home

Obama's Gay Benefits Order to Exclude Health Care

Update: The White House has released a statement. Note no health insurance benefits:
For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

More on President Obama's planned executive order on extending benefits to same sex partners of federal employees: It excludes most health care benefits. Via Politico:[More...]

However, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex couples, so the benefits are more likely to be marginal -- like relocation assistance.

Markos at Daily Kos:

The DNC needs to reschedule next week's gay fundraiser until after the administration gets its act together on its plan for gay rights. I'm pretty confident the administration eventually will, but until it does, out of simple common courtesy, it should refrain from treating the gay community like an ATM. [More...]

On filing the DOMA brief, this is less than comforting:

A White House spokesman said that it was standard practice for the administration to back laws that are challenged in court — even those it does not agree with...

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Feds Subpoena Identity of Paper's Online Commenters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    erm, should be "President Obama's planned Presidential Memorandum."

    Which means that it's only good for (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:13:22 PM EST
    as long as he is in office, thus making it even less of a bone than it seemed. It's sad that Markos continues to make excuses for him over every backtrack he's made. Just how many promises will he break before his supporters realize they've been had? Maybe they just HOPE he'll CHANGE his mind and act like he gives a rat's a** about anyone's well-being other than his own.

    Not holding my breath. And now he's violated his own law in firing IG Walpin because the guy was trying to do his job, and came up with some bad behavior by his friend Kevin Johnson in Sacramento (who the FBI is now investigating for destroying emails - sounds familiar). Disappointed is putting it mildly.

    Parent

    John Aravossis has been fierce on this issue. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    This is the same blogger who suffered from severe Clinton Derangement Syndrome during the primaries (among other bloggers, primarily on DKos and TPM).  
    If nothing else, as the MSM has been weak on reporting about this issue, I have to believe the blogosphere has gotten Pres. Obama's attention and he is indeed throwing a bone.  
    More "Aravossis smackdown" is needed because, as you point out, this bone lasts as long as Obama is president.

    Parent
    Boy, did you hit it on the CDS (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    Here's a trip down the Avarosis memory lane from May of 2008: Go away you horrible human being

    Be sure and check the comments thread that follows the article. Man, weren't those good times!

    Avarosis is upset now because it's his ox that's being gored. Of course Avarosis does say really questionable stuff from time to time that leaves one wondering exactly what it is he believes.

    I'm actually with Avarosis on the issue of the rather odious DOMA brief that was filed by the Obama DoJ, and I certainly get his anger over the (small) bone that was thrown at the GBLT community today in a clearly calculated political ploy to try and smooth things over.

    I think that this comment at the Great Orange Ghetto ought to be enough to cause some people to begin to wonder exactly where it is that Obama is coming from on the GBLT issues, but Obama is president now, and McCain was certainly not a better choice. I feel like we didn't have a good choice but instead were faced with choosing between awful and not quite as bad. Not quite as bad won.

    Parent

    Some of us thought the choices (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:31:43 PM EST
    were so bad that we decided we couldn't choose either one.  That we just could not go with the lesser of two evils - mainly because we weren't so sure there was a lesser evil.

    That was me, after years of never missing an election, and working in my home precinct as an assistant chief election judge.

    Would love to have been proved wrong, but so far, that hasn't happened.

    Parent

    I'm embarassed to say (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zeb on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:06:37 AM EST
    I, too, couldn't make a choice and did not vote.

    I have to wonder about the critical thinking skills of people who thought that just because Obama is (half) black he would honestly support gay rights.  Very few people find being black and being gay comparable civil rights issues.  Until someone has the backbone to stand up and say loudly, with supporting scientific evidence (which I believe exists) that being gay is not a choice, gay rights will flounder.  

    Even ater, there's no reason to believe a black person would be any more tolerant of gays than a white is of blacks, etc.  People have their prejudices.  It will take science, not human conscience, to make things right for everyone.  

    Parent

    Case in point (none / 0) (#87)
    by Zeb on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    A comment left under a story on CNN (Senate to take up resolution apologizing for slavery)

    "LibertyQueen June 18th, 2009 1:00 pm ET said:
    Blacks in California as a race voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8 which denies the Civil Rights of Lesbians and Gays. Remember, is wasn't that long ago that a black could not marry a white and yet blacks seem to think Separate Is Equal...unless you are black. Separate IS NOT Equal...get it?
    =========

    tedious898   June 18th, 2009 2:58 pm ET replied: Queen....I'm a supporter of the LGBT community to a large extent. But they lose me when they equate their situation with that of African Americans (i.e. Civil Rights). I believe a person can chose whether they would like to engage in a homosexual relationship but a African American has no choice in their ethnicity.

    So calm yourself and don't lose supporters trying to make this a civil rights issues"
     

    Parent

    Thank you for the historical reminder (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:00:05 PM EST
    of the Clinton Derangement Parade hosted by Aravosis during the primaries.  It was truly breathtaking.  Reading his plaintive cry on today's Salon just left me shaking my head in dismay.

