Obama to Extend Benefits to Gay Federal Workers

@anniepa (27955)
United States
June 16, 2009 8:42pm CST
Here is a surprising breaking news item that is bound to get some members here worked up into quite a tizzy! President Obama will announce tomorrow that he will extend health and other benefits to gay federal employees. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6483583.html Obama will make the announcement in the Oval Office tomorrow. There aren't many details available at this time but this announcement comes as a complete surprise. It's unknown if this will be just for his Presidency or if it will be an Executive Order which will go beyond the time he leaves office. Any thoughts? I say it's about time and let's hope other employers follow suit. Annie
3 people like this
20 responses
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jun 09
So gay people aren't looking for special treatment? A special federal program that is only available to gay people? How is that not special treatment? It is also patently unconstitutional. The Legislative Branch has ZERO authority to set benefits for federal workers. If Obama announced that he was making a special federal benefit just for conservatives, you would be spitting bullets... and rightly so.
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (9232)
• United States
17 Jun 09
It isn't a special benefit just for gays. If it were, it wouldn't be available for straights, and it is. But, gays were receiving health benefits 26 years ago when I began working for the IRS, so I think he's allowing recognition of the marriages as more and more states permit them.
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Jun 09
It is not special treatment, do you realize the word "extend" means to stretch out, that means that the benefits are already available to straight couples, so how is gay people getting the SAME benefits as straights called "special treatment"?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jun 09
and what about the fact that Obama has ZERO authority to set employment benefits for federal workers? Oh yeah, I forgot, Fascist Dictators like Obama needn't bother themselves with the US Constitution... reality.. or anything that might get in the way of their minions worshipping at his smelly feet.
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
17 Jun 09
I'll guess it'll be an executive order. This will set a precedence.
2 people like this
@cdparazo (5765)
• Philippines
17 Jun 09
I think it is about time and i hope its not only for gay or lesbian because that would be unfair also. I think not all states allows gay marriages so some of them may just have 'life partners' and it would really help those gay couples a lot if their partners receives benefits as if they are actually 'legally married'. But how about those who are not gay and have life partners? it should also be taken into consideration.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jun 09
It is only for Gay people. It is discrimination. It is also unconstitutional for the president to do something that the US Constitution does not allow of him.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jun 09
Do any other unmarried people get it? NO! It is discrimination for gay people.. but that's ok under Der Fuhrer Obama.
• United States
17 Jun 09
Learn the definition of extend: to stretch out; to enlarge the scope of .....this is NOT just for gay people, heck even former spouses could get federal health benefits of straight people...but here is a link that shows that spouses get benefits under federal employees health benefits http://www.opm.gov/INSURE/HEALTH/INDEX.ASP just read the first sentence and here is where they specifically say spouse (which is going to be changed with this proposal of Obama) http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/faq/family.asp#1 so obviously NO this is not special treatment because straight couples have already had these benefits, and proved by these links
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
18 Jun 09
If this is for unmarried partners, then I can't agree with it unless it extends to the boyfriends and girlfriends of ALL federal employees - not just the gay ones. This would be an example of unequal treatment, only it wouldn't be gays getting the short end, this time.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Jun 09
It doesn't apply to health or pension benefits, apparently that can't be done by the President, it has to be passed by Congress. Annie
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
18 Jun 09
Are they going to make this policy via legislation?
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Jun 09
I don't know if you know my situation that i see both sides of every fence, i have a half black brother but im white and both parents are white so I can both sides of it all, I and so I understand that all that should matter is that we are all the same but gays are the new milleniums prejudice and people are unfairly against for really no reason besides what they read in a book
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Excellent point and I can understand how you do have a unique perspective. Annie
• United States
17 Jun 09
*the people who are against it are that way usually because of what they read out of a book
1 person likes this
@katsmeow1213 (28717)
• United States
17 Jun 09
We've been fighting for equality since the beginning of time. You'd think in today's world there would be less prejudice. I guess there is still a lot of ignorance and fear out there.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
I agree. Prejudice is something I've never been able to understand. I guess ignorance will always exist in some areas but the fear is really confusing to me. WHY do straight couples "fear" gay couples being allowed to marry and/or enjoy the same benefits they do? It seems some people have the idea with everything that to give to one group means you must take away from another. So I guess they think one day heterosexuals won't be allowed to marry but gays will...lol? Annie
• United States
17 Jun 09
This is one of the very few actions made by Obama that I approve of.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Hey, well at least there's a few! Annie
@alindahaw (1219)
• Philippines
18 Jun 09
As long as this program also covers straight people who are living together, then I think that it is alright but if it only covers gays and lesbians, this program should be thrown out of the window immediately. If the government wants to extend employment benefits, the benefits should be given to all employees and not only to some chosen few.
