President Obama signed a memo that expanded benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, including same-sex couples. What do you think?
QuoteKath Santrello,Systems Analyst "This is just a sneaky way for Obama to make homosexuals American citizens."
QuoteJames Rudow, Edge Burnisher "Like federal employees don't screw around on the job enough as it is. Now they'll be spending all their time on Craigslist trying to find a domestic partner."
QuoteRyan Welker, Golf Range Attendant "How immoral! Accessing a partner's flexible spending account to purchase prescription eyewear with pretax earnings is a right that should only be granted to those in religiously-sanctioned heterosexual relationships."
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/benefits_extended_to_federal)*
*
The Onion features satirical articles related to current events, however, this is a valid question based on this article: Thompson News Brief (http://www.thompson.com/public/newsbrief.jsp?cat=BENEFITS&id=2183)
QuoteA limited number of benefits available to federal employees are now available to their same-sex domestic partners, under a presidential memorandum President Obama signed June 17. The memorandum comes after a review by Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag regarding what benefits could be offered to federal employees' domestic partners without violating existing federal law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted a similar review concerning the State Department.
QuoteKath Santrello,Systems Analyst "This is just a sneaky way for Obama to make homosexuals American citizens."
LOL......I can't stop chuckling. You mean to tell me that homosexuals born in this country are not already American citizens?
Many large corporations have already done this, and it is about time that the American government did the same. . . I have no problems with this. . . People that live alternative lifestyles are no different than people in a traditional heterosexual relationship, they just get treated differently. . .
I certainly hope those people you quoted aren't serious.
Although I don't agree with the marriage thing a domestic or life partner should have the same rights a married couple have.
Quote from: me on June 21, 2009, 07:29:00 PM
I certainly hope those people you quoted aren't serious.
No, those were satire
Quote from: me on June 21, 2009, 07:29:00 PM
Although I don't agree with the marriage thing a domestic or life partner should have the same rights a married couple have.
In most states, they can't legally marry, so why not?
Quote from: me on June 21, 2009, 07:29:00 PM
I certainly hope those people you quoted aren't serious.
Although I don't agree with the marriage thing a domestic or life partner should have the same rights a married couple have.
But..the same rights a married couple have....was the right to get married. Hmmm.
Quote from: pariann on June 21, 2009, 11:46:58 PM
But..the same rights a married couple have....was the right to get married. Hmmm.
I meant as far as insurance, tax deductions, and things of that nature.
Quote from: me on June 22, 2009, 12:54:04 AM
I meant as far as insurance, tax deductions, and things of that nature.
Isn't that sending mixed signals then? On one hand you are saying they have the same rights, but on the other hand they don't. . . Why all the waffling? :think:
Quote from: me on June 22, 2009, 12:54:04 AM
I meant as far as insurance, tax deductions, and things of that nature.
What else is there? You don't have to be married to have babies, and any two people can already buy a house together if they want to.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 22, 2009, 07:24:06 AM
Isn't that sending mixed signals then? On one hand you are saying they have the same rights, but on the other hand they don't. . . Why all the waffling? :think:
Not really. It's just saying it is a civil union or domestic partnership rather than a marriage. I'm from the old school of male female marriage and no other. It has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I do have one question. Do the people who are hollering for this marriage thing realize that it will then require a divorce to get out of the same as a heterosexual marriage or do they figure they can still walk away like they do now if they decide to change partners?
I'm sure they are aware. So you're from "old school" so were the people who thought interracial marriages were wrong.
Quote from: me on June 22, 2009, 08:16:05 AM
Not really. It's just saying it is a civil union or domestic partnership rather than a marriage. I'm from the old school of male female marriage and no other. It has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I do have one question. Do the people who are hollering for this marriage thing realize that it will then require a divorce to get out of the same as a heterosexual marriage or do they figure they can still walk away like they do now if they decide to change partners?
Heterosexual relationships have the very same things happen, and alternative lifestyle relationships are no different. . . When they are married and hit the rocks they must legally divorce like any other. . .
You use the terminology "civil union"; am I to take it then that you support a civil ceremony marriage for alternative lifestyle relationships, or was that a slip of the tongue?
Quote from: Palehorse on June 22, 2009, 08:24:32 AM
Heterosexual relationships have the very same things happen, and alternative lifestyle relationships are no different. . . When they are married and hit the rocks they must legally divorce like any other. . .
You use the terminology "civil union"; am I to take it then that you support a civil ceremony marriage for alternative lifestyle relationships, or was that a slip of the tongue?
Why do I have a feeling that I'm 'bout to be told it would be the same difference? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on June 22, 2009, 08:30:43 AM
Why do I have a feeling that I'm 'bout to be told it would be the same difference? :rolleyes:
I wouldn't know. I've never pushed for religion to endorse such a union or "allow" it. Their "objections" are based upon their belief system and I understand that. (While I may not agree with it I can understand it and their position).
What I have a problem with is the objection to civil unions, (getting married by a judge). What is the problem with that? Religious objections should not sway the decision to allow these to happen because religion is separate from the government. (Or is supposed to be). :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 22, 2009, 08:38:02 AM
I wouldn't know. I've never pushed for religion to endorse such a union or "allow" it. Their "objections" are based upon their beliefs systems and I understand that. (While I may not agree with it I can understand it and their position).
