Obama's slowwwwww, steady march for gay rights continues.

[Direckshun]

Next up, DADT?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/16/politics/main5092629.shtml

WASHINGTON, June 16, 2009
Obama To Extend Benefits To Gay Partners

(AP) Last updated at 10:25 p.m. EDT

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

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

The official said Mr. Obama would release more details on Wednesday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[banyon]

This is a poorly timed and calculated move. He has too many balls in the air. Stupid.

[Reaper16]

This is a poorly timed and calculated move. He has too many balls in the air. Stupid.
I hate that this has to be considered a political "move" because so many people in this country are fuckheads.

[petegz28]

He has been to worried about taking over the private sector to worry about gay people.

[irishjayhawk]

I hate that this has to be considered a political "move" because so many people in this country are ****heads.

This.

[petegz28]

When 70%+ of voters every state votes down gay marriage, Barry has no choice but to approach this politically. Are the 70% right? No. But it is a good lesson on how the majority is not always right.

[Reaper16]

When 70%+ of voters every state votes down gay marriage, Barry has no choice but to approach this politically. Are the 70% right? No. But it is a good lesson on how the majority is not always right.
I see what you did there.

[petegz28]

I see what you did there.

I was like flipping Houdini....:D

[Ultra Peanut]

pfft

[Taco John]

When you sense the other team's quarterback is weak, you send in the blitz. Republicans are in absolute chaos right now, with their biggest headlines being Palin fueding with Letterman. And by taking it chunk by chunk, he's not overextending himself.

The law of slippery slope will take its course and Plato's cave will take over from there.

[BucEyedPea]

...and people said gay rights would not have any effect on others. Guess who pays for these benefits? Us! It's one thing to give them rights but their benefits will be more costly due to their destructive lifestyle. Private firms doing this, like Disney, no sweat.

[J Diddy]

...and people said gay rights would not have any effect on others. Guess who pays for these benefits? Us! It's one thing to give them rights but their benefits will be more costly due to their destructive lifestyle. Private firms doing this, like Disney, no sweat.

Who am I to say they deserve less rights than a married couple?

What if they called their homosexual lifestyle their religion, would it then be okay?

[BucEyedPea]

Who am I to say they deserve less rights than a married couple?

What if they called their homosexual lifestyle their religion, would it then be okay?

We've done this one before. And you are hijacking this thread. I said nothing about rights. This is about benefits. I did not say gays could not marry here either. I said I would want a libertarian solution to civil union/marriage issue which is get the govt out of marriage for everyone. Same rule for everyone.

As it exists now, marriage is not a right in this country. It's a state issue that requires a liscense which is a permission slip for everyone. Everyone, male and female are treated equally: that is anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same rule for everyone. Anything else is "special" rights.

I've also said I would not want this matter handled in a way that I have to support their lifestyle because they are promiscuous to an extreme and have more health issues because of it. In fact one gay owned company had to get rid of it's health insurance policy because it got too expensive.

Sorry, I'm willing to live and let live. They can do what they want. I just don't want to have to pay to support any of it. And I'd rather all federal employees have many of their excessive benefits cut in this economy. Nice to see Obama wrecking the economy even more. That is all.

[J Diddy]

We've done this one before. And you are hijacking this thread. I did not say gays could not marry here either. I said I would want a libertarian solution to civil union/marriage issue which is get the govt out of marriage for everyone.

As it exists now, marriage is not a right in this country. It's a state issue that requires a liscense which is a permission slip for everyone. Everyone, male and female are treated equally: that is can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same rule for everyone.

I've also said I would not want this matter handled in a way that I have to support their lifestyle because they are promiscuous to an extreme and have more health issues because of it. In fact one gay owned company had to get rid of it's health insurance policy because it got too expensive.

Sorry, I'm willing to live and let live, they can do what they want. I just don't want to have to pay to support any of it. That is all.

Um, me responding to your statement isn't me hijacking. If you make a statement that can be responded to like I did, it is you hijacking.

Second, for someone who claims to oppose govt interfering in their lifestyle you have no problem letting it happen to someone whose lifestyle you oppose. What happened to equal rights? Aren't men and women supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law? If that is the case why should a couple of man-man be any different than man-woman?