• United States
17 Jun 09
I think this is a great step in the right direction. I'm so glad that this is happening because there is no reason that could come from a kind and just mind that does not think that gay people do not deserve the SAME rights as straight people, I'm glad that federal workers who are gay will be able to give their very loved partner benefits because every healthy and loving relationship should be viewed as equal to all others...this just makes me hopeful for the future
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
It's so nice to read something positive and hopeful for a change! Thank you, again! Annie
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
17 Jun 09
We've had that for years where I work. No biggie.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
That's one of the shortest responses I've gotten but it's also one of the best if not THE "Best Response". Annie
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Well, now that is a good thing! They should have had these benefits all along.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
19 Jun 09
Absolutely! It's a disgrace they haven't, in my opinion. Annie
@jerzgirl (9232)
• United States
17 Jun 09
I say WOOHOO! Working for the Feds has long been one place where gay people could, for the most part, work without fear (I'm not saying there aren't individual instances of discrimination). I remember working for IRS in the 80s in Utah and it was the first time I'd ever worked with anyone who was openly gay. No one hassled them, everyone got along, it made a huge impression on me at that time. I've felt ever since that there is no reason to deny employment or health benefits to anyone because of their gender preference. Now I'm assuming that you mean extending the benefits to their partners because 26 years ago, they were getting all the benefits as employees already.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Yes, I did mean extending the benefits to their partners. I guess my fingers got ahead of my brain on this one. That's surprising that you had that experience 26 years ago in Utah of all places! Annie
• United States
17 Jun 09
It's about time! Many states and large corporations already do this. It is, in my opinion, a basic civil rights issue.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
That's exactly how I look at it as well. Annie
@trose7 (243)
• United States
17 Jun 09
He's not doing nearly enough for equality, but this is a step forward I guess.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
19 Jun 09
I tend to agree with you. I don't know why equality for gays should be seen as a "liberal" agenda. To me it's a human rights issue. Annie
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Shouldn't there be a requirement where they need the domestic partnership certificate to prove they are in a committed relationship? I mean married couples have to provide their marriage certificate and parents have to provide their kid's birth certificates. To be truly equal, the same would have to apply to domestic partnerships to show that they are in a committed relationship. If that clause is left out of his executive order, than that is most certainly discrimination.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
What if they're not about to get a certificate to prove they're in a committed relationship? Are such things even available in every state? Annie
• United States
17 Jun 09
I haven't looked at every state law but I know in States like California, Florida and a few others there is a legal process to become domestic partners. I think you see the problem if they don't have a certificate. Then any two people could claim that they are in a relationship and get benefits. Which since this only applies to gay/lesbian couples would in fact be discrimination against straight men and women who live together but aren't married.
1 person likes this
@dloveli (4366)
• United States
17 Jun 09
Let me just say that I think it's wonderful for everyone to get benefits. As long as everyone is now getting the benefits then I am okay with it. If it is just gay federal workers that are getting certain benefits then that's not okay. Equal rights and opportunities for all. dl
• United States
17 Jun 09
Well, it is about time. I cannot believe how backward this country is. The land of the free unless you are gay, hispanic, african american, chinese, moslem (from any country), not the right kind of christian, female, east indian, american indian...
• United States
18 Jun 09
It doesn't matter to me who benefits from an employee's benefit package.
• United States
17 Jun 09
There goes the arguments lol.. Okay, here's m opinion. I'm personally happy that Obama is doing anything for healthcare at all. I just hope he keeps making changes so that those less fortunate can recieve help in their time of need. Gay or straight doesn't matter. Nobody is going to agree all of the time. Whether you are for gay marriage or against it doesn't even matter anymore. It is acceptable by the law in certain states and there's really no room left for people to sit and complain about it. It is a law like it or not. They become married, then they should be elligible to recieve the same options of every other married couple.
1 person likes this
@trose7 (243)
• United States
17 Jun 09
He's not doing nearly enough for equality, but this is a step forward I guess.