President Obama to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees

He signed a memorandum extending some benefits, such as visitation or dependent-care rights, to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.

Even before Obama signed the memorandum, some agencies had voluntarily offered the benefits Obama guaranteed with his signature.

I don't see how that changed anything. Federal employees can take FMLA (Family medical Leave of Absense) with out giving a reason.

Disney and other companies already give their employees' same-sex partners, and their children the same benefits as the employee, including health-care.

Re: Angie:"I really don't want the health care benefits, the healthcare I have is almost FREE." -Can you let us in on the name of this almost FREE healthcare?

It is called medicaid. Which I would not be on if my I was able to marry my partner. She is a federal employee and makes too much money. I would also not be on SSI, and it would save the government money. But all I hear people that complain about is how taxpayers would be paying too much money to allow it. I think that is unjustified.

@eople really think that allowing the same rights to G/L couples will ower birth rates?

Giving them the same rights as stright peiple isn't going to make them any more or less stright or breed less. They won't bw breeding one way or another so it won't affect birth rates what so ever.

If you want birth rates to go up then make the world a better place so people won't regret bringing a child into the world.

Angie:"I really don't want the health care benefits, the healthcare I have is almost FREE." -Can you let us in on the name of this almost FREE healthcare? Sounds like something looking into! Since some of us are paying out the ying yang for healthcare.

I just saw the film from the Oval Office (I do not believe it was live). The President was discovered seated, surrounded by people intending to attend the LGBT dinner next week who need something face-saving to say. He made a very brief statement announcing that he was .... get this .... directing the State Department and the OPM to give same sex partners employed by the Executive Branch all benefits they determine are consistent with the law. If there aren't any, I guess there aren't any. God knows the President didn't name any. He then signed the "memorandum" and took no questions. It was a photo op (flash cameras whirred distractingly all through it), and not a lengthy one. He held his nose, did it, made it as undramatic as possible, and got out of Dodge. Even worse than I expected. There was speculation that he might dramatize it by surrounding himself with affected couples. If there were any, he didn't mention it. He thanked Barney Frank and Joe Lieberman, both of whom attended, and endorsed Lieberman's proposed act recognizing gay partners of federal employees. That was it. Oh, and it started more than half an hour late.

'Over the years this has been reinterpreted and expanded, but as far as I can tell, there is a. no "freedom of religion"'

You need to reread the Bill of Rights. Pay attention to Amendment I.

thinkoutsidethebox, just because I happened to name Japan and China, which was dumb, because they are not a western country and it would be like comparing apples to oranges to compare them to the US, does not mean my point is not valid. Forget Japan and China, name me a western developed country that has legalized same sex marriage and is not experiencing the problems I previously outlined.

Also Jason: "IF my contention that legalizing same sex marriage will reduce the birth rate is ridiculous, name a developed country in the West where this is not the case."

The bottom line is Jason, your claim that there is a connection between same sex marriage and decline in birthrate is baseless because there exists developed countries "Western" and "Eastern" (honestly don't see what distinction you'd like to draw there) who do NOT have legalized gay marriage with the same issues. Australia for example has the same pyramid demographic of an aging population and dropping birthrates. They have extremely generous government incentives to encourage people to have children but guess what happening: the educated faction of the population arn't the ones responding to this incentive, it's the unemployed and economically depressed parts of society that are popping babies out like it's their job encouraging their 16 year old daughters to have babies simply to collect government aid.

Japan is a 1st world country and i'd be interested in hearing anyone claiming otherwise. What do you think is causing their birth rate to drop?? They don't have legalized gay marriage either.

So lets look at the countries who do have legalized gay marriage: Canada, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden to name some. These countries also happen to have extremely high standards of education and levels of higher education among their population. So going by your method of deduction couldn't we also say that the drop in birth rate is directly linked to education? and in order to fix that we need to stop providing such high levels of education for the masses so they will breed???

Wait a sec....If these same sex couples are not married, can ANY couple that is NOT married, expect to share in these benifits?
Any couple that lives together can enjoy these benifits too, even if they are NOT married?
Is this true?

