BREAKING: President Obama to Extend Benefits to Federal Workers' Partners

by atdleft, Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 04:59:23 PM EDT

Apparently, this is the news rumored to break before the upcoming LGBT fundraiser for the DNC:

An Obama administration official has confirmed to The Advocate that President Barack Obama will be signing a presidential memorandum Wednesday to provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
The signing is scheduled for 5:45 p.m. in the Oval Office, and the president is scheduled to make brief remarks.

I guess this is good news. I mean, it is progress and LGBT federal employees have been waiting quite some time for domestic partner benefits. But if President Obama is doing this just to placate the community to get the money flowing out of our wallets again for the June 26 DNC fundraiser, this isn't enough.

We want out full civil rights, and we're tired of small token gestures and nice words followed by inaction. We want full equality, and we want it NOW!

Again, this is good start. LGBT federal employees deserve this kind of respect and protection. And yes, I'll commend the President for doing it. I just hope tomorrow we'll also get word of when the rest of us will get some equality as well.

Tags: civil rights, LGBT rights, President Obama, progressive values (all tags)

Comments

60 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Or am I just crazy for equality?

by atdleft 2009-06-16 05:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: President Obama to Extend Benefits to Partners

A good step in the right dirction. But still not nearly enough.

by LakersFan 2009-06-16 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Very true.

Obviously, our pressure is working. The White House and the DNC have been sweating bullets this month as the June 26 fundraiser is approaching... And donors were starting to pull their support after last week's DoJ memo on DOMA. They obviously wanted to do something to turn the tide.

Hopefully, this is only the start. I'm glad the federal employees are getting their long-awaited DP benefits. Still, I hope President Obama will remember the rest of us and announce some action on DOMA, DADT, and ENDA tomorrow.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 05:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: President Obama to Extend Benefits to Partners

It's not nearly enough.
Thjat is so true. The Geezer and Gidget would have done so much more for your community, now wouldn't they?
Oop, I forgot. We missed the opportunity to save the workd when we rejected Dennis Kucinich.

by spirowasright 2009-06-16 08:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

this will affect thousands of people

It's important and welcome news.

Keep pushing for full equality, though!

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-16 05:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

The engine driving for equality can never stop.

I strongly believe that Obama will repeal DADT and DOMA.

by louisprandtl 2009-06-16 05:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

bruh will be here soon to remind us why

this is all because of him and Obama still sucks.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 06:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

FINALLY!!!

We don't BITE....but we do VOTE.

by nikkid 2009-06-16 06:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Cautious Optimism

I'm waiting to see whether this is a memorandum or an executive order. That will really be telling on how serious he is about gay right.

by political22 2009-06-16 06:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree....

If he does make it an EO, so the next President would actually have to do another EO to counter it...

Then it's late but good. If it's a memorandum...

he is just trying to throw a bone, and hopes this placates the gay community.

Understand, I think the DOJ did the right thing in the Smelt case, and I understand that the Military is overrun with Christian Conservatives, so DADT will take some time to overturn.

But THIS, he should have done on Day one.

Clinton didn't wait for the correct moment to extend this to her charges.

And the timing here stinks of appeasement.

And, he won't even do an EO on it, then...

This smacks of total political Bullshit.

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-16 07:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Then indeed

It's lame and wimpy, and just trying to placate.

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-16 07:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Will Obama...

Officially ask Congress to do just that tomorrow? Maybe if he does that while he signs his little memorandum, I'll see this as sincere. I'm sick of this "hot potato" crap of Obama blaming Reid & Pelosi for inaction while Reid & Pelosi blame Obama.

As Harry Truman would say, the buck needs to stop somewhere. Someone needs to act!

by atdleft 2009-06-16 08:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

True...

That Congress needs to come up with a bill. Still, that doesn't absolve Obama of his responsibility to live up to his promises. He didn't have to make the DoJ file that revulsive defense of DOMA last week, and he doesn't have to continue firing good soldiers because of DADT. And most importantly, he doesn't have to hesitate in using his bully pulpit to compel Congress to act!

by atdleft 2009-06-16 09:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Unrealistic?