    Parent
    What kind of a bone is this? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    This is nothing! Obama thinks by throwing a worthless bone that affects almost nobody that we will be good little children again. How condescending can that man be?

    The ONLY bone I want is an end to DOMA, end to DADT, and full marriage rights. Nothing other than equality will do and if he is not working hard in those directions he is just boning us.

    Repeat and repeat again - No delay. No excuses.

    Picked over. (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    The dog just happened to bring it in from the backyard just in time for the Administration to thow it out to some very unhappy constituents.

    Parent
    Here (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    is the press release.

    This is all kind of alarming.  As others have been asking, does the President actually have any kind of plan whatsoever to accomplish his promised agenda?  It doesn't appear that he does.  He should be working actively and alongside LGBT organizations to develop a plan.  But as far as I can tell, his Admin is being very insular and secretive about it.  As his OPM Director says:

    Berry: We're going to have to - there's a lot of good support there - [Senators] Lieberman and Collins - a lot of people, I think, are going to be willing to help. I believe that that energy is going to come together. This administration has got some really smart people, and we're going to work together to do this right and do it in a way that's going to last.

    Seriously, I thought this was supposed to be the campaign and the administration of amazing people powered grassroots involvement.  But ever since the election all I hear is this Club of Genius sh*t.

    The Advocate interview is really remarkable.  It's so defensive...and it really seems like the Obama Admin has made little effort to appear sympathetic to gay orgs or gasp! embrace them.

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    Are they actually TRYING to alienate the gay community?  Maybe the Democrats want to be "rid of" the gay constituency?  They're sure throwing a lot of rocks at them.

    This "benefits but not healthcare benefits" debacle just sounds like Lucy with the football...although I suspect the whole notion of suddenly announcing that they were going to give "benefits" to same-sex couples was decided without thinking through that the DOMA wouldn't allow giving healthcare.

    Of course, prez could repeal DOMA...but I digress.

    Another digression...I am watching with awe at how well the gay community is organizing.  What a strong group, great work people are doing.  Fantastic.

    Probably not on purpose (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    The administration probably isn't trying to alienate the gay community (and everyone who believes in their rights, whether gay or not).  It's probably a combination of 1) We don't have to pay attention to them because where else are they gonna go? and 2) We have more important fish to fry and our geniuses are really busy already. (It's hard work running a country!)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    if the gay community doesn't have anywhere else to go, then it's good to show the country that you're alienating them because it might suck in more "moderates".  It's the best of both worlds!  /snark.

    Parent
    And double that for them liberals! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    With Obama (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    Always read the fine print before launching a celebration.

    No sense wasting money on party goodies until the last shoe has dropped.

    If this action does nothing else, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:46:26 PM EST
    it ought to highlight the passive-aggressive nature of Obama's "principles."

    Have your DOJ file an unneccessarily ugly brief, that lumps homosexuality in with incest, to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, and then get out your super-duper presidential pen and sign a memorandum that gives some sort of token benefit to same-sex partners of some federal employees.

    See? All better now.  He really does care about the gay community - well, those that work for the government - or does he care about their money?

    Is it possible his finely-tuned political instincts are starting to go bad?  Because these kinds of tone-deaf, campaign promise-breaking actions are beginning to add up, and are happening almost every day.

    Anne, maybe, where President Obama's (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    and, probably his major advisor in this area, Rahm's, finely-tuned instincts are beginning to fail him is that they banked on the premise that gay women and men would allow themselves to be quietly relegated to the dustbin of former constituencies in accord with their blueprint (or, better, redprint) for a Democratic party makeover. Inspiring speeches followed by inaction would probably have worked but it was the action evidenced by the DADT defense and, the tipping point of the DOMA briefs, that seems to have made them falter.

    Parent
    Admin seems (none / 0) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    to be relying on the strategy they got away with during the primaries & presidential campaign -- say one thing, do another or say different things to different people.  Too transparent this time.  And note - the memorandum instead of an executive order so the substance does not affect future administrations.

    Parent
    dumb move (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Lil on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    This gratuitous and transparant attempt to placate gays will only fuel more anger, I believe. Do they think gays are stupid and will jump up and down about how pro gay Obama is because he is giving benefits to federal employees. 10 years ago that would have been a big deal; now it falls far short of what we want. I've tried to stay quiet about my dissent with Obama, because I want so many of his policies to move forward, but he is just pushing on the last nerve.

    yep re: transparent (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    and that's the scary subtext - do they have anybody in the Administration who is sensitive to what this looks like?  It is tone deaf as hell.  

    Parent
    This is NOT what the kids thought he meant by (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:40:18 PM EST
    "transparency," now is it?

    Parent
    Reality Check-time (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    The first rule of warfare......Respect your enemy.

