathy" thing but for crying out loud don't destroy the nation.

Posted by: alstl | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

algibbs wrote:

----------------

douglaslbarber wrote:

"By the way, allowing your neighbor the legal right to the same benefits you enjoy is not the same thing as "embracing a lifestyle". I think it's called "being a good neighbor" (knowing that all neighbors are different) and "toleration of differences" or if you prefer "tolerance"."

========================================
I have a question for the poster who just posted the above quoted comment.
Let's say that you have a child , let's say he , or she, is ten years old. Let's say that a known pedophile moves in next door. Are you going to lead the welcome party? Are you going to be tolerant of his perversion? Maybe you could use him as a baby sitter..Yeah that would be real tolerant!

=========================================

This is easy to answer. I am tolerant of those who do no harm. Be well.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I have NOTHING against same or opposite sex partnerships...NOTHING. Whatever floats your boat - great.

But I REALLY have a problem with this...for NO OTHER REASON than WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS??? I'll tell you who is paying for this ... the TAXPAYER! And frankly, after bailing out credit card companies, insurance companies, and GM, the LAST thing I want is a larger tax burden. ESPECIALLY when the next item up - "health care reform" - is going to cost us as well. Spin this ANY WAY you want and it comes up HIGHER TAXES.

After the elitist Baucus stripped the tax increase for the wealthy out of Obama's signature initiative, all the tax burden is coming straight to the middle class. That is, what's left of the middle class after the oil companies, higher food prices, credit card terrorism ad nauseum all take their bite out of your wallet.

Posted by: pcw5150 | June 17, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Basically, Obama is throwing a bone to the gay community, but it doesn't come close to rectifying the unnecessarily ugly language used by the Justice Dept in the Defense of Marriage Act brief.

Posted by: labman57 | June 17, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

As to the Defense of Marriage act, it is not "discriminatory". Same sex unions are not sanctioned by God or the U.S. Constitution. And as a former professor of Constitutional Law, President Obama should know that.

Same sex marriage is an act against God, who (according to the bible) destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because "...their sin was very grievous". The term Sodomy (anal intercourse, oral intercourse, or bestiality) is derived from "traditional Christian usuage".

As to whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows for same sex marriage, the Constitution is of the United States of America; The United States of America (...one nation under God.) is not of the Constitution.

Posted by: Majacrusn | June 17, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber wrote:

"By the way, allowing your neighbor the legal right to the same benefits you enjoy is not the same thing as "embracing a lifestyle". I think it's called "being a good neighbor" (knowing that all neighbors are different) and "toleration of differences" or if you prefer "tolerance"."

========================================
I have a question for the poster who just posted the above quoted comment.
Let's say that you have a child , let's say he , or she, is ten years old. Let's say that a known pedophile moves in next door. Are you going to lead the welcome party? Are you going to be tolerant of his perversion? Maybe you could use him as a baby sitter..Yeah that would be real tolerant!

=========================================

This is easy to answer. I am tolerant of those who do no harm. Be well
============================
"harm" my friend , comes in well disguised packages at times.
I worry greatly about the "normalization" of these deviant lifestyles , and the impact that it can have on susceptibile youth . Please don't attempt to tell me that you are absolutely sure that this can't happen. I am well qualified to tell you that it can very well be a serious problem.

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Barack needs to think back to his time with Larry Sinclair and he would know what it feels like to be treated different because of his sexual orientation. Barack and Larry were a very good looking couple back in the day.

Posted by: fe59 | June 17, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

algibbs wrote, "I worry greatly about the "normalization" of these deviant lifestyles"

As a person who grew up in Pittsburgh and has followed the Poplawski murder of three policemen closely, I can only agree - though I suspect you and I define "deviant lifestyles" differently.

Next time three city cops show up dead in one day because Johnny had two daddies, you be sure to let me know.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse


Kool. Now all Obama has to do is sign a memorandum giving same-sex couples the same reproductive benefits as heterosexual couples.

Posted by: WylieD | June 17, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

algibbs wrote, "I worry greatly about the "normalization" of these deviant lifestyles"

As a person who grew up in Pittsburgh and has followed the Poplawski murder of three policemen closely, I can only agree - though I suspect you and I define "deviant lifestyles" differently.

Next time three city cops show up dead in one day because Johnny had two daddies, you be sure to let me know.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse
====================
There is obviously one thing that we would describe differently. I wasn't aware that "harm" was confined to murdering cops.
I have long known that liberals are "liberal" about what one should be free to do , but I wasn't aware that it had reached the point of "anything but murder" . Interesting!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

How about we cut to the chase?

For almost all human beings, sex drive is right up their with "don't want to suffocate or starve".

For almost all human beings, the joys of intimacy are associated with the pleasures of sex. A life without intimacy is near on to a life sentence to solitary confinement.

