Obama extends benefits of gay federal workers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204654.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Quote :

"President Obama extended Wednesday a wider range of benefits to the same-sex partners of eligible federal workers, including access to medical treatment, relocation assistance, credit unions and fitness centers. The move goes beyond a memo Obama signed last June, which permitted same-sex partners to use the government's long-term-care insurance and other fringe benefits. The Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday that same-sex partners will become eligible for such insurance next month. Obama also ordered federal agencies last year to identify other benefits that could be offered to same-sex partners. A review by the Office of Personnel Management and Justice Department determined that at least some agencies could also permit credit union and gym memberships and access to counseling services, adoption counseling, and agency events or outings. A limited number of intelligence and financial regulatory agencies, Obama's memo said, will be able to provide reimbursements for health-insurance premiums, dental and vision insurance, business travel accident insurance and tax reimbursements for gym memberships, physical exams and homeowners' insurance."

This is what equality looks like.



Interestingly...

Quote :

"These benefits do not cover uniformed members of the military. Last week, the House voted to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from openly serving in uniform, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a repeal in the coming weeks. If a repeal is included in the final version of the annual defense spending bill, the Pentagon would take steps next year to address the treatment of gay and lesbian service members. "

I wonder what that will look like if/when it happens.

6/3/2010 5:28:12 PM

What sort of relationship is required to get these benefits? Is there a requirement that you live together for a certain amount of time?

This is discrimination against heterosexuals. If a homo doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner (regardless of whether he actually could or not) - the partner gets benefits.

If a normal person doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner - no benefits.

[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM. Reason : a]

6/3/2010 5:54:18 PM

^

Quote :

"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."

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

6/3/2010 6:01:11 PM

^^ Give homosexuals marriage rights, same as heterosexuals, and your concerns are addressed.

6/3/2010 6:02:25 PM

no surprise there

promise first - worry about the consequences later

6/3/2010 6:03:13 PM

Quote :

"If a normal person doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner - no benefits."

Plz to think of the children normal people.

6/3/2010 6:07:53 PM

I love how things are done under the guise of "equal rights for all"
but as soon as the shoe is on the other foot you can be quick to judge what is "normal"

6/3/2010 6:20:06 PM

^ I don't support "equal rights" marriage or benefits for "partners" and so there is no hypocrisy or tension when I judge what is normal.

6/3/2010 6:30:53 PM

Quote :

"Are not related in a way that, if they were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside"

Hay hay hay, that's not fair.

6/3/2010 6:35:10 PM

^ west virginia disagrees

[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ..]

6/3/2010 6:38:38 PM

You don't even have to be gay to get the benefit. Just sign up your roommate, provided you are the same sex. No one is gonna check if you two are banging each other.

6/3/2010 6:41:15 PM

pretty sure they can check the financial thing... aka joint accounts/cards

6/3/2010 6:44:49 PM

^ They won't, though. It's right here from the same site.

Quote :

"No documentation other than the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form is required. Agencies/retirement systems do not have to ask for proof of the partnership. "

6/3/2010 6:49:07 PM

What kinds of forms and documentation are required of heterosexual married couples wishing to have benefits for spouses?

6/3/2010 7:02:24 PM

Quote :

"This is discrimination against heterosexuals. If a homo doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner (regardless of whether he actually could or not) - the partner gets benefits. If a normal person doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner - no benefits. "

Leave it to the government to fuck something so simple up. When I worked for a big bad evil corporation with a similar policy (OMG equality without legal force!!!!) benefits were applied to any domestic partnership, without regard to sexual preference. The only difference was actual married couples had the benefits tax free, domestic partnerships had to pay taxes on the benefits paid to the non-employee partner. Ironically this was also due to government fuck up: preferential tax treatment in the first place.

6/3/2010 7:42:52 PM

So gays can merely "promise" that their butt buddy is their domestic partner and they get benefits?

WTF

What stops any two dudes who are roommates living together from claiming to be "domestic partners" for benefit purposes.

Heterosexuals actually have to get married. Dudes or lesbian chicks just need to claim to play butt darts and get the same benefits.

6/3/2010 8:07:20 PM

^ Again, make it so homosexuals can get married freely, then that complaint is rendered moot.

6/3/2010 8:10:14 PM

Quote :

"What kinds of forms and documentation are required of heterosexual married couples wishing to have benefits for spouses?"

You just give them their info, including SSN, so it would be pretty easy to check if they are married or not. It's black and white. Not so much with domestic partnerships.

6/3/2010 8:13:00 PM

The double standard here is based on the following facts:

1. Homosexuals cannot be legally married as far as federal law is concerned (DOMA). Heterosexuals can be married in the eyes of federal law.

2. Homosexual partners of government workers can receive benefits with simple documentation. Heterosexual partners of government employees can, too.