I personally know, and in fact the gentleman in question was the best man at my wedding, whose lived with and been in a serious relationship with another man longer than my wife and I have been together. Doesn't sound too promiscuous to me. I guess they don't deserve the same benefits as a man-woman couple.

I bet they're pissed and say this "

Sorry, I'm willing to live and let live, they can do what they want. I just don't want to have to pay to support any of it. That is all."

[BucEyedPea]

Yes it is a hijacking. The topic is not gay marriage and whether it should be allowed. It's about spending.

And don't give me they aren't promiscuous until you lived in that lifestyle with a gay roomate. They have a social veneer that doesn't reveal what goes on. They cheat a lot and have a lot of jealousy tirades. Even the Advocate has boasted how they are the "sexual revolution." It's backed up clinically too.

[J Diddy]

Yes it is a hijacking. The topic is not gay marriage and whether it should be allowed. It's about spending.

And don't give me they aren't promiscuous until you lived in that lifestyle with a gay roomate. They have a social veneer that doesn't reveal what goes on. They cheat a lot and have a lot of jealousy tirades. Even the Advocate has boasted how they are the "sexual revolution." It's backed up clinically too.

I never mentioned gay marriage, you did. I merely said they should be entitled to benefits as well as the next legally connected couple.

FTR, the best man at my wedding was my roommate. He, another friend of mine and his gay lover lived in a 3 br house he owned. So I'm familiar with this lifestyle you speak of. Besides those two dudes sleeping together at night I couldn't tell you any difference.

[BucEyedPea]

Who am I to say they deserve less rights than a married couple?

What if they called their homosexual lifestyle their religion, would it then be okay?
Post #12 is about their rights. That's a different topic.

[DenverChief]

When 70%+ of voters every state votes down gay marriage, Barry has no choice but to approach this politically. Are the 70% right? No. But it is a good lesson on how the majority is not always right.


California 52%
South Dakota 52%
Colorado 56%
Arizona 56%
Oregon 57%
Virginia 57%
Wisconsin 59%

just saying

[J Diddy]

Post #12 is about their rights. That's a different topic.

All I'm saying (without going into whether gay marriage should be allowed or not) Is a man and a woman have the ability to get into a relationship that they could build for a future. A man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have that ability.

That is wrong.

[J Diddy]

California 52%
South Dakota 52%
Colorado 56%
Arizona 56%
Oregon 57%
Virginia 57%
Wisconsin 59%

just saying


Is this the percentage pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage?

[BucEyedPea]

All I'm saying (without going into whether gay marriage should be allowed or not) Is a man and a woman have the ability to get into a relationship that they could build for a future. A man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have that ability.

That is wrong.

Fine. I just don't want to support it with my money. Other than that, live and let live.

[DenverChief]

As it exists now, marriage is not a right in this country.


BZZT!!

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right to marry under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 . Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship. Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953

[J Diddy]

Fine. I just don't want to support it with my money. Other than that, live and let live.


They don't want to support yours or mine lifestyle with theirs.

[DenverChief]

Is this the percentage pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage?

Anti, barely passing in those states

[J Diddy]

BZZT!!

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)


TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)


I didn't even think of that, actually. That's why spouses can't be forced to testify against each other. In the eyes of the law they are considered as one.

[DenverChief]

All I'm saying (without going into whether gay marriage should be allowed or not) Is a man and a woman have the ability to get into a relationship that they could build for a future. A man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have that ability.

That is wrong.


I'm not following what you are trying to say?

[J Diddy]

I'm not following what you are trying to say?

A man and a woman have the ability to build for the future together, regardless of religious or civil marriage. (FTR I do not agree that a religious marriage can exist between same sex couples) However, if you look at it from a rights standpoint you are denying adults the benefits of tax breaks, health and retirement benefits, etc based solely on the fact that they aren't opposite sex.

[petegz28]

California 52%
South Dakota 52%
Colorado 56%
Arizona 56%
Oregon 57%
Virginia 57%
Wisconsin 59%

just saying

Fair enough...I probably generalized too much, but point still stands...the majority vote it down.

[J Diddy]

Fair enough...I probably generalized too much, but point still stands...the majority vote it down.


Well this is true. However, I learned something tonight. Buceyed pea made it quite clear that the majority is never right all the time as long as it supports my position on the matter.

[Iowanian]

That's just what the federal budget needs about now.

That'll fix it.