60%+ supermajorities of Americans support nearly all of our "agenda", and a large majority even supports repealing DOMA. I know Obama can't snap his fingers and magically make it all happen immediately, but there's no reason to keep waiting for the "perfect time" that may or may not ever surface. We don't know what 2010 or 2012 will bring, so why not go for it while we have supermajorities in Congress and a clear mandate for real change?

And btw, I think the DoJ memo was a mistake regardless of whether or not President Obama personally knew. And if he didn't know, he & Eric Holder need to do a better job of monitoring what comes out of the DoJ. I don't like having to criticize Democrats like this, but they need some kind of "wake-up call" to stop taking us for granted.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 09:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Do you mean DADT?

I haven't seen any poll that shows a large majority supports repealing DOMA. Quinnipiac said 50%-44% in support, which isn't a huge majority, it's a bare majority.

The problem with our supermajorities and with our party is that progressives don't make up a large enough part of the party. Look how the public is opposed to us on torture, Gitmo, even spending. We're getting a lot of what the country wants...the stimulus, the budget, Lily Ledbetter, SCHIP, Iraq withdrawal...we're fighting for things we want; healthcare, energy...and we may lose a few battles along the way.

Democrats have a supermajority, progressives don't...I don't even think they have a majority and it's because they're not a majority.

And no, he doesn't need to do a better job monitoring what comes out of the DOJ...he doesn't need to be involved in making sure the DOJ suits him politically. That's wrong. If he was to tweak this brief so that it helps him politically, he deserves to be impeached for that.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes...

And did you read this?

Voters support 50 - 44 percent the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but say 54 - 39 percent that the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to same-sex partners should be repealed.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele aseID=1292

And this?

Americans also show broad support for gay rights in the following areas:

Sixty-seven percent say gay and lesbian domestic partners should have access to health insurance and other employee benefits.

Nearly three in four Americans, 73%, believe gay and lesbian domestic partners should have inheritance rights.

Sixty-seven percent favor a proposal to expand hate-crime laws to cover crimes committed against gays or lesbians.

Only 28% of Americans believe that gays or lesbians should not be hired as elementary school teachers. Sixty-nine percent believe they should be allowed to teach children.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majori ty-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage .aspx

And this?

- Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition.

- Almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults favor allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces.

- About six in 10 (63%) of U.S. adults favor expanding hate crime laws to cover gay and transgender people.

- Nearly seven out of 10 U.S. adults (69%) oppose laws that would ban qualified gay and lesbian couples from adopting children.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/03/glaa d-study/

Believe it or not, the people are quickly moving to our side. And when it comes to comprehensive DP benefits, they're already here. The American people are ahead of both the President & Congress, so they need to catch up. We can't let the "ConservaDems" define the agenda. We have to "carpe diem" some time soon, or we'll never see any progressive victory any time soon.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 10:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Amazing they support all that

and not marriage...it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make me feel better either. Another words, seperate but equal is fine.

Voters support 50 - 44 percent the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but say 54 - 39 percent that the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to same-sex partners should be repealed.

Doesn't this mean they support DOMA, but also support the Baldwin-Lieberman bill? This also doesn't make me feel better...the federal governemnt should give benefits to same-sex couples, but it's ok for some states not to? WTF? Sometimes the stupidity of Americans just shocks me.

Anyway, the major factor here is where is gay rights ranked among the concerns of the population. Civil Rights was a top five issue in the 1960's, where do gay rights rank.

If we can only get all these people who support all this to put gay rights at the top of their agendas too, it would help.

In the meantime, all this is lost on the rest of the population, who are more focused on the economy, healthcare and Iran.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

It bears repeating

that Hillary Clinton promised during her campaign to get healthcare reform passed by the end of her second term as President...something progressive blogs slammed her on and something that made me support her.

