It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners


www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is extending child care, medical leave and other benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Obama on Wednesday directed federal agencies to immediately begin allowing domestic partners and their children some of the same rights available to spouses and children of employees. That includes child-care services and subsidies, expanded family and medical leave and relocation and other benefits.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I'm quite impressed with how quick these things are coming.


Obama said in a statement that while his directive was an "important step on the path to equality," existing federal law prevented him from taking further action to provide same-sex domestic partners with the same benefits offered to heterosexual married couples.


Gotta give Obama credit where it's due.

Thoughts ATS?

~Keeper

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I'm all for equality.

Yet part of me is uneasy about this.

I will have to wait and see how this translates to policy in practice.

Tell me, are we destined for a 'gay rights' affirmative action program?

Don't laugh too hard....


[edit on 2-6-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I am all for gay rights, but the problem with this bill is that benefits should only be extended to spouses of employees. What is to stop any person, gay or straight, from giving their benefits to anybody. I can see young and single federal employees selling their benefits to complete strangers.

The only way to prevent this potential abuse is to have legally recognized gay marriages. This way, there will be less abuse.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I agree. There can be no control without certification. Man...., that sounds soooo fascist!



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
After giving thought to this, I am split down the middle on this. Half of me, says this is a bold step towards there being equal jusitice for all in the United States of America. But, and I hate to be a buzz kill as it were, but, here is what the other part says. If this was not an election year, where the control over the federal government is in the balance, I can only say that this is just a political pandering, to try to gather support from a voting bloc of the population, that is slowly gaining more and more support from the rest of the population. If this was done in a non election year, then, I would have no doubt that the actions and bills passed, were more for the correct reason and not to gather support for one political party or the other. It is not the stuff they do during an election year that matters, cause then they are trying to gather votes and supporters, but rather what is done when the same actions are done when it is not an election year that states if they are doing it for the correct reasons, or not.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by sdcigarpig]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I'm all for equality.

Yet part of me is uneasy about this.

I will have to wait and see how this translates to policy in practice.

Tell me, are we destined for a 'gay rights' affirmative action program?

Don't laugh too hard....


[edit on 2-6-2010 by Maxmars]


I dont' think you can have affirmative action for Gays, cause it's illegal to ask the question in an interview, so there's no way to hire a "gay" person.

I agree that on some level there is room for abuse, but that's like anything.

How many people have had sham marriages so they could pass on benefits to another?

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Where do we draw the line? Pretty soon people will be demanding that they marry their pet. People with red hair will claim they are treated unequal against those with blonde or brown hair. To each his own and how a person chooses to live their life, that is their choice but to make society accept your choice does not make for a just society. What purpose does marriage serve other than tax benefits? This just provides more people to use another excuse to milk the rest of us honest folks for our last penny.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Oh please not the tired Next thing ya know people will marry their pet nonsense.

Humans are not animals, and gay humans are not animals either. A human wanting to marry a human will not lead to bestiality.

The only people opposing this are homophobes and bigots, or those religious zealots who want to use their beliefs as basis for law.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

...

The only people opposing this are homophobes and bigots, or those religious zealots who want to use their beliefs as basis for law.


I agree with what you are saying, except that last part. You do not have to be any of those things to oppose this bill.

While we are all equal, the government has a poor record of 'coping' with that equality. I believe that the failure of the government to accede the inviolate nature of true equality has been a war of excuses. And populist politics enters into it the moment the spotlight swings their way.

I truly hope we, as a culture, can embrace the freedom to choose a lifestyle; but I have little hopes that the body politic can, even if we want them to.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by joojii
Where do we draw the line? Pretty soon people will be demanding that they marry their pet. People with red hair will claim they are treated unequal against those with blonde or brown hair. To each his own and how a person chooses to live their life, that is their choice but to make society accept your choice does not make for a just society. What purpose does marriage serve other than tax benefits? This just provides more people to use another excuse to milk the rest of us honest folks for our last penny.


We could always revoke the tax exempt status of churches since they usually see fit to inject their beliefs into policy matters.

Think of the money we could get from organizations like the catholic church.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join