President Obama may be backing down on his promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), the ban on gays serving openly in the military, and he may be silent about the plight of gays in Iran, but his Administration has is about to do one thing which will benefit gay and lesbian Americans. He will sign today a “presidential memorandum . . . extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.”
It’s about time. Kudos, Mr. President.
This is part of a package of
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.
It’s not yet entirely clearly the extent of the benefits offered and whether this will include health benefits, but it does appear to be a step–and a big one–in the right direction. I’m wondering if there is statutory authority for the Administration to extend such benefits so am eager to see the details to be released later today.
This may not turn out to be much, but it is, at they very least, an important gesture and a commitment by the federal government to recognize same-sex relationships.
UPDATE (06/17, 5:30 EST): I was optimistic when I first read about this before going to bed Tuesday evening, but found that there’s far less than meets the eye. It seems that, like much which comes from this President there’s a lot of highfaluting rhetoric, but little actual substance.
Shows you when happens when you try to give certain Democrats credit.
And a guy on my facebook is already whining it isn’t enough. “Not full health insurance? Beginning to get annoyed with this “fierce advocacy” thing.”
That’s a start. It’s about time.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that we’ll suddenly see a rise in the numbers of “same-sex relationships” amongst federal employees.
What an overwhelming relief–now not only will the useless, paper-pushing, tenured-for-life gay federal bureaucrats get benefits at my expense, but their beloved DPs get to have a cut of my paycheck as well. Fan-fuc*ing-tastic. And naturally, “federal employees” does not include the gay soldiers overseas who are getting bombed and shot at to protect my rights to do pretty much whatever the hell I want back here in America. Yeah, that sounds fair. Let’s celebrate! When’s the parade? I’ll bring the glowsticks!
What an overwhelming relief–now not only will the useless, paper-pushing, tenured-for-life gay federal bureaucrats get benefits at my expense, but their beloved DPs get to have a cut of my paycheck as well.
Sean A, if it makes you feel better, there are a hell of a lot more “useless, paper-pushing, tenured-for-life” straight federal employees that get benefits at your expense, and whose spouses get full benefits as well.
Perhaps you are advocating that no federal employee should have benefits extended to their families.
“federal employees” does not include the gay soldiers overseas who are getting bombed and shot at to protect my rights to do pretty much whatever the hell I want back here in America.
Well, you got a point there. Next stop for Obama, push for the repeal of DADT, and allow gay soldiers to serve openly.
#5: “Sean A, if it makes you feel better,…”
Nope, doesn’t.
“Well, you got a point there. Next stop for Obama, push for the repeal of DADT, and allow gay soldiers to serve openly.”
Pat, you may recall our discussion about “first steps” when Obama signed that useless UN gay-is-okay resolution? You called it a positive “first step,” while I called it a dead-end gesture ensuring that no further steps would NEED to be taken. Well, I concede that at least this Presidential Memorandum (?) actually DOES SOMETHING. Certainly it does more than some stupid resolution that basically says gays are super-fantastic. However, I still believe that these sorts of measures are NOT signs of positive things to come from Obama–they are the opposite. Obama will continue to do things like this so that HE DOESN’T HAVE TO tackle the bigger issues like DADT, etc. I know you’re holding onto a more optimistic view of Obama’s treatment of gay issues that I don’t share, but at least this is a more solid basis for your optimism than that UN resolution could ever be.
You’re right, it’s not much…just enough to make Obama seem like he cares, but not enough to be a political problem for him. Obama paints himself as the one to take on the hard issues, but on gay issues he totally caves, and he gets a pass from us. We need to be in his face telling him that we want what he promised on the campaign trail…not just on gay issues, but on all the promises he made.
#7: “We need to be in his face telling him that we want what he promised on the campaign trail…not just on gay issues, but on all the promises he made.”
Sorry, Hunter, but being “in his face” or holding Obama’s “feet to the fire” is a pointless exercise. It will make no difference how many gay groups express their “profound disappointment” at Obama’s actions. The only thing that can coerce a Democrat into doing something he or she doesn’t want to do is a REAL THREAT that they will lose votes. Gay liberals have no leverage because they’ve made it clear that they will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what the circumstances are or how badly they’ve been screwed over (see, e.g., Bill Clinton). DADT will NOT be repealed by the time Obama is up for reelection, but the gays will still vote for him anyway. He knows this. It’s locked-up. Done deal. His campaign promises notwithstanding, Obama will do for gays whatever he feels like doing–nothing more, nothing less. Gay liberals voted for HOPE and that’s exactly what they got (turns out it ain’t so much).