And for some human beings, sexual attraction is only for the same sex. This is not something they can ignore, nor is it something they can change.

In bygone eras they were taught to regard themselves as shameful.

This is the way some people desire to establish relationships within which human intimacy is allowed its beautiful expressions.

Those of you who are threatened by that must either get over it, or be trampled by humankind's march from darkness to light.

You can carry on all you want. I suspect that the reason you're so upset is that you yourselves can feel in your bones that the coming change is as inevitable as was the abolition of slavery.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

B202:

I agree that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a difficult passage. There a a few things to keep in mind. The passage does not refer to a young son but an older son. It refers to someone that has a continuing rebellious spirit (not lazy as in your comment). The person is brought before the elders (not stoned to death by his parents as in your comment). It does then speak of stoning by the community to purge evil. Jewish scholars indicate stoning was never carried out - but it does reveal the seriousness of a rebellious spirit.

In reality, we have all rebelled against God's laws and deserve death. However, the bible says love covers a multitude of sins. It is only by His grace that you and I can be saved.

Posted by: sgg051 | June 17, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Douglasbarber , BTW , I am aware of a case where the discovery of a father's homosexuality triggered a double murder , including fratricide. A very young murderer.
Young people have been desensitized about violence, promiscuity , and a variety of sexual deviances. All of these things are detrimental to the development of our young people. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion , and is not a positive thing in any way I can imagine. to normalize this type of deviancy for the young , impressionable , susceptible, troubled youth in our society is not a good thing . It really isn't that close of a call.

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

algibbs wrote, "Young people have been desensitized about violence, promiscuity , and a variety of sexual deviances."

Hmmm. George W. Bush. Dick Cheney. Al Craig et al.

Who was the first president of the United States who was divorced?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

It's no use searching for wisdom in a literal reading of venerable ancient texts which command us to stone disobedient children to death.

Four dead in Ohio was quite enough for me.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

How about we cut to the chase?

For almost all human beings, sex drive is right up their with "don't want to suffocate or starve".

For almost all human beings, the joys of intimacy are associated with the pleasures of sex. A life without intimacy is near on to a life sentence to solitary confinement.

And for some human beings, sexual attraction is only for the same sex. This is not something they can ignore, nor is it something they can change.

In bygone eras they were taught to regard themselves as shameful.

This is the way some people desire to establish relationships within which human intimacy is allowed its beautiful expressions.

Those of you who are threatened by that must either get over it, or be trampled by humankind's march from darkness to light.

You can carry on all you want. I suspect that the reason you're so upset is that you yourselves can feel in your bones that the coming change is as inevitable as was the abolition of slavery.

============================
Your logic , and your assumptions are seriously flawed.
Just because we are born with a sex drive , which is natures way of insuring procreation of the species , does not mean that we should be accepting of all of the sick ways that man can devise to relieve that pressure.
There are people who are only turned on by sex with kids.
There are people who are only turned on by sex with animals.
There are people whou only want sex with a corpse.
There are people who are turned on by other people suffering and being tortured.

Do you get the drift??
Sexual perversion is for sure a real existing condition of some humans. Does that make it right ? , good ? acceptable? A condition that deserves special treatment?
The obvious answer for a civilized and respectable society is a resounding NO!
I think you are over confident about the inevitibility of the acceptance of your perverted , deviant lifestyle. The large majority of Americans will never accept it as normal and equal to a heterosexual relationship. Not in your lifetime.

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

There's a good reason people who experience same-sex attraction chose the term "queer" to be their label, at one time. They'd given up on communicating with people who don't experience same-sex attraction and who demonize them. So they embraced the demonizing term.

It's time to stop demonizing people based on sexual desires which are not a threat to anyone.

I laugh every time I hear same sex marriage described as a "threat to marriage". Marriage has threats, as we all know. Adultery chief among them.

Just exactly how two men vowing to be sexually faithful to each other till death parts them in Vermont threatens the sanctity of the marriage of Republicans Jim and Joyce in Ross Township, Pennsylvania has yet to be explained.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 10:14 PM | Report abuse

algibbs wrote, "Young people have been desensitized about violence, promiscuity , and a variety of sexual deviances."

Hmmm. George W. Bush. Dick Cheney. Al Craig et al.

Who was the first president of the United States who was divorced?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 17, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse
================================
HUH??? I think you went on "tilt" fellow.
What does George Bush , Cheney , or anyone else have to do with the subject??
What has divorce have to do with the subject?
I haven't mentioned any religious tenet. In fact I stated unequivically that I was not religious.
The subject is sexual perversion , and whether it should be given equal weight with normal marriage.
There are myriad reasons why it should be relegated to the status of all of the other perversions , and none that make any sense ,that it should be given special status , or benefits.
The Democrat party has simple attempted to court the homosexual vote by teasing them with promises that they are really afraid to deliver! frankly , They know it would be a killer issue against them if they really capitulate! Don't bet your house on getting any real law through in your favor. The Dems can't afford them!!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

This is SO maddening! Sodomy is still, by law, illegal in the Commonwealth of Va. Since when can the Pres just ignore and overrule a state law? And, additionally, 'use MY tax money to support the new guidelines?

