• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

NDNdancer

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
523
Reaction score
292
Location
On the Edge
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.

Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Updated 9:23 p.m.
By Scott Butterworth
President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said tonight.

Obama will sign an executive order implementing the change in the Oval Office, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president's announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department announced a similar extension of benefits last month, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling it "the right thing to do."

The action will come as welcome news to gay-rights activists, who have voiced loud disappointment with Obama's handling of several issues important to their community.
 
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.



what it is...
... and I'm opposed to these special recognitions ...or taggings if you will of various special interests in the USA.

'Unmarried Partners' is alot of people but somehow I doubt they mean everyone..IF they do then hey whatever all good everyone is equal.
..if they do not then Constitution?
 
what it is...
... and I'm opposed to these special recognitions ...or taggings if you will of various special interests in the USA.

'Unmarried Partners' is alot of people but somehow I doubt they mean everyone..IF they do then hey whatever all good everyone is equal.
..if they do not then Constitution?

Yeah, they mean everyone "including same sex partners".
 
Who needs a congress?

Just for the record. Obama has a very long way to go before even approaching Bush's record on EO's (284). Everyone joked that he ruled by EO rather then governed.

I'm assuming that that's the exact reason Obama doesn't change don't ask don't tell, or DOMA, he's waiting for congress to do it.
 
I wonder how many billions this adds to the federal deficit?
 
I wonder how many billions this adds to the federal deficit?

Who cares? It wouldn't be an issue if they were married, would it? So why is it an issue because they're not?
 
Who cares? It wouldn't be an issue if they were married, would it? So why is it an issue because they're not?

Except they aren't married, so that doesn't matter. Why should you, as an employee of the government, be able to get taxpayer funded benefits for your boyfriend or girlfriend just because they move in with you? I wouldn't have an issue with doing this for gay couples who have actually been married in states that recognize it, but this bill is extending these benefits to everyone's unwed partner, gay or straight. Celticlord is correct. We can't afford it.
 
Except they aren't married, so that doesn't matter. Why should you, as an employee of the government, be able to get taxpayer funded benefits for your boyfriend or girlfriend just because they move in with you? I wouldn't have an issue with doing this for gay couples who have actually been married in states that recognize it, but this bill is extending these benefits to everyone's unwed partner, gay or straight. Celticlord is correct. We can't afford it.

Gays shouldn't be punished just because they're not allowed to get married.

This would be in keeping with those who say that gays should not be allowed to use the term "marriage". Instead, they should have civil unions with all the rights, benefits, and privileges that married couples enjoy. Are you someone who won't even allow them that?
 
Gays shouldn't be punished just because they're not allowed to get married.

This would be in keeping with those who say that gays should not be allowed to use the term "marriage". Instead, they should have civil unions with all the rights, benefits, and privileges that married couples enjoy. Are you someone who won't even allow them that?

Stop dancing around issue. This isn't about civil unions or gay people. He is extending benefits to anyone in any relationship. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not. You can be a heterosexual couple that is not married and your significant other can still get Federal benefits paid for by us. And Reverend_Hellh0und is correct. The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?
 
Stop dancing around issue. This isn't about civil unions or gay people. He is extending benefits to anyone in any relationship. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not. You can be a heterosexual couple that is not married and your significant other can still get Federal benefits paid for by us. And Reverend_Hellh0und is correct. The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?

Easy solution, legalize gay marriage, then all you have to worry about are the married folks getting benefits. Problem solved, if you really want to solve it.

As it stands now, this is the only way for parterns in a gay relationship that can't marry to get benefits for their loved ones.
 
Last edited:
Stop dancing around issue. This isn't about civil unions or gay people. He is extending benefits to anyone in any relationship. It doesn't matter if you're gay or not. You can be a heterosexual couple that is not married and your significant other can still get Federal benefits paid for by us. And Reverend_Hellh0und is correct. The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?

I don't care who he extends it to. A partner is a partner is a partner. If the feds are going to give benefits to partners who are married, then it should give them to partners who aren't.

But that isn't the real issue. Government should not be giving benefits to married couples in the first place. But as long as they are, then I support expansion of the partner pool as a matter of equity.

So, give benefits to all partners or give them to no partners.
 
So wait?

If I get a new federal job at a different field office that pays for relocation fee's, I can get that money not just for me but for my girlfriend that I live with if she wishes to come, despite being married? Likewise, I just need to wait for another open season and can put her on my health insurance despite not being married?

is this what this is saying?
 
The potential for fraud is huge. What if I my girlfriend doesn't live with me? What's to stop me from claiming she does so she can get tax payer paid benefits? Do you think the bureaucrats will take the time to try and prove otherwise?

Why not? I'm sure they can devise a plan that would require proof.

Not too long ago, my employer sent out letters to a random sampling of employees with dependents requiring them to prove that the dependents they were claiming for benefits were actually their dependents or they'd cut off their medical insurance. They had to submit, pay stubs, a marriage license, birth certificates, tax returns, etc. I'm curious as to how many employees they caught defrauding the company.
 
So wait?

If I get a new federal job at a different field office that pays for relocation fee's, I can get that money not just for me but for my girlfriend that I live with if she wishes to come, despite being married? Likewise, I just need to wait for another open season and can put her on my health insurance despite not being married?

is this what this is saying?





Think about it, why would he do this.


To drive up the costs of healthcare for the private sector to make the desire for public healthcare grow.
 
Think about it, why would he do this.


To drive up the costs of healthcare for the private sector to make the desire for public healthcare grow.

The correct action would be to strip federal benefits from all married couples instead of expanding them to all couples regardless of marital status.

Tax dollars should not be wasted on benefits for married couples.
 
The correct action would be to strip federal benefits from all married couples instead of expanding them to all couples regardless of marital status.

Tax dollars should not be wasted on benefits for married couples.




+10000



I am a firm believer that the Government should be out of the Marriage buisiness.
 
Just for the record. Obama has a very long way to go before even approaching Bush's record on EO's (284). Everyone joked that he ruled by EO rather then governed.

I'm assuming that that's the exact reason Obama doesn't change don't ask don't tell, or DOMA, he's waiting for congress to do it.

Who needs EO's when you can assign 24 various "Czars" to usurp the constitution? What's next, everyone will start calling each other "comrade" in the COUSA (Community Organization of the United States of America)??

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.


By the way, what about them 5,000,000 NEW jobs? When is that supposed to happen? We are spending the nation into a BIG HOLE and now we are creating a vast new bureaucracy for Universal health care and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

With jobs continuing to disappear, who is paying for all this largess? What happened to pay-go? How are you going to get to pay-go? Why are Americans not outraged by this vast usurpation of power and spending?
 
Last edited:
After the DOJ defended DOMA last week and his refusal to reverse don't ask don't tell, he totally infuriated the gay rights activists, so, he throws them a bone. I guess it's progress.

Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Just another chip taken off of marriage.

Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
 
Just another chip taken off of marriage.

Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.

Again, the article doesn't give any specific parameters.

If you have information the rest of us don't , please share it.
 
Just another chip taken off of marriage.

Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.

More of that slippery slope as we march to the beat of rationalization.
 
Back
Top Bottom