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.

[gkgmd]

Homophobes will absolutely be added historically to the ranks of Klansmen, misogynists, Nazis. I do not see any difference in their mental process or delusionsal irrationality.

[rhs648]

correction

Dovestar:

1) I'm not Christian. I really don't care that you are. I don't have a problem with Christians in general, but I do have a problem with Christians who think it's okay to enforce their particular beliefs on everyone who isn't their particular brand of Christian via the law. Separation of Church and State.


We all get our beliefs from somewhere whether it be a Christian background, Jewish background, Hindu background or from some other religion or from our parents, teachers, friends or things we read. Is any one source more valid than another? If you force people to accept homosexuals or marriager between homosexuals, you are forcing your beliefs on other people. How,then, is that any different from Christians or anyone else forcing their beliefs on other people. The argument that it isn't ok for Christians to force their beliefs on other people is Dovestar:

1) I'm not Christian. I really don't care that you are. I don't have a problem with Christians in general, but I do have a problem with Christians who think it's okay to enforce their particular beliefs on everyone who isn't their particular brand of Christian via the law. Separation of Church and State.


We all get our beliefs from somewhere whether it be a Christian background, Jewish background, Hindu background or from some other religion or from our parents, teachers, friends or things we read. Is any one source more valid than another? If you force people to accept homosexuals or marriager between homosexuals, you are forcing your beliefs on other people. How,then, is that any different from Christians or anyone else forcing their beliefs on other people. The argument that it isn't ok for Christians to force their beliefs on other people is facetious.

[caeric]

I am constantly amazed how an understanding of why it is different totally escapes so many people. Let me see if I can simplify this:

When gay people demand equal marriage rights, they are not stepping over the bounds of personal freedoms and defining fundamentalist Christians' lives for them - these Christians are still free to believe what they want and marry whatever person (of the opposite gender, as is their belief) they want. They can still live their lives as they wish.

Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, ARE stepping over the boundaries of personal rights and trying to define other people's lives. They meddle to the point that they try to tell other people what to believe and who they can and cannot marry.

Equal marriage supporters are simply stating that an outside group has no right to define their lives for them. They are not trying to define anyone else's lives. Equal marriage detractors (fundamentalist Christians in this case) ARE trying to step outside their own group and define EVERYONE's lives.

That's why it is different.

[rhs648]

Dovestar:

1) I'm not Christian. I really don't care that you are. I don't have a problem with Christians in general, but I do have a problem with Christians who think it's okay to enforce their particular beliefs on everyone who isn't their particular brand of Christian via the law. Separation of Church and State.


We all get our beliefs from somewhere whether it be a Christian background, Jewish background, Hindu background or from some other religion or from our parents, teachers, friends or things we read. Is any one source more valid than another? If you force people to accept homosexuals or marriager between homosexuals, you are forcing your beliefs on other people. How,then, is that any different from Christians or anyone else forcing their beliefs on other people. The argument that it isn't ok for Christians to force their beliefs on other people is fececious.

[velma179]

Obama isn't breaking a promise. He is moving slower than certain people would like as well as moving in a direction that other people don't like at all!

There is a lot going on now. I'm in the camp that's saying: "patience, yes -- but, that knock on the door, Mr. President, your supporters are calling".

[velma179]

Obama isn't breaking a promise. He is moving slower than certain people would like as well as moving in a direction that other people don't like at all!

There is a lot going on now. I'm in the camp that's saying: "patience, yes -- but, that knock on the door, Mr. President, your supporters are calling".

[CLoverNYC1]

Therein lies the dilemma: all marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages.

It's not a matter of religion but natural and moral law.

Government for the people, by the people... yeah right.

If the people had been allowed to vote, instead of liberal-left wing radical judges legislating from the bench, we would not be discussing this non-issue.

[caeric]

Just like the people in the south should have been able to vote on the rights of black people, right? What do you suppose would have been the outcome of that vote? Where would we be today if what was truly right hadn't been forced on those who were wrong, but believed they were right?

[Yeah-Me]

by CLoverNYC1 June 17, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
Therein lies the dilemma: all marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages.
================
Screw the term "marriage"... just forget it. It's quite obvious people are VERY caught up on that single word.

You also mention:
"by CLoverNYC1 June 17, 2009 1:25 PM PDT
How about a "special" Homosexual Civil Union Act that would make that happen. Homosexuals would have the preferential treatment they so desperately crave, and marriage would be left to the normal people. "
================

This also isn't about "preferential treatment"... It's about our rights as American citizens being protected as any other citizen. As it sits now we don't have that.