It's not that I wanted healthcare reform to be done as late as 2015, but that I was realistic with the possibility that it might not be something achievable in 2009 (Obama may just do that...incrimentally...we may get different stages of healthcare reform over the years)

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: well for me the buck stops with Congress

The President sets the agenda though, ESPECIALLY if they're controlled by the same party. If Congress is going to pass a repeal of either DOMA or DADT, they're going to do it with the cooperation and consulation of the White House - they are not going to undertake a single thing unless they get the go-ahead from him beforehand.

If this were a Republican in office? Then sure, the onus would be on congress, but in the real world they don't do anything this big unless they have the Administration's blessing.

Know what else? Congress isn't going to set a withdrawal date from Iraq ahead of what Obama wants. Similar principle.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 09:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

But they already have the administration's

blessing.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 09:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: But they already have the administration's

Perhaps I should have used a stronger word than "blessing".

Anyway, not knowing what's going on behind the scenes, if anything, I can't really type more than generalities on this, but my point was just that it's not Congress' responsibility in the sense that that gets the White House off the hook.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 09:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Even in the DOJ defense of the brief

they pushed for repealing DOMA...if that's not the White House blessing, what is?

I mean does a White House blessing need to be a public primetime speech?

The President already made his agenda clear when he ran for office and won, Congress can't say "oh, the President hasn't said he wants this" They know he wants it.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Even in the DOJ defense of the brief

The best indicator is whether or not a bill gets brought to the floor. Until that happens I don't think it's unreasonable to hold both the White House and Congress responsible.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 10:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you, Jess.

The best indicator is whether or not a bill gets brought to the floor. Until that happens I don't think it's unreasonable to hold both the White House and Congress responsible.

As you said earlier, The White House typically plays a major role in setting Congress' agenda if both are controlled by the same party. While this doesn't completely absolve Pelosi & Reid for their inaction, it's certainly true that Obama, Pelosi, & Reid are all responsible for what's on the agenda and what isn't. If President Obama clearly says tomorrow that he wants Congress to act on repealing DOMA, I doubt Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid will have trouble finding authors and co-sponsors for the bill.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 10:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Honestly

why haven't there already been authors and co-sponsors?

DADT already has authors and 146 co-sponsors.

This is what drives people crazy (drives me crazy in local government). We don't know why these things haven't come to the floor. There is no reason DADT still should not have come to the floor except that there may not be enough votes to pass it or because it just being saved until after healthcare and energy.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

We've already talked about...

Our disagreements (like the DoJ DOMA filings), but I guess we're again on the same page tonight. Make no mistake, this is progress & the federal employees deserve it. Still, this smacks of "throwing the queer dogs a bone" just in time for the LGBT DNC fundraiser on the 26th. Andy Tobias infamously promised "a big announcement" just before, and this fits that bill.

So if President Obama tomorrow announces real efforts to pass ENDA, a DADT repeal, and a DOMA repeal, I'll be a little more forgiving after last week's brutal bitchslap. But if this is part of the President's political chess game, I want none of it. Either work for our full equality or stop asking us for money.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 08:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We've already talked about...

Across the blogs and news media it seems like theatrics. To give the optics of doing something without doing anything. It will not even last past his own administration. He could not even give us that much respect. Yet, he can consider an executive order to not release the torture photos. I just dont get it. I have to assume someone has his ear who really does not understand how insulting this is.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 08:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We've already talked about...

probably, it's the devil. here's a link:

www.satan.com

by fogiv 2009-06-17 03:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Cautious Optimism

God point. Yesterday I'd heard it was going to be a memorandum.

by cuppajoe 2009-06-17 06:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

This is like tossing a few crumbs to a beggar

But wonderful if you're gay and work for the Federal Government.

ENDA almost passed a GOP Congress in the late 90's; with just a little encouragement from the White House, it could get passed and signed into law this year.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-06-16 08:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is like tossing a few crumbs to a beggar

What do you care about gay people?

by mikeinsf 2009-06-17 12:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is like tossing a few crumbs to a beggar

Probably more than Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin, and Rick Warren combined....which isn't a whole helluva lot.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-06-17 09:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well, that gives new meaning to waffling

Let me make sure I understand: Obama opposed Prop 8, even while declaring his opposition to same sex marriage?

