BREAKING: President Obama's memorandum will probably not include health benefits

[hulklogan]

From the Advocate

The White House press office declined to detail which benefits would be included, but people familiar with the legal obstacles posed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said health benefits are not likely to be a part of the package. The Lieberman-Baldwin Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a bi-cameral bill that was introduced last month, will still need to be passed by Congress in order for full benefits to be extended to domestic partners of federal workers.

"Our analysis has been that it will take an act of Congress for the full suite of benefits such as health benefits and retirement benefits to be provided for same-sex couples and families," said Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal Globe: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government. Hirsch said the executive branch has the authority to extend certain other benefits through departments and agencies, such as providing relocation costs for partners of federal employees.

Link to The Advocate

Seriously, while I applaud the sentiment to some degree, what good is this memorandum really going to do if it can't include health benefits? It really does seem like a cynical attempt to distract people and put the LGBT fire out.

[xchrom]

1. oh THIS is going to go over well -- nt

[ronnykmarshall]

63. BUT HE'S ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE SIX MONTHS!!!!!!!

I'm sure the cheerleaders are getting ready to spell that out on the football field as we speak.

[xchrom]

67. i think we should stitch them up some outfits. nt

[FLAprogressive]

2. I told y'all so......

this would be a toothless PR move to get $$$$, nothing more.

[jonnyblitz]

4. yup. bribery to lure teh gays back to the imploding fundraiser to

get their $1000 a plate. those assholes are SOOOOO transparent.

[FLAprogressive]

5. But amazingly a lot of DUers think it's a great leap

DU wouldn't be gullible or anything, would it?

:sarcasm:

[aquart]

18. No, but a great leap was involved in my response.

Or was that flying leap?

[Thrill]

3. AP says health benefits included. I guess we'll see

[MarjorieG]

6. DU wants symbolism, while Obama wants laws and long term solutions.

We need laws to repeal DADT and DOMA. Legislation is more binding, sweeping and now we'd like the exec orders we bashed Bush for?

[hulklogan]

9. I don't want this memorandum if it only covers moving expenses.

It is a waste of political capital to do something so transparently cynical and meaningless.

[katandmoon]

10. Interim justice is better than no justice at all.

[FLAprogressive]

12. It's the other way around, honey. This whole memo IS symbolism.

[readmoreoften]

17. No, honey, I need LEGAL PROTECTION. An executive order for any human right is fine by me.

This "long-term solution" nonsense has been going on for almost 20 years now of this "use the system" approach and I still don't have protection for being fired from my job for being gay. I still don't have a guarantee that I will be allowed to be with my partner when she's ill. I STILL DON'T HAVE THE GODDAMN RIGHTS THAT HARVEY MILK WAS FIGHTING FOR IN 1978.

So save it. And, in fact, STUFF IT. Because the federal bodies of the political parties of the United States have never done a single thing for LGBT people. The only thing we've ever won is PUBLIC OPINION and that was done by US. That was won by OUR STRUGGLE at Stonewall and in the streets and within academia and with police. We've survived by the grace of our own labor.

You can afford to have dreamy-eyed faith in some politician who is surrounded by people who compare our lives to pedophilia and incest, but we're fighting to survive, to hold down jobs in shit towns and to not die alone after we get beat to death by someone who takes to heart the things said by Obama's political good buddies.

Obama doesn't want solutions for LGBT people. Obama wants solutions for Obama so that Obama can stay president.

[MarjorieG]

23. Just saying the pent up feelings of right, pain, and frustration shouldn't come down

disproportionately on Obama's head, as his sole and immediate responsibility. Congress also makes law.

The lawyer who wrote the brief is not an Obama guy, may be a Bush guy, and insensitive to an extreme, but we are where are on health care, with the 90s as much a replay with obstruction. Do we want to try this now, and badly?

And I don't think honey was your sign of affection. You have many allies on DU being dismissed as not sufficiently advocate or sincere. Not helpful anywhere.