Good grief...even liberal California just overturned their gay marriage rule. I am sick to death of a small group of Obama left wing people with wrong views pushing thier agenda down the rest of our throats.

What is Obama thinking? This is yet another black eye for our country.

People who voted for this man should be ashamed.

Posted by: MarieArnold | June 17, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

douglasbarber wrote; It's time to stop demonizing people based on sexual desires which are not a threat to anyone.

=====================
Normalizing , and rewarding perverted , deviant behaviour is a threat to the very fabric of our society. "Demonizing" has a religious tone. I am not demonizing your perversion , I am pointing out the unnatural , and disgusting aspect of it. Just as with the other perverts , your perversion should be ostracized by a society that must establish norms , or be relegated to the level of jungle animals.
We don't allow people to have sex with children , even though they are attracted to them sexually. We don't allow beastiality , or a number of other disgusting perversions , and homosexuality should be right thewre with the others!

Posted by: algibbs | June 17, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Please, a definition and a little logic:

So, if I claim my brother is my "partner" and he works for the Federal Government, can I obtain benefits?

So, I don't have to sleep or love my partner, just claim a partner?

Posted by: jackieonthetrunk | June 17, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

My argument has nothing to do with anyone's sexual behavior. Defining same-sex partners, doesn't that discriminate against heterosexual partners such as domestic partners?

Posted by: jackieonthetrunk | June 17, 2009 11:41 PM | Report abuse

The problem isn't gay benefits, it's too many federal employees sucking on the national teet already. We shouldn't be extending more benefits for any fed employees except the military and intelligence community. The rest of them would be working at McDonald's if it weren't for federal government preferences. Don't be surpised that federal programs are almost always overbudget and uneffective. Look at the employees...they are either lazy, stupid or both. Wait until they are running your healthcare. Cut your throat if you get sick it will be less painful.

Posted by: joebrownusa | June 17, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse


For much of the world, the phrase "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

It is not wildly unreasonable to argue that the right to marry should be extended to all loving adults in a committed relationship. But then recognizing same-sex marriage is too limited an expansion of the definition of marriage. Consenting adults in incestuous and polygamous relationships should also be able to enjoy the right to marry. And, no, this is not meant to equate homosexuality with incest. It is simply a consistent application of the arguments used to support same-sex marriage.

Posted by: WylieD | June 18, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

LOL. Is there anyone here who has any doubt that algibbs is struggling like crazy with his sexual orientation? Anyone who has to go on that intensely about how homosexuality is a perversion, well, you know the drill. It's pretty well-established by psychologists what is going on there. Reaction formation is the technical term.

Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for ALGIBBS! Today's All American poster child for reaction formation! Let's all thank him for playing his little role in today's Psych 101 lecture. (Thank you Al.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

In psychoanalytic theory, reaction formation is a defensive process (defense mechanism) in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 18, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse


jackieonthetrunk says: Defining same-sex partners, doesn't that discriminate against heterosexual partners such as domestic partners?

No, jackie. heterosexuals CAN GET MARRIED.

isn't it freakin incredible that our first half-black (but self-identifying "black") prez still doesn't get that separate-but- unequal doesn't cut it?!? imagine if he'd decreed that "henceforth black federal employees will get most, but not all, federal benefits. particularly not health care or retirement." what a load of crap this guy is.

Posted by: markdino | June 18, 2009 1:41 AM | Report abuse

LOL. Is there anyone here who has any doubt that algibbs is struggling like crazy with his sexual orientation? Anyone who has to go on that intensely about how homosexuality is a perversion, well, you know the drill. It's pretty well-established by psychologists what is going on there. Reaction formation is the technical term.

Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for ALGIBBS! Today's All American poster child for reaction formation! Let's all thank him for playing his little role in today's Psych 101 lecture. (Thank you Al.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction
============================
LOL! , Such a typical queer argument. "you really want to be one"., Or "if I'm one you are too" . Such a juvenile response really don't deserve a comment , but it gave me a good laugh , so I assure you that that impulse was never even a distant thought. In fact The whole idea of a man preferring a hairy legged dude to a beautiful female with all of the proper equipment is still quite a puzzle to me . It does just not compute. Sorry dude wrong number.