That's on a par with discussing the meaning of the word "is", in terms of parsing things.

If the man would just come out for an employment non-discrimination act (ENDA), many of us would be happy: (a) ENDA would be something meaningful (compared to the symbolic/dramatic appeal of gay marriage) and (b)it would almost certainly pass both Houses of Congress.

The only downside to such an outcome is that the left wing of the party would have one less thing to complain and gripe about. Personally, I prefer winning.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-06-17 09:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is like tossing a few crumbs to a beggar

Yeah, it's like tossing crumbs to a beggar (with a pack of wild ravenous in between) while people are shooting at you. Oh, and the beggar is screaming, "I fucking hate you!"

Yeah, you're right. It's just like that.

by fogiv 2009-06-17 03:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: BREAKING: President Obama to Extend Benefits t

Smoke and mirrors. Basically, reading various blogs and news media what rights, if any will accrue, to gay spouses. Not many- not only will healthcare not be includes, but also excluded are social security and other major federal benefits. It's theatrics. I had hoped earlier on reading this that he was finally seeing the light.But, now, I have to say- this is extremely insulting if this is what they think qualifies as fierce advocacy. Keep up the pressure.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 08:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

I said this at The Blend...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/1150 4/breaking-president-obama-to-extend-ben efits-to-federal-workers-partners

And I'll say it here as well.

Unless and until Obama & the DNC leaders [and yes, that includes Reid & Pelosi] stop paying politics with our very lives, I will ONLY be giving to pro-equality Democrats and pro-equality campaigns (like WA Ref 71 & ME marriage equality).

Money talks. And until they act, we walk.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 08:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I said this at The Blend...

THis is sad. They really don't get it.

This is the NY Times reporting on the subject tomorrow:

"But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak."

More, Avarosis adds that the NY Times is reporting "it seems they came up with this proposal on the fly. In spite of the fact that for a while they've been hinting that they'd do this, the NYT discovered that the details of the "plan" haven't even been decided, yet the White House is already announcing it publicly."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/pol itics/17gays.html?_r=1

They really don't get that we are in the midst of a possible 60s style civil rights movement. I am not sure where this is going to go. I just get the feeling the Democrats in general really have no idea how this can come back to bite them in the ass if they keep this up.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 10:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I said this at The Blend...

I think part fo the problem has to be that so many of the people that surround him are Democrats from the 90s or gays who came up in a different era where it was okay to place one's own equality as secondary to the needs of the party. They think that they can solve the problem of the rising movement with spin and symbolic gesture. I just shake my head because it's like "look the 90s. That's now almost 10 years in the past. As one person said "this would have been great in 1999 since even conservative wall street has more benefits than this. I can only hope this reporting is wrong. It will make the situation worse, not better to give something that essentially provides no substantive rights.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 10:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

How very true.

They think that they can solve the problem of the rising movement with spin and symbolic gesture. I just shake my head because it's like "look the 90s. That's now almost 10 years in the past. As one person said "this would have been great in 1999 since even conservative wall street has more benefits than this. [...] It will make the situation worse, not better to give something that essentially provides no substantive rights.

See my above comment on the polling. They need to catch up with the American people and realize that it's 2009, not 1999. DOMA simply needs to go, and we need to hear something tomorrow about it.

by atdleft 2009-06-16 10:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How very true.

As I explained to Charles Lemos, I am realistic. I don't expect them to get rid of DOMA right away. That would be a huge battle, and I am realistic about the fact it would take a long time to get it repealed.

But, I don't understand why they are not addressing ENDA which is a relatively easy bill to try to push rather than these sorts of theatrics which will only piss people off. I hope tomorrow he announced something more than this. I am hoping he will announce a push for ENDA because I believe Frank is pushing to reintroduce the bill, this time being transinclusive.

I think most people are realistic that we do not expect to win every battle, but it's the whole let's play games with this demographics that does not make much sense to me.

