Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners

[sportage]

MSNBC: Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37479356/ns/politics

"" 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.
""

This is weird since the fed gov won't recognize same sex marriage.
Its like offering a free car wash to people that do not own a car.

 

[Zebo]

Important first step. Congress has to allow the big benefits such as survivors benefits, health insurance etc.

 

[cubby1223]

This is fine and all, just curious though, do we not have a legislative branch any more?

 

[Danube]

Great to know Obama is so fully engaged homosexualizing the military and spending money on gay boyfriends while the largest enviro disaster is under way. It's an administration that does everything backwards.

 

[nonlnear]

This is fine and all, just curious though, do we not have a legislative branch any more?

*Ahem*

Obama's memorandum covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action.

 

[MJinZ]

Great to know Obama is so fully engaged homosexualizing the military and spending money on gay boyfriends while the largest enviro disaster is under way. It's an administration that does everything backwards.

What, he can't talk on the phone and drive at the same time?

 

[bfdd]

Sweet now they can take some of the federal benefits away from everyone equally

 

[halik]

MSNBC: Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37479356/ns/politics

"" 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.
""

This is weird since the fed gov won't recognize same sex marriage.
Its like offering a free car wash to people that do not own a car.

Err how do they define (same sex) couples? If my g/f or my roommate works for gov't, do i get french benefits?

 

[Hacp]

That's fine but who's going to pay for all this? At a time when we need to cut federal spending, Obama is raising it!

 

[nonlnear]

Err how do they define (same sex) couples? If my g/f or my roommate works for gov't, do i get french benefits?

The bigger potential problem is if this is worded to only extend benefits to same sex couples if the same benefits are not also extended to unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, the predication of benefits on sexual activity at all is potentially problematic if you look further down the road at the kind of cases that might arise. How much sexual activity is needed to qualify a couple for benefits if there is no legal institutional definition required? What's the difference between a married couple with an open relationship, a gay unmarried couple with an open relationship, and long term roommates with separate, promiscuous sex lives but occasionally drunk trysts? Unless marriage is opened up so we can avoid these questions, the case law is going to get very VERY steamy...

 

[LumbergTech]

the bigger potential problem is if this is worded to only extend benefits to same sex couples if the same benefits are not also extended to unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, the predication of benefits on sexual activity at all is potentially problematic if you look further down the road at the kind of cases that might arise. How much sexual activity is needed to qualify a couple for benefits if there is no legal institutional definition required? What's the difference between a married couple with an open relationship, a gay unmarried couple with an open relationship, and long term roommates with separate, promiscuous sex lives but occasionally drunk trysts? Unless marriage is opened up so we can avoid these questions, the case law is going to get very very steamy... :d

answer the question sir...did you or did you not put your penis in his ass?

 

[halik]

The bigger potential problem is if this is worded to only extend benefits to same sex couples if the same benefits are not also extended to unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, the predication of benefits on sexual activity at all is potentially problematic if you look further down the road at the kind of cases that might arise. How much sexual activity is needed to qualify a couple for benefits if there is no legal institutional definition required? What's the difference between a married couple with an open relationship, a gay unmarried couple with an open relationship, and long term roommates with separate, promiscuous sex lives but occasionally drunk trysts? Unless marriage is opened up so we can avoid these questions, the case law is going to get very VERY steamy...

Heh exactly my point and a great example why half-assed policy doesn't work. Either you have a federal support for some sort of 2-people institution or you don't.

I presume you're an attorney?

 

[nonlnear]

I presume you're an attorney?

Worse: mathematician.

 

[Jaskalas]

Living at the same address would count?

 

[JS80]

Lol roommates unite leech off the teet of government.