[hulklogan]

28. These "allies on DU" are fair weather friends. Only happy to support equality when we're silent.

:patriot:

[LostinVA]

49. You forgot to mention poutrage

[Starry Messenger]

53. I don't think you're helpful.

Telling people they might ruin everyone's chances for health care is really low, IMO. I'm straight and that is a totally offensive thing to read in here. Byron Williams says it well:



http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20090611224/Latest/Delaying-justice-is-hardly-the-best-path-to-progress.html

Last week, I appeared on CNN’s “No Bias, No Bull” to discuss the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling that upheld Proposition 8. One of the panelists on the program, citing what he called “overheated rhetoric” by those disappointed by the Prop.8 decision, asked the following:

“In the big picture isn’t there an inevitably to all of this; isn’t this just a question of time and they (same-gender marriage proponents) shouldn’t be that exercised about it?”

The gist of the question was certainly one that I agreed. All of the polling I’ve seen strongly suggests the trajectory is headed toward full marriage equality for all of Californians regardless of orientation.

In 2000, Prop.22, which prevented Californians from recognizing same-gender marriage, passed with 61.4 percent approving. In 2008, Prop.8 passed with 52.2 percent. Moreover, individuals under 35 overwhelmingly support same-gender marriage. Unfortunately, I was cutoff before I could make an additional point, which would have underscored why the question was inherently problematic. Though I did not believe there was any malice intent in the question, it is easier, almost in a benign manner, for those who already benefit from a certain privilege to suggest those who do not have it should simply wait for the corrective measure of time to do its work. There is no denying that institutional change seldom comes as quick as its advocates want. That’s why Martin Luther King stated, “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

But those who suggested waiting was the best response, in Birmingham 1963 is why King wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

King's letter was a response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen, who agreed that social injustices existed but argued that the battle against racial segregation should be fought solely in the courts, not in the streets, in other words wait. For King “wait” almost always meant “never,” and he went on to write a 6,000 word epistle as to why the Negro cannot wait.

Wait is a solution seldom supported by those toiling in the pain of second-class citizenship. There is a certain luxury associated with not having to wait that make it appear as the palatable solution for those who desire change.

Wait is a very difficult word for many same-gender couples to hear, when they know the roughly 7 million individuals who voted in support of Prop.8 would most likely not have voted to deny the Ku Klux Klan their constitutional rights to free speech; and they would have been wrong to do so.

It is hard to hear wait, when one is told that gay rights are not civil rights, when the classical definition of civil rights is:

“A class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from the government and state power and assure the ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state.”

The theological objections therefore seem incongruent because this is indeed about civil rights.

Wait can carry all the force of an inflammatory expletive when those who oppose one’s cause resort to gross inaccuracies, historical ignorance, and hyperbole, preferring to fan the flames of emotionalism over a judicious use of reason.

[donco6]

54. Yeah, so if we don't get health care, it's all teh gays fault.

Great.

That's actually quite typical of our "allies."

[QC]

62. Well, we were singlehandedly responsible for the 200 and 2004 losses,

according to some of our 'allies' here, so destroying all hope of health care reform should be a breeze for us.

[donco6]

72. True. Isn't there more we can do?

Bring down civilization? Hasten global warming? Usher in the Apocalypse?

[WillParkinson]

45. Laws and long term solutions?

The only way to get those is to start on them. But when you remain silent, even though departments within the government are fighting gays and lesbians, it does not appear you've done a good job on your to-do list.

[LostinVA]

48. Oh, you again

What a surprise.

[donco6]

55. And the only way we ever get action is by being loud.

Sorry, it may work for you, but it doesn't work for us.

It wasn't until we started withholding our money that Obama acted. It wasn't until our outrage grew loud enough to catch his attention that he acted. So that's what we'll be doing.

[sui generis]

71. if slavery was involved Obama would be moving his lawful ass a bit faster.