3. The government may or may not check these statuses at their whim.


So because the federal law does not allow for gays to be considered married, they cannot produce paperwork for actual, federally-recognized marriages. But then folks say that the paperwork requirement for homosexuals to obtain benefits is too weak, because it isn't marriage.

6/3/2010 8:22:49 PM

If it makes social conservatives cry and moan, then I am all for it.

6/3/2010 8:37:44 PM

Where I work at least, I didn't have to provide any proof of marriage for benefits (just filled out a form).

6/3/2010 8:49:49 PM

^ Wait till you have a claim. I guarantee they will check then.

6/3/2010 8:53:10 PM

They do audits once a year or so. Dunno what happens if I make a claim.

6/3/2010 9:07:25 PM

Quote :

"Heterosexuals actually have to get married. Dudes or lesbian chicks just need to claim to play butt darts and get the same benefits."

getting married is a pretty trivial bar to be arguing about, for $50 and some time waiting in line any heterosexuals can be married and receiving benefits too

6/3/2010 9:54:33 PM

^ The process for getting married is that simple, but there are a number of legal hurdles that make that something less likely to be abused than two people claiming to be domestic partners. I mean, everyone has had that one bad breakup before. Now imagine if they had the legal power to take 50% of your assets too. Not quite the same for a domestic partnership. That said, I think the overall likelihood of abuse is small, so the only thing that bugs me is as I listed previously.

6/4/2010 1:28:33 PM

Fuck bigots world-wide.

TULIP people like you are on the way out. Thank fucking god.

6/4/2010 1:34:52 PM

i know. how dare he think something is wrong

6/4/2010 5:27:32 PM

Even fucking Rush Limbaugh is less of a bigot than some ppl in this thread.

http://gawker.com/5556213/elton-john-to-perform-at-rush-limbaughs-wedding

6/5/2010 6:16:38 PM

Hopefully people will abuse the steam-driven fuck out of this, and maybe eventually it will lead to government just getting out of the business of marriage to the maximum extent possible.

6/5/2010 6:52:56 PM

That won't happen, though. If there's abuse, the religious right will just blame "those godless sodomites," benefits will be curtailed, and everyone will be worse off for it.

6/5/2010 7:15:35 PM

Quote :

"Fuck bigots world-wide. "

Quote :

"Even fucking Rush Limbaugh is less of a bigot than some ppl in this thread."

Boy, it sounds like you all are utterly intolerant of my belief, creed and opinion, and strongly partial to your own politics.

I'm trying to find a word that describes that.

Hmmmm,

Quote :

"big·ot [big-uht] Show IPA –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. big·ot -noun One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

You're a bigot. And I'm a bigot. That's ok. But don't pretend that you guys somehow don't fit the same definition.

[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM. Reason : a]

6/5/2010 8:46:10 PM

Quote :

"I don't support "equal rights" marriage or benefits for "partners" and so there is no hypocrisy or tension when I judge what is normal."

Why do you not support equal rights for gays?

6/5/2010 10:09:26 PM

that's not at all what he said.

6/5/2010 10:19:38 PM

^I'm pretty sure that's precisely what he said.

You see that part where he says he doesn't "support 'equal rights' marriage."

The quotes he put around equal rights don't really mean or do anything. He is explicitly stating that he does not support equal rights for gay people.

How can you be so unclear about his view?


^^^Intolerance that infringes on the rights of others (your kind of intolerance)...is not the same thing as us telling you to go fuck yourself.

But congratulations on admitting that you're a bigot!

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 3:26:48 AM

TULIP can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he was saying he doesn't support equal marriage rights for people who are little more than "partners", regardless of the sexuality of those involved. He made that pretty clear in a previous post. need me to point that out to you? I'll do it anyway:

Quote :

"If a homo doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner (regardless of whether he actually could or not) - the partner gets benefits. If a normal person doesn't want to get married and lives with his partner - no benefits."

It's fucking clear as day in that quote what he is saying, and it has nothing to do with "i don't want equal rights for gays." That kind of slur is typical liberal playbook, though. Someone says something and you twist it massively into something else and then try to paint that person as a bigot

6/7/2010 12:24:29 AM

Quote :

"Hopefully people will abuse the steam-driven fuck out of this, and maybe eventually it will lead to government just getting out of the business of marriage to the maximum extent possible."

absolutely.

6/7/2010 11:38:15 AM

Quote :

"Boy, it sounds like you all are utterly intolerant of my belief, creed and opinion, and strongly partial to your own politics."

Hmm yes the people demanding tolerance in civil society are bigots. We're all bigots! So go ahead and work against equal rights for gays, because people campaigning for "equal rights" are really just bigots themselves! HUH DERPA DERP

Nobody gives a fuck what you believe. You have the right to believe it. You don't have the right to arbitrarily restrict the liberty of others, though. Sorry, but we live in a post-Enlightenment society! About time to start acting like it.

6/7/2010 11:46:22 AM