Obama is not a man prone to being tune deaf. Yet, here, he's being extraordinarily tone deaf. This sort of ploy plays to the sychophants here who eat up anything he does up, but just reading around- I am trying to find one place that's buying this.

I am just left at this point with they just don't get it.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 10:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

A good start anyway.

Uh oh, I think I hear rankles, I mean Ronaldo, I mean, uh, "edgar" storming in here with bibles a'blazin'.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 09:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

How about the NY Times. Are they also anti Obama people too? Just wondering how far you all are going to take this until you finally start to get that this is not going to go away by trying to reduce it to comfortable primary narratives.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 10:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

You are quite literally insane.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 10:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

Yes, in the same way that the NY Times, The Advocate, Pam's House of Blend, Politico and Americablog are insane. I prefer their insanity to yours.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 10:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

Do you realize that your responses have absolutely nothing to do with anything that I've said?

You're insane in the sense that you're speaking gibberish.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 10:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

What does Ronaldo have to do with the discussion here other than he's some PUMA who randomly mentioned gay rights the other day ?

by bruh3 2009-06-16 11:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

it was a joke, My God!

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 11:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

He's not a PUMA, he's not even a Democrat. He pretends to be both sides of every issue wherever there's a fault line in the party. Lately, it's this issue.

I'm sorry I brought him up. I still think you're crazy.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 11:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

Maybe, but I wanted to understand why this was relevant to gay rights.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 11:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

No, you wanted to tell me that I was a sycophant who is continuing the primary narrative into this issue, even though I want both DOMA and DADT repealed immediately and was just upthread saying that it was the White House's responsibility to do so.

In other words, gibberish.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 11:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

I apologize for being wrong as to what your statement meant. It seemed like Ronaldo was someone with whom you and others the other day were refighting the primares

by bruh3 2009-06-16 11:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

Apology accepted. It was definitely a mistake to bring it up.

Here's why I did - Ronaldo and edgar are the same person, and the guy tries to exacerbate any issue where there's disagreement within the Democratic party. Not everyone knows this, so my joke was sort of a heads up that "here comes someone whose point of view isn't to be trusted".

He's all over the civil rights threads.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 11:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Obama to Extend Benefits

That's cool. Next time I will ask rather than assume that I understand the context.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 11:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

LOL

score!

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

What a fucking nut you are

she's calling out a troll who has even been trolling you. Take a fucking chill pill, geez.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 10:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

This guy:

Re: Answer the damn question (0.16 / 6)

You don't get that he wants gay marriage NOW NOW NOW!

No amount of facts will alter his view. It's like watching a small child who has been refused a piece of candy or a toy.

by edgar on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 04:55:36 AM EST

Re: Just let it go (0.20 / 5)

Yes, please. Hillary lost, get over it.

by edgar on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 04:53:45 AM EST

Re: Been beat to death here already..... (0.20 / 5)

I agree. These anti-Obama posts are starting to get annoying. The PUMA's just won't let up.

by edgar on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 04:50:47 AM EST

Re: Don't give them money (0.00 / 2)

You'll give it. Believe me, when the time comes, you'll give it.

Right now you're just feeling insulted, I understand that. But you're not going to go to the Rethuglicriminalicans, and you're not going to start your own party.

Get over it, is my advice.

by edgar on Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 05:07:53 AM EST

Yes, because by making fun of him, I'm clearly at odds with the New York Times and Pam's House Blend.

Christ almighty.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 10:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This guy:

Why is it relevant to this diary?

by bruh3 2009-06-16 11:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This guy:

Ask somebody else. I'd tell you, but you're liable to see that I've posted and think it's the ingredients to a jar of spaghetti-o's or something.

Please get off my nutsack. I'm sick of you getting all blind-pit-bull on me.

by Jess81 2009-06-16 11:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This guy:

best. comment. ever.

by fogiv 2009-06-17 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

from your lips

to their ears.

by JJE 2009-06-17 05:57AM | 0 recs