[readmoreoften]

7. Oh my god that's RICH! He extends recognition but likely with few, if any, real benefits.

This system is such garbage its mind blowing.

[QC]

8. Spouses will be able to eat in the employee cafeteria.

Isn't that enough for you people?

[FLAprogressive]

13. hey, he also issued a proclamation.

I bet you want a pony too.

[QC]

14. Just another picture of him with his shirt off!

[FLAprogressive]

16. *fap fap fap*

[LostinVA]

51. A Shetland Pony

[closeupready]

70. ... with pink polka dots, or else it's all over.

:sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

20. Can I use the employee discount card? Will it offset the cost of hospitalization and dying alone?

Nah, just fucking with ya. Dying alone doesn't cost extra. The hospitals that provide that service give it for free.

[QC]

24. You may use the card, but only once a week. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

25. there's blackout periods too

[ruggerson]

31. do they get to choose dessert?

[QC]

33. Depends on how much dessert they made that day. n/t

[NMMNG]

47. Yes,

but can they sit at the lunch counter?

[QC]

56. Only if they are nice, clean gays, not like those angry radicals. n/t

[LostinVA]

50. Discounted soup and sammies is enough for teh gays

[sandnsea]

11. Congress has to approve all money

Every single one of you knows that because just about every single one of you suggested it as a means to end the war.

[hulklogan]

15. Which is why it isn't all champagne and flowers around here just because of this memo.

It is a empty, meaningless, cynical gesture that is designed only to take some of the heat off of the White House.

[QC]

19. We are "insufferable ingrates," as one of the head cheerleaders just remarked.

Damn whiny queers!

[hulklogan]

21. Why are you gays whining about moving expenses? Isn't that what you've been asking for?

:sarcasm:

[QC]

27. Damn insufferable ingrates!

[Chovexani]

75. Why do you hate America?

[Metric System]

40. Someone seriously wrote that? Ugh.

[QC]

46. Yes, one of the most peppy (and catty) of the cheerleaders said it.

Sometimes this place is like Heathers.

[bluedawg12]

68. The dominant majority just can't understand

our ingratitude. LMAO.

Run, dino run.

[sandnsea]

30. Or point towards the problem - Congress n/t

[hulklogan]

32. Then it's even more coldhearted and cynical than I thought, to tease with the idea of "benefits"

only to shift the heat to Congress.

[sandnsea]

35. Only Congress can give those benefits

No tease about it. If anything permanent is to be done, it needs to be done in Congress and/or the Supreme Court.

[hulklogan]

36. Then President Obama should just say that instead of playing this benefits game

and making a big show about signing this meaningless memo.

[sandnsea]

37. My god, he has - probably will again tomorrow

Has HRC counted the votes on these issues? Who is on the list to be persuaded? Has anyone threatened filibuster? Where are Snowe & Collins on gay rights? What are the numbers in the House?

[hulklogan]

38. Enough with the devil's advocate games.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

39. That's what needs to be done

I would guess somebody at HRC has the names and numbers. Let's get the list and start pressuring.

What's devil's advocate about that?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. This is really disappointing ..........

A far cry from what was initially announced as "Breaking News" on MSNBC earlier tonight.

Really unfortunate...............................

[IndianaGreen]

26. Since only Congress can change pay, health, and retirement benefits, what's left?

A break in parking fees perhaps?

This is nothing but snake oil to make us think that he cares.

[LostinVA]

52. Moving expenses and cafeteria privileges

Probably parking.

Big frigging deal.

[donco6]

57. "My hands are tied" he'll say, with a really sad look.

Then he'll point to the spineless Dem leadership and say that THEY are the ones who have to act.

And two days later, they will point back to the White House.

Fuck 'em all.