Shannon, IF my contention that legalizing same sex marriage will reduce the birth rate is ridiculous, name a developed country in the West where this is not the case. I agree with you that divorce has thus far been the most harmful thing to family unity here in the US and we see the results in the lower marriage rates in general. Increasing the number of things that will degrade traditional marriage is certainly not going to help. If you believe that we are crowded for land you have never been to the plains states. We have plenty of land to grow enough food to feed us and the rest of the world and still provide for living space for a much larger population. Our population problem is not one of having too many children but too few. Look again at Japan, China, and every single European country who have aging populations with declining birth rates, within a few decades, they will be bankrupt or struggling mightily to figure out how to pay for health care, etc for that population without new workers.

Am I to understand that people are afraid that procreation rates are going to drop because same sex marriage is legalized? That is ridiculous. First of all we already have a population problem. Too many people and not enough land for them. WE over develop and kill off wild life resulting in an imbalanced eco system that will eventually kill off a good portion of the planet. That arguement is weak and strems from Homophobia.

Degredation of the family unit? Really? With the sickening divorce rate you have the audacity to say that homosexuals will degrade the family unit? The family unit began to degrade when divorce was no longer taboo and women rejoined the workforce. I beleive that women have the right to work but our society is going through an adjustment phase. Social restructure takes decades to level out. ONe thing that needs to be remembered is, a loving home is a loving home. Live and let live, as long as no one gets hurt.

By the way my cost of $12k a year was what I remember Obama saying during the campaign. I looked it up and it is about $5k, which brings the numbers down by half, but hey premium costs can vary widely.

Angie, cmon wake up. Are you serious that you do not realize that the government is paying for at least half of her premiums? Say her premium costs $12k a year. She will pay $500 a month in premiums, and of course her co-pays. Who do you think pays the other $500 a month?

thinkoutsidethebox, Show me a country where gay rights are strongly upheld by the government and they still have strong birth rates and a population growth that will support it's aging population. The issue of whether being gay is genetic or a choice is one we can argue if you can also show me proof that being gay is genetic. There is nothing concrete that says it is genetic as opposed to environmental.

Jason: Do you think that federal employees pay 100% of their health care premium?

So are you suggesting that the federal government helps pay for their employees Healthcare premiums?? I think you are greatly mistaken.

What I know is that my gf, who is a federal emplyee, pays a premium and a high co-pay. It has got to the point where she will refuse to go to the doctor because she don't want to pay the co-pay. If health insurance was that good she would go to the doctor more often. She gets an annual check up maybe once every 3 years.

Angie, Do you think that federal employees pay 100% of their health care premium? No, they certainly don't. This is why Obama is now saying that the extension of benefits to partners is not going to include health insurance. It is not politically feasible for him to extend health insurance because most Americans would reject that vigorously.

I'm a little confused by the comments that refer to the deterioration of the family unit and the fear that procreation will slow down and civilization as a whole will crumble. Honestly, you think simply by not allowing gay marriage that all the gay people in the world will just give up being gay and get married and turn straight? Or do you feel it more socially stable and preferable for a closeted gay man to be so fearful of the social consequences of being gay that he is willing to involve the lives of a whole collection of people in order to hide behind by getting married to a woman having kids and then realizing 25 years later that he simply cannot go on like that anymore and break up that 'family unit? So in that scenario the wife and the children become the casualty of society; her life devoted to a man who has been too afraid to even let her know who he really is. What kind of a healthy family unit could possibly come from a scenario like that?
The bottom line here is that until people accept that the truth of the 'gay' condition is that it is not simply a 'choice' these kinds of half baked arguments are going to litter the forefront of any debate.

Back to the issue...

Federal employees pay a monthly/bi-monthly premium for health care. If they have life insurance, they pay a premium on that as well. They also pay a large amount of money in taxes every pay. If they are paying for the healthcare, why shouldn't their partners recieve the benifits that they pay for if they want them to?

I cannot edit that comment on the commandment issue. I realize I was wrong on that issue. Get over it..lol

Jason:We are seeing the results of this in the single mothers who are struggling to raise their children now

How did homosexual couples result in single mothers? There is no proof that a hetrosexual couple is any better parents than a homosexual couple. It only becomes difficult when there are people with prejudice views, like yours, clouding the minds of innocent people causing the confusion in parenting.