[RaiderH8r]

DC council just blocked a referendum on DC's gay marriage proposal because even though DC votes 85-90% Dem it will lose on gay marriage. Why? Because Republicans aren't the problem for gays, black evangelicals, latinos, and union types are the problem for gays. Gays rank way below those demographics.

Dick Cheney has outflanked Barry O on this issue and this move IS purely political on Barry's part. It's a small bone to a community that was on the verge of going apeshit. This is a table scrap from Barry to keep them from raiding the kitchen. We'll see how long it takes.

[Ultra Peanut]

...and people said gay rights would not have any effect on others. Guess who pays for these benefits? Us! It's one thing to give them rights but their benefits will be more costly due to their destructive lifestyle. Private firms doing this, like Disney, no sweat.

That's just what the federal budget needs about now.

That'll fix it.Giving up your bennies any time soon, then?

[irishjayhawk]

BZZT!!

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)


TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

:clap:

That would be massive ownage.

[DenverChief]

DC council just blocked a referendum on DC's gay marriage proposal because even though DC votes 85-90% Dem it will lose on gay marriage.

I don't think you quite read the article correctly

The Board of Elections for Washington, D.C. has found that a proposed referendum to overturn a D.C. marriage recognition law fails to pass muster.

The legislation was passed with near-unanimity by the district’s Council. It specifies that the District will recognize all marriages, including those of same-sex couples, granted in other jurisdictions.



http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=92599

WASHINGTON - The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on Monday rejected an effort to hold a referendum on whether Washington should recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The D.C. Council voted last month to recognize marriages performed outside Washington.

The board said a referendum would authorize discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited under D.C.'s Human Rights Act. According to D.C. elections law, a referendum cannot appear on the ballot if it violates the city's human rights laws.

Referendum proponents will file an appeal Tuesday in D.C. Superior Court, said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents supporters of a ballot measure on the issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-dc-gaymarriage-refer,0,6107707.story

[Iowanian]

Giving up your bennies any time soon, then?

Sorry sport....I work, and my insurance has nothing to do with the federal govt.


maybe you should try it sometime.

[BucEyedPea]

They don't want to support yours or mine lifestyle with theirs.

Well, I don't think anyone should support anyone elses lifestyle for that matter. You should know that by now.
But most don't want to pay for the consequences of extreme promiscuity because that would just bring the system down.

[Iowanian]

California 52%
South Dakota 52%
Colorado 56%
Arizona 56%
Oregon 57%
Virginia 57%
Wisconsin 59%

just saying


If those numbers were say, a democratic presidential candidate being elected, it would be slobbered on and called a "mandate".


No pun intended.

[J Diddy]

Well, I don't think anyone should support anyone elses lifestyle for that matter. You should know that by now.
But most don't want to pay for the consequences of extreme promiscuity because that would just bring the system down.

So I guess our disagreement is on "extreme promiscuity"

Like I said, it ain't always so.

[J Diddy]

If those numbers were say, a democratic presidential candidate being elected, it would be slobbered on and called a "mandate".


No pun intended.



LOL

I've done everything in my life to avoid a man date.

[Mojo Jojo]

Of course this is just a political move. His justice department filed against the gay stance on DADT and DOMA, Barney Frank is publicly calling him out (no pun intended) today. One of the largest DNC fundraisers by Gay/Lesbian groups is being boycotted by the biggest gay spenders/supporters/spokespeople. Bottom line is that he HAD to do something for this group.

[RaiderH8r]

I don't think you quite read the article correctly



http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=92599



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-dc-gaymarriage-refer,0,6107707.story

I read the article fine. The bottom line is that the DC council does not want this voted on by DC residents because the council's position in support of gay marriage will be overturned and that's not a blemish they want on their record or on DC, which is 85-90% Dem. Meaning my broader point on the demographics related to the actual roadblock to gay marriage being passed is not the Republicans but rather Democrats.

They found an out that will go through the process. If their "out" works then proponents will give it another go in another way at which time they will have to find another "out" to keep one of America's most liberal voting cities off the voting record on the issue of gay marriage. Make sense now?

[gblowfish]

This is old news.
We've already had a Gay President.
James Buchanan.
Check it out.
He was the one right before Lincoln.

[petegz28]

If those numbers were say, a democratic presidential candidate being elected, it would be slobbered on and called a "mandate".


No pun intended.

This