What I have a problem with is the objection to civil unions, (getting married by a judge). What is the problem with that? Religious objections should not sway the decision to allow these to happen because religion is separate from the government. (Or is supposed to be). :rolleyes:
Yes, civil unions or domestic partnerships I agree with. Although this may not be something I see as normal or natural I do understand and realize it is more than just a mental thing that can be changed through therapy for some which is what a lot of people seem to think. Hope that made sense.
Okay, I will go ahead and throw my .. :2cents:.. in here,
I have lightened my stance on this, and though I find promoting gay lifestyle to be a bad thing, I also, think that there are thousands of hetro lifestyles to be a bad thing too....I also am reminded about tossing stones at others, is even a worse thing to do.....I am to the conclusion, I am against anything that is going to cost US, the taxpayers MORE money, at least money that SHOULD not be spent in the first place. As of now, marriage is between a man and a woman.....until, this changes, I am against ANY benefits that is extended to ANY FEDERAL employees...domestic partner.....I have a feeling THIS is going to cost us through the roof...there ALREADY is enough, wasted spending on FEDERAL employees, let alone, that there will be millions of more added on to it, because of this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 22, 2009, 09:13:28 AM
Okay, I will go ahead and throw my .. :2cents:.. in here,
I have lightened my stance on this, and though I find promoting gay lifestyle to be a bad thing, I also, think that there are thousands of hetro lifestyles to be a bad thing too....I also am reminded about tossing stones at others, is even a worse thing to do.....I am to the conclusion, I am against anything that is going to cost US, the taxpayers MORE money, at least money that SHOULD not be spent in the first place. As of now, marriage is between a man and a woman.....until, this changes, I am against ANY benefits that is extended to ANY FEDERAL employees...domestic partner.....I have a feeling THIS is going to cost us through the roof...there ALREADY is enough, wasted spending on FEDERAL employees, let alone, that there will be millions of more added on to it, because of this.
Clearly we disagree so there's no sense in any further sabre rattling.
However, did you know that the federal government is currently engaging in changes in how it evaluates employee performance, with an eye toward forcing long term employees that adopt a "no load" attitude toward their work assignments to seek other employment?
I hear that federal employees are increasingly being evaluated based upon merit instead of the "automatic" increases fed employees have been accustomed to. The POTUS wants accountability from everyone, and that includes federal employees. You either demonstrate via your work performance that you are hungry and have initiative/aspirations, or they will show you the door. (No more automatic raises and you are stuck where you are at best).
This brings them into alignment with big business, and in theory sounds like a great change. I hope that they can stick to their plan and weed out the slackers, as is the stated purpose of this change. . .
The change is not sitting well with those long term federal employees that have been riding the gravy train and providing the bare minimum in return for their compensation. A lot of squalling from them. Of course, I am no longer privy to actual first hand info on these changes so I may have some of it wrong, but I did speak to some old friends that are still active and they were telling me about it over the weekend.
In addition, it seems a lot of the Navy recruiters have already achieved their goals for this year and are pushing out current enlistment delay contracts to 18 months or more in some areas. In addition, they are now becoming a lot more selective pertaining to who they accept and who they do not. Disqualifying factors have increased greatly, since they are now getting candidates that have multiple degrees and multiple years of business experience to accompany their desire to enlist.
I know all of this is a bit off topic, but I believe that when you consider the change this and recognition of same sex unions represent, it demonstrates that work is being done to fix what is wrong in many areas of our government.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/22/same.sex.weddings/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/22/same.sex.weddings/index.html)
An article on same sex marriages out in the open in Iowa. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 22, 2009, 09:48:45 AM
In addition, it seems a lot of the Navy recruiters have already achieved their goals for this year and are pushing out current enlistment delay contracts to 18 months or more in some areas. In addition, they are now becoming a lot more selective pertaining to who they accept and who they do not. Disqualifying factors have increased greatly, since they are now getting candidates that have multiple degrees and multiple years of business experience to accompany their desire to enlist.
I'm not sure this is good news. You have to ask yourself why the Navy is getting so many highly qualified candidates that they can upgrade their hiring criteria. I think it's simple. There are no jobs out there.
It was only a couple of years ago that the Army recruiters in Evansville got busted for falsifying drug screens and making promises to recruits they had no hope of fulfilling. Back then I had lunch with a fellow HR puke. I was telling him my choices at times were reduced to deciding whether I was going to hire Bubba with Uzi collection or Snake Eyes with the drug habit. He told me, "Who are you kidding, Lolly, we're going to hire both of them." And he was right!
Now I have so many excellent candidates, but I have no jobs to offer. Well, not quite. I have about ten positions (in five states), which demand skills and experience, but are offering insulting wages to start.
The Navy hasn't raised its standards because it's the right thing to do. It has raised them because it's a hiring manager's market.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 22, 2009, 07:44:29 PM
. . .The Navy hasn't raised its standards because it's the right thing to do. It has raised them because it's a hiring manager's market.
I am sure you are correct. Just like everybody else, they'll take the cream off the top if given a choice, and they now have that option due to high unemployment.