However, I still believe that these sorts of measures are NOT signs of positive things to come from Obama–they are the opposite. Obama will continue to do things like this so that HE DOESN’T HAVE TO tackle the bigger issues like DADT, etc. I know you’re holding onto a more optimistic view of Obama’s treatment of gay issues that I don’t share
Sean A, any optimism I had about Obama has waned since his inauguration. If Obama stops at this measure, then it is a small step, and that’s all it is.
Obama is up for reelection, but the gays will still vote for him anyway. He knows this. It’s locked-up. Done deal.
I’m sure Obama will receive more of the gay vote than his opponent. But I have never seen gay people criticize Democratic leadership like I’ve seen now. Sure, this measure may give Obama a reprieve on that. But if that’s all he delivers, he will lose quite a bit of the gay vote (although again, probably not a majority of the gay vote). If the 2012 election is a close one like the last two were, it could well make a difference.
I’m overly cynical about this president. I see it as another grab for bigger government. If you are gay, we don’t want you to succeed in the private sector. The only way you will get any benefits is if you work for the federal government.
Quick question:
I am 99% sure I saw it on your site here (but am unable to find it), but didn’t Bush do something similar to this during his final days in office? I thought he signed some kind of executive order giving same-sex couples some kind of rights? I recall some comment along the lines of “with one fell swoop of his pen, George Bush did more for gay rights than Bill Clinton ever did in 8-years.”
So,,,if you are gay, unmarried, and have a partner they will get bennies,,,
if you are hetero, unmarried, and have a partner do they get bennies???
I can see the lawsuits flying!!!! I think this will get a lot of
attention before the ink is dry.
WRpeach,
I was one of the unmarried heteros at work who made that same arguement.
My questions are: Is this taking effect immediately or in the next benefit year? Are they going to backdate? Who’s eating the administrative cost of rewriting a contract mid year? (Remember, Ashpenaz’s dreams of smoothly running government insurance aside, private companies administer the Fed Employees plan.)
Obama is throwing us a bone. How many gay folk will actually benefit from this gesture.
This is a distraction….WAIT FOR THE REAL ISSUE TO EMERGE.
Obama CANNOT be trusted.
#11
I believe you are right. Obama was signing for the continuation of these benefits that had started under the Bush Administration.
After just a little research, what Obama is going to give by his signature on a memo is RELOCATION BENEFITS! Looks like that’s it. There’s hope and change for you. The thug-in-chief had his people leak lies about health benefits being included and the MSM bought it,,,no fact checking involved. Check the DOMA, which thug-O just filed a brief defending,,,it prohibits the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. Thug-O is offering you absolutely nothing with his presidential memorandum,,,not an executive order,,,just pandering and lies.
The benefits-that-really-aren’t was an attempted olive branch to the ENDA/Don’t Ask furor that boiled over with the terrible DOMA brief of last week.
There’s a big DNC fundraiser directed at gays set to occur next week — and it’s falling apart over the Administrations inability to manage its relationship with the Gay community.
The A-Gays and gay media have pretty much abandoned the event. Frank, the other openly gay reps, and the DNC are trying to salvage what was supposed to be a sure-fire money-maker, but it’s not going to happen.
My understanding is that this actually is very little (no health benefits), and was motivated primarily to salvage a DNC LGBT fundraiser next week.
And Michelle is giving everyone 20% off coupons for The Gap!
Who still shops at The Gap?
Gays are fools of epic proportion if they think this hollow gesture will be anything more than words. It is meant to appease them at the moment but will amount to nothing. I can’t remember where I read it but this doesn’t allow for health care benefits and marriage benefits and WH is not naming ANY specific benfits it does cover. We want your support but we aren’t going to name specifics how we will help you!
So it should keep you happy enough to shut you up while he strings you along for as long as possible-only to stick it to you in the end. I’m straight and have no stake in the matter but what I am seeing is a 3rd rate carny huckster snowing an entire group with nonsense. And they don’t even have the common sense God gave a dumb goose to see the blatantly obvious.