 

[AreaCode707]

The bigger potential problem is if this is worded to only extend benefits to same sex couples if the same benefits are not also extended to unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, the predication of benefits on sexual activity at all is potentially problematic if you look further down the road at the kind of cases that might arise. How much sexual activity is needed to qualify a couple for benefits if there is no legal institutional definition required? What's the difference between a married couple with an open relationship, a gay unmarried couple with an open relationship, and long term roommates with separate, promiscuous sex lives but occasionally drunk trysts? Unless marriage is opened up so we can avoid these questions, the case law is going to get very VERY steamy...

Don't the same benefits already extend to people in civil marriages? I have no actual knowledge here but I would guess that the definition of domestic partner for these purposes might match civil marriage.

 

[PokerGuy]

So how are "domestic partners" defined? What about hetero partners who are not married? Roomies can now claim benefits together? This opens a huge can of worms and of course the idiots in washington have not thought it through. In their hurry to make their political base happy they forgot that there are problems that need to be resolved first.

 

[halik]

So how are "domestic partners" defined? What about hetero partners who are not married? Roomies can now claim benefits together? This opens a huge can of worms and of course the idiots in washington have not thought it through. In their hurry to make their political base happy they forgot that there are problems that need to be resolved first.

I would find it hard to believe that policy makers ignore that huge issue; it's moreso that whatever measure they pass will only seem to cater to their base and doesn't actually implement anything.

 

[zsdersw]

Great to know Obama is so fully engaged homosexualizing the military and spending money on gay boyfriends while the largest enviro disaster is under way. It's an administration that does everything backwards.

Your deflector shields are on again, apparently.

 

[Greenman]

San Francisco did this a while back. The vast majority of people receiving the new benefits were straight.
Like every other feel good policy enacted, it will cost vast amounts of money and be loaded with fraud.

 

[piasabird]

I think the straight couples who just live together, should sue for equal rights.

 

[Carmen813]

I think the straight couples who just live together, should sue for equal rights.

Domestic partnership laws apply to everyone afaik.

 

[woolfe9999]

How about just looking up the federal definition of "same sex domestic partner" instead of speculating for 10 posts about who this applies do, replete with speculations about "sexual activity" requirements and other such nonsense?

Try this:

Domestic partnership is defined as a committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, in which the partners:

Are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
Have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement indefinitely;
Are at least 18 years of age;
Share responsibility for a significant measure of each other’s financial obligations;
Are not married to anyone else;
Are not a domestic partner of anyone else;
Are not related in a way that, if they were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and
Will certify they understand that willful falsification of information within the documentation may lead to disciplinary action, loss of insurance coverage and/or the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

https://www.ltcfeds.com/eligibility/ssdp.html#requirements

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

How about just looking up the federal definition of "same sex domestic partner" instead of speculating for 10 posts about who this applies do, replete with speculations about "sexual activity" requirements and other such nonsense?

Oh but it's so much fun!

I also do it in some cases to illustrate the sad shape of the journalistic trade today. Nothing I wrote is an unreasonable abstraction based on the article. The article makes no mention of legal standards, references no outside sources, public records, or even specific jargon for the reader to further educate herself on the matter. Every now and then I like to imagine a world in which news articles reference their sources in a way that is convenient for the reader to use, and allows the information in the article to be used as a starting point for a journey of self education. It's a silly thought I know. I should just get used to the current standard of cramming the juiciest bits in, using the shortest words possible, and not confusing the reader with links, references, citations, or specifics. Better that the few who care to get real information have to spend at least 5 or 10 clicks before they find a secondary (or rather the primary) source.

edit: Not to mention the official definition you just linked is very problematic in its own right, for one or two of the reasons I brought up, among others.

 

[PokerGuy]

woolfe9999: that definition you posted starts with "defined as a committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex". So, does that mean it's discriminatory against partners of different genders? If so, is that fair, and how would it pass muster if challenged under the equal protection clause? Lots of open questions, very few answers.

As usual in washington, more spending, less thinking. That should be the official motto of DC, placed on the license plates: "welcome to DC, more spending, less thinking!"