[dgibby]

29. This is being discussed on Rachel's show (show is on now).

I'm watching the rerun because I missed part of the discussion, but there is some question about whether or not he is signing a memorandum or an executive order. The thought is that a memo is only good for as long as the President who signs it is in office, and that an executive order would have to be repealed by another President. If that's true, then this might be only temporary.

The other part of the discussion I heard was that the belief is that this action is a direct result of the negative reaction to the DOJ's brief as well as DOMA and DADT.

[sandnsea]

34. Congress has powers against an Executive Order

The Congress may also seek to repeal the underlying statutory authority upon which a particular executive order was based. If the underlying statute is repealed, any ensuing executive order based upon that law is no longer valid. Another tool available to the Congress is to seek to implement a sunset or termination date for statutory authority upon which an executive order is based. In this way, when the sunset date is reached, it is up to Congress to determine whether to renew the provision or let it die. A major tool in the arsenal of the Congress with regard to executive orders lies in the power of the purse. Congress may withhold funds for the implementation of an executive order, thereby directly challenging the President's ability to put in place a particular policy.

On the other hand, in instances where the President issues an executive order that Congress does not oppose, but rather Congress wishes to exert its legislative authority in that area, Congress may seek by statute to sanction the action taken by the President. Similarly, the Congress may wish to sanction portions of an executive order, modify others and repeal others. Congress has the option, through the legislative process, of imposing its own stamp on a policy area staked out by executive order.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/rules_hear08.htm

[David Zephyr]

41. I am so unimpressed. This was his "big June announcement"? Copying Hillary's move at the State Dept?

What a joke.

[QC]

42. You're not being very hopeful, David. Changealicious, either. n/t

[nichomachus]

43. It's basically a stunt to shut the gays up

And it ain't a-workin.

[sisters6]

44. A few tasty crumbs.

[Rhythm]

59. Without health care benefits, not even all that tasty.

[sisters6]

60. The crumbs will be enough for some. tasty or not. Sad.

[Rhythm]

61. It'll be enough for some of our so-called 'allies' to start another round of 'poutrage' catcalls

But i don't think any of the rest of us are so easily fooled anymore.

[LostinVA]

64. I think it's starting -- there's a thread in GDP about the memo -- it was just released

[bluedawg12]

66. See dino run.

[GodlessBiker]

58. Fuckin' right, it ain't!

[bluedawg12]

65. Due to DOMA - "benefits" cannot include health benefits.

The other issue raised was, if it is only a memorandum, then, it may not have force beyond his term.

Huge GLBT fundraiser stands to fail, so they throw us a small bonelet.

They are covering this currently on MSNBC with Michael Rogers speaking for GLBT rights. What a change, actually having gay people speaking on behalf of gay rights. Society is changing, even if some Dino's lag behind.

Run dino run.

[closeupready]

69. Just wanna say, I made a positive remark in the LBN thread, but I take it back.

Without fully equal benefits, this does nothing more than reinforce the fact that Obama supports bigotry.

[pinto]

73. Gerry Studds' spouse has joined a case (filed in March) for survivor benefits, health and annuity.

If decided in his favor, and upheld, this may determine access to federal health care for spouses of federal employees. And set some precedent to build on. Obviously the suit applies only to federal employees and their spouses. I have not heard where it is in the process.

All of the 9 situations in this suit challenge DOMA, as far as their own particular circumstances are concerned. There is a mention of requesting the District Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional, yet overall it seems an incremental approach at dismantling the legal standing of DOMA brick by brick, as it were.

"Plaintiff Dean Hara is the surviving spouse of Gerry Studds, a retired Member of the United States Congress. Dean has been denied both health insurance and the survivor annuity normally available to surviving spouses..."

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/rights/docs/US%20-%20Gill%20v%20OPM%20(complaint).pdf

[Chovexani]

74. This is our Fierce Advocate y'all

As someone at Pam's blog said, Barbara Streisand is more fierce than this when they put the wrong shade of rose petals in her toilet.

[Seen the light]

76. Fierce Advocate™ nt