«
»

Classic Obama Plan: Give Them Taxpayer Money, But Not Liberty

June 17, 2009, 7:50 am

With gays upset that Obama has aligned himself squarely behind DOMA and Don't-ask-don't-tell in the military, he has decided to pay them off rather than address their equal treatment questions:

President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but stopping short of a guarantee of full health insurance, a White House official said.

The health insurance exception is particularly funny given Obama's current universal-coverage-driven health care proposals.

Tags: , , , , ,
Category: Individual Rights
  • http://evilredscandi.blogspot.com Evil Red Scandi

    They should have remembered: Barack Obama does not support gay rights. Never has.

    On the other hand, Darth Cheney does...

  • the other coyote

    Under the federal defense of marriage act, Bammy can't give same-sex couples the same "real" benefits as opposite sex married couples. The federal defense of marriage act covers all the real benefits. All he's left with is crap like relocation assistance, which most federal jobs don't offer anyway.

    I didn't think the American attention span was long enough to keep believing in this fraud.

  • Dr. T

    As a former federal employee I can state that the health insurance benefit is worth more than twice as much as all other benefits combined. The other benefits don't help your spouse or partner. Life insurance and disability insurance are only for the employee. I cannot think of any federal employee benefit, other than health and dental insurances, that would directly benefit a spouse or partner.

    So, essentially, Obama promised same-sex partners nothing.

  • HS

    In my opinion, the institution of marriage is a religious and cultural interest. It is a strong one mind you but still a special interest. I think we should just get rid of any benefits associated with marriage along the lines of seperation of "church" and state. The freedom of choice should go two ways and government should not support either.

  • Jimbeaux

    My own response to the whole gay marriage question is this: Christians and like-minded people with a strong religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman should just ignore the State. Quit getting state-sanctioned marriage licenses at all. Go ahead and get married in church, have the minister sign your marriage certificate, and viola, you're married. Instead of separating church and state by not allowing the state to issue licenses you don't agree with, quit asking the church to give you a license at all. Get a religious certificate and don't worry about the state. If in their mind marriage is or should be a union between a man and a woman before God, then who cares if the state is involved? I know there might be issues occasionally with this approach, but come on - how many times have you been asked to produce your marriage license to prove you're married?

  • Arty

    Unfortunately, due to long government meddling, it's just not that simple. Spouses get many default priviledges. Caveat: most of these can be granted to *anyone* with a proper contract/living will.

    The presumption of ownership of assets after death (depending on the state)
    The ability to decide on medical care if you are incapable.
    There are a lot of restrictions on spousal testimony, pretty broad ones in fact.
    Shared consideration in pretty much every kind of insurance (which swings both ways if you marry a crappy driver)
    Assumption of some joint interest in assets (if for instance one of you is a stay at home dad/mom)
    Ability to take on debt for which both parties are liable (actually i see this as a downside, especially if you get divorced)

    In addition there are a lot of more intangable problems. In most states any form of polygamy (multiple men or women) is still illegal, which is a form of state marriage control. Child welfare issues tend to take into account who is living with you and why (though this is getting a *little* better)... etc. etc.

    Basically, getting the government out of marriage isn't terribly simple.