Posted by: algibbs | June 18, 2009 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Good Morning B202. I see you're still at it. I'll say it again, I am sorry that you are so angry for my words and the words of all Christians. I'll be the first to admit that I cannot explain all of the writings of the Bible. This personal inadequacy does not diminish the fact that the Bible is God's word. Nor does it diminish the fact that satan is running this show. The feeling you are showing is one that indicates you are burning of hatred inside for those who cannot or will not accept your lifestyle as normal. As for the homosexual female calling herself a Christian, I wish you well. Your anger is also showing.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 18, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I am sorry, but all serious discussion of this is clouded by the awful picture of lithping Barney being sodomized by his latest sexy young 'partner'.

Only in America would someone as oleaginous and deceitful as Franks get voted in even though he was a cornerstone of the current financial debacle.

Posted by: ellenoday | June 18, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ellenoday,

There are few member of congress I care to picture engaging in any type of sexual activity and I'm sorry that when you look at someone that is the first thing that comes to your mind. You may want to seek counseling about that perversion.

Posted by: Coloradem1 | June 18, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama is morally wrong on this one just as he is wrong on abortion. The homosexual lifestyle he promotes are immoral frauds. Same sex marriage is about the same as getting your degree from a diploma mill. Fraudulent. And the officials who issues the documents are frauds as well. Read the Bible and learn.

Posted by: dudjane | June 18, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It's so sad in this day and age that some writers still believe they have an invisible friend. That's right, my invisible friend says that gays are an abominations in my invisible friend's eyes. I sure wish they would extend health insurance benefits to gays. What is taking so long for this simple thing to happen?

Posted by: deejoshy | June 18, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Every religious bigot has a gay relative, no exceptions. It is a statistical fact, not an opinion. So these haters hate their own blood. It takes a lot of energy to be filled with hate for others. Imagine trying to stop somebody from loving another human being. Can we say "twisted"?

Posted by: deejoshy | June 18, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Ooooooo weeeeeeee whole lotta ad hominem attacks, stereotyping and illogical leaps in this string. Wonder if the Obamaniacs at the ComPost realize that by including the line "even Arizona and Alaska provide these entitlements" (p) is exploding one of the chief myths about conservativism.

Naaaah probably not

Posted by: theduck6 | June 18, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

deejoshy, are you so self centered and short sighted that you believe that this world is all that there is? Do you actually believe you will live forever in your filth? As you are on your deathbed, please remember your own words then recognize that even then, it isn't too late to be forgiven. Good luck.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | June 18, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

It's not clear to me how even these rights can be granted by the President. Someone explain how this isn't a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed into law on September 21st, 1996, which simply states:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So with statement 2 above, how does the executive branch arbitrarily elect to give money away to someone that is not a federal employee and is not recognized as a legal relation to a federal employee? How is that done as a MEMORANDUM? Isn't it up to the legislative branch to establish budgets?

Once again, this appears to be another example of a violation of the US Constitution by the Executive Branch and a potentially impeachable offense that any past President would have potentially been held to. But due to a complicit Congress and media, those in power seem to snub their noses at the voting masses and snatch non-granted authority away from the American people anyway.

Again, someone explain how 1) the Constitution hasn't been violated and 2) how this President can then get away with this?

I'm no attorney but this "interpretation of the law" seems a might easier than engineering which I do know something about. If there's one thing worse than being robbed blind, it's being robbed blind in broad daylight...and that's what we are once again witnessing.

Posted by: Slavtrader | June 18, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

i am tired of these homos pushing there life style down our throats every day ! it isn't our faults there born in the wrong bodies. when two people of the same sex can bring children in this world, normally ! then i might think about it ? until then stay away from the parks where children play. i would like to use a bathroom ! not a port a let ! so keep your weird assas away from the children. sickos ! you know that you have a chromosome missing, and that makes you different and weird ! stay away from our children !

Posted by: MichaelColeman1 | June 18, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

there is a bill 909 getting ready to pass, because that's what liberals do to pay back for there fairy votes.the bill gives pedophiles who touch our children a misdemeanor. if you call them a name or hit them with your purse ! you get charged with a hate crime, along with a felony federal charge, and kiss your a$$ goodbye ! while the pervert goes home with a misdemeanor.

Posted by: MichaelColeman1 | June 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

playing in feces for sex is freakin normal ?

Posted by: MichaelColeman1 | June 18, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

whats the problem since comrade Obama is planning everyone to have government produced insurance? Then everyone will have insurance. He is just showing, "look at me I am doing what I promised game". Whats the beef? As for homosexuals prove your existence other than words. What makes a homosexual? Your word? Words are easy to bend, and mutilate. You make yourselves look like fools and cause people who did not think of you hate you more, making you more hated thann ever, congratulations idiots! As for bigots, look in the mirror homo's. As for what you call others can be found in yourself. Nobody wants to hear what you say or do. You are not that important. The reaction formation your causing may cause your destruction within your ranks. If you did not have sex on the brain you might get a life!!

Posted by: qbee_75 | June 19, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company