Gays are in for a very big fall of your own doing
And there you have it:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/white-house-admits-obama-benefits.html
White House admits Obama “benefits” speech simply political ploy, plan still being created after it was already announced
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 12:48:00 AM
A rather blockbuster NYT story in tomorrow’s paper about Obama’s ploy to win back the gays by offering some federal employees some benefits (but not all, including no health coverage).
The White House actually admitted to the NYT that they were offering the benefits to help contain the “growing furor among gay rights groups.” How about doing it because it’s the right thing to do? How about doing it because you were already planning to do it to help our community, because you recognize us as human beings? We kept being told, fret not, we have a secret plan for your civil rights – now it seems, not so much:
But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where ……………………….”
See it all at the link
How pathetic.
The once admirable gay rights movement has become nothing more than a tawdry protest for welfare checks.
haha. I know the gay people would be happy. They are gradually becoming accepted in the society.
What is most pathetic is, as re-election time gets closer-Obama will give gays the same lip service and hollow promises to get their vote next election as he did last election. He knows it, they know it and so does the rest of the population. And gays everywhere will STILL vote for him. Simply because there is a “D” after his name.
I’m a Democrat and I certainly wasn’t stupid enough to vote for the fraud
Ruh-roh! You mean it was over-hyped by the White House, and the over-hype was carried forth by adulatory media reports, making it look like something signficant? With *Obama*? Who’da thunk?
Racer: Congratulations. I really mean that. I’m an ex-Democrat, now an Independent. Once you see through the Dem claptrap, it’s a great feeling.
Maybe I’m being dumb, but it seems to me any benefits that can be distributed based on a executive memorandum can be just as easily revoked with another executive memorandum. Where’s the force of law behind a memorandum–either one? Of course, with this administration the force of law doesn’t matter
Crap! That’s what I was gonna say. You beat me to it. If I may expand:
Further, the gay liberals will tell us how wonderful he is and how he’s done more for gays than Republicans. Of course the “racist” tag will be in vogue again for anybody who disagrees.
The gay left will be masturbating furiously for him once again.
Found it finally: Bush Signs Gay-Rights Law
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/05/bush-signs-gay-rights-law/
And it’s a law, not a exec order.
How interesting that this hasn’t been well-reported. Why? Because by signing this into law, President George W. Bush has, by law, done more for gays than any other President in history. President William Jefferson Clinton, on the other hand, signed two laws (DOMA and DADT) that put gay rights progress into full reverse.
Bush increased American gay rights, Clinton took away American gay rights. Facts are facts.”
10: You have got to be kidding.
23: Huh? since when are partner benefits for the spouse of an employed person “welfare”?
28: “with this administration the force of law doesn’t matter”. I think you’re behind the times; Bush is no longer president.
Kevin is the typical idiot gay. Making excuses for the Democrats when they are screwing him over royally. That’s why you never will get equal anything
today’s executive order was limited but a step in the right direction. GPW, your criticism about no federal benefits is disingenuous (or misinformed, i’m not sure which). due to DOMA, only an act of congress can grant the federal benefits, so he essentially went as far as he can. he also re-stated that he has every intention of having DOMA repealed. considering that he’s no up for reelection any time soon, i’m not sure why he would say that publicly if he didn’t intend to follow through.
Tell you what you want to hear to shut you up for now and stop the eroding support. I’d add that their fund raiser that involved gays is going down the tubes. They want your money and your vote but will give nothing in return but cheap talk. How can you not see this?
#33: “he also re-stated that he has every intention of having DOMA repealed. considering that he’s no up for reelection any time soon, i’m not sure why he would say that publicly if he didn’t intend to follow through.”
Do you hear yourself, boob? Your conclusion that Obama must be telling the truth about having DOMA repealed is based on the fact that he isn’t facing an imminent election. That is pathetic.
Do you even think about what you’re writing, or do you just let the fingers fly?
He’s too busy with his publishing career TGC.
After all, he’s all for repealing DOMA, as soon as he’s done filing briefs in its defense.
Pity bob and Kevin can’t give President Bush (see boys how you use a title?) credit for his work as linked above.
Oh, wait, that would require them to a) think b) admit that so far President Bush has been better than President Obama and 3) stop rimming the current administration.
#31 28: “with this administration the force of law doesn’t matter”. I think you’re behind the times; Bush is no longer president.
Kevin – I know that President Bush is no longer president. I’m glad to see you agree with me that when his administration ended, so did the force of law.
Thank you Louise,
That post is full of win.