As with the recent deal came out with DOMA essentially supporting incestuious or "under age" marriages... or to put it in less volitile terms... Civil Unions.

We as don't even have that chopice to be able to enter into this. You, as heterosexual... Do.

[CLoverNYC1]

by Yeah-Me June 17, 2009 1:09 PM PDT
The same goes for pertners who have even gone through "proper legal channels" of setting up living walls and power of attourney papers so that their significant other has some say in their health and well being... Oonly to have a family come in and have to torn away from them, because of who they are.
----------------------------

Yeah,

Respectfully, we agree on the point that every American has the right to legally transfer wealth and resources to a partner of their own choosing. No argument there.

How about a "special" Homosexual Civil Union Act that would make that happen. Homosexuals would have the preferential treatment they so desperately crave, and marriage would be left to the normal people.

Whatever it is homosexuals want to accomplish in this nation, it's NOT marriage. Read my lips. It ain't marriage, k?

[Yeah-Me]

I have stated something familiar... in fact I have said the goverment should get out of the buisness of marriage all together (seperation of church and state) and provide for Civil Unions for EVERYBODY... gay or straight.

Then yeah.. all people can be truely equal in the eyes of the government. Leave the religious decisions of "marriage" to the churches.

But unfortunately, I don't honestly see that happening. There are far to many unwilling to give up their precious bible thumping when it comes to a free government of the people.

[CLoverNYC1]

by caeric June 17, 2009 8:23 AM PDT
2%? It's more like 8% to 10% ... There are similarities between the civil rights movement and the struggle gays now face.
----------------------

One, unlike you I've done the research. The number is 2%. Face it. Homosexuals are and always will be in the minority.

Two, please cite one instance where homosexuals were lynched, hosed, called the "n word", made to sit in the back of the bus, or generally had problems getting a cab in NY.

To equate the so-called 'struggle' of a group who define themselves by aberrant intimate practices to the black civil rights movement is nauseatingly arrogant and does a great disrespect to what black people endured in this country.

Get real.

[Yeah-Me]

Called the "N"word... no...

But it individuals like these a$$hats (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28358244/) that keeps us moving forward toward basic protections and ability to be who we are without fear of reprisals.

And the funny thing is... there are still states who would refuse to call this a hate crime directed agains homosexuals. Despite the fact people are targeted for being so. Go figure.

The same goes for pertners who have even gone through "proper legal channels" of setting up living walls and power of attourney papers so that their significant other has some say in their health and well being... Oonly to have a family come in and have to torn away from them, because of who they are.

That is why we want equal protection against dsicrimanation, hate related crimes and the benefit that go with being a FULL citizen of the US.

So when you so blithly ask question about sitting at the back of the bus... I'll point you to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", where we are told by the government and the armed forces that it isn't OK to be who you truely are.

[caeric]

CLover, unlike you I've looked at more than one study. The fact is that it's difficult to truly gauge the % of any population that is homosexual. Studies range everywhere from the low you report to a high of around 15%. It's difficult because of the way society handles the subject and the general stigma attached to it due to socialization and religious conditioning. It becomes even more difficult when one realizes that sexuality exits on a continuum rather than being fixed.

Besides, it doesn't really matter what the percentage is. No minority group should be just brushed aside as irrelevant just because they aren't a sizeable group.

BTW, gays generally aren't called the "N" word, unless they're black. They're usually called the "F" word, and that one is used far too often to count. We may not have been forced to sit at the back of the bus or with getting a cab, but we have been forced out of jobs, homes, denied the right to see our dying partners in the hospital, beaten and killed.

And we don't define ourselves by 'aberrant intimate practices'. You do, in your lack of understanding and simple human compassion. We define ourselves as regular, ordinary people who happen to find comfort and love with others of our own gender.

The only thing that is nauseatingly arrogant is your attempt to belittle us, our struggle, and the difficulties that we face.

Until you know prejudice, you have no solid foundation upon which to make your claims. If you truly knew prejudice, you wouldn't be making them.

[NY-Joe-10]

Does this mean non-married straight couples get all the same benefits ? I would think so.....fair is fair.

[u-r-right]

In the grand scheme of all things, we have bigger challenges to worry about. I don't care if partners get benefits BUT, this really should include straight co-habitants as well. Heck, why not include the freaks who love their pets more than humans too? We have to be equal across the board. There can't be special priviledges for a small minority of people.

[CLoverNYC1]

Once the liberal government put its imprimatur on deviant immoral behavior to satisfy a small segment of society, the floodgates were opened.

Politicians respond to votes. Sign those petitions!

Let your voice be heard.