Benefits Extended To Federal Employees’ Domestic Partners

[Sandy Eggo]

President Obama signed a memo that expanded benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, including same-sex couples. What do you think?

Kath Santrello,Systems Analyst "This is just a sneaky way for Obama to make homosexuals American citizens."

James 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."

Ryan 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*

*The Onion features satirical articles related to current events, however, this is a valid question based on this article:

Thompson News Brief

A 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.

[pariann]

Kath 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?

[Palehorse]

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. . .

[me]

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.   

[Sandy Eggo]

I certainly hope those people you quoted aren't serious.

No, those were  satire

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?

[pariann]

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.

[me]

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. 

[Palehorse]

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? 

[LOsborne]

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.

[me]

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? 

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?

[Sandy Eggo]

I'm sure they are aware. So you're from "old school" so were the people who thought interracial marriages were wrong.

[Palehorse]

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?

[me]

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? 

[Palehorse]

Why do I have a feeling that I'm 'bout to be told it would be the same difference? 

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). 

[me]

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). 

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.