    *********************************
     ".......... do they have anybody in the Administration who is sensitive to what this looks like?  It is tone deaf as hell."
    **********************************
    Did Obama "Win-It-All" because he's stupid?

    He knows exactly what he's doing. My Lord, if you have any hope whatsoever of winning on the issues we're discussing here, you could start by giving the man credit for being a political genius, and surrounding himself with equally brilliant political strategists.

    "Winning" has nothing to do with the righteousness of a position or cause. Winning has only to do with...... winning. Obama understands that; John Kerry did not. And apparently, neither do many people on this post.

    Take a second for a moral anchor; let's look logically; Let's channel BTD......"...a pol is a pol." I don't know how many dimensional levels chess Obama plays, but like any great billiard player, he's plotting stroke # 7 while he's shooting # 2.

    He's done his research, taken his polls, war-gamed with his team, and has determined you're not that important to him. He probably has concluded that enough support will come his way from heretofore unreachable sources to replace those who will abandon him on the Gay/Lesbian issues. He made these tradeoffs throughout his campaign; it worked then, and it will work again here. Remember, it has nothing to do with whether he believes in your cause, or not.

    In his first major action as President he showed you all you had to see to know where he's coming from; He threw the entire middle, and lower, class under the bus in favor of the "Masters/Banksters." (Krugman warned us)

    And you want to know if he's "sensitive" to Gays and Lesbians?

    Please.


    Parent

    I think his brilliance is looking more and more (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    like good old-fashioned hubris; I think he may one day be compared to Icarus, who flew too close to the sun, which melted his wings, and sent him crashing to earth.

    Parent
    Well, that's always (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:37:19 AM EST
    possible.

    You know, I was simply saying, "know thine enemy."

    Mr. Obama has thought this through a lot more than most of us have. It was not a "mistake," He did not "mis-calculate," He was not "surprised" by the reaction.

    What he did do was make a cold, hard, calculated decision. His calculations told him he will gain more by telling his Gay/Lesbian constituancy to "stick-it" than by honoring his, what I consider, sacred commitment to them.

    It wasn't the fist time, and....well, you know the rest.

    Parent

    Is he living in a bubble? (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:44:38 AM EST
    because moderates of both parties seem pretty ok on the issues and Dems are ok with it. Even some conservatives are. Who is he trying to please?

    Remember, women have only gotten a couple of fairly safe bones, and then there's the Kelley issue, Free Choice on the back burner and what's going on with the conscience rule (another back burner)?

    He doesn't need to be doing this sh!t. So, I guess you know what I think . . .

    Parent

    Why try to find excuses for the man? (none / 0) (#88)
    by mexboy on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    Actions reveal character. He is a right winger, period!

    Parent
    Hey Obama (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    maybe if you'd done more interviews with the GAY PRESS, you would know why this looks SO PATHETIC (sorry - throwback to his reluctance to engage with the gay media during the primaries.)

    Someone (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:17:01 PM EST
    over at AmericaBlog says that the "benefits" he's giving have been available to domestic partners for YEARS!!!!

    So, the bright side is that LGBT will not lose the benefits once Obama leaves office, but the downside, is Obama isn't giving them anything in the FIRST PLACE

    Link

    IMHO The Obama Administration really does think people are stupid, or so immersed in the concept of 11 dimensional chess (or koolaid) that they don't see.

    Isn't it funny? (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    If you read the comments they are SHOCKED and STUNNED that Obama would do this?  Especially after they gave him money and convinced others to vote for him!

    I've never posted over there, but I sooooo want to post something like "Hey - you excoriated us who tried to tell you for almost 2 years, but you refused to listen."

    Parent

    This comment caught my eye . . . (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Rhandi Rhodes is talking about this right now.

    She saying it is what we signed up for.....with Obama....

    Hmmmm.

    She's playing the clip of Obama being interviewed by Rick Warren.



    Parent
    Hey, Randi, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    Do you have buyer's remorse, darling?  Maybe you regret not voting for that...oh, never mind!  

    Parent
    No kidding! N/t. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:57:57 PM EST
    Kos is too kind to the other Obamabots. This administration has thrown multiple insults at the LGBT community as well as progressives. I am pretty sure he is not done breaking promises and acting to protect the moneyed and powerful. He is a good talker in front of a crowd but I don't trust him in the back rooms.

    I voted for him holding my nose. I heard it in the campaign - "Just wait a minute, sweetheart".

    Gibbs: (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    (h/t Americablog)

    TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

    GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.

    TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn't have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph...

    GIBBS: Well...

    TAPPER: ...that's upset a lot of the president's supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?

    GIBBS: Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.

    OH man.

    Bonus!  From the Advocate Oct 2007:

    Look, when I went to Rick Warren's church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn't trim my remarks, I specifically told them, "I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution." And by the way, I got a standing ovation.

    My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.

    Um, yes, using Rick Warren's arguments in a legal brief sure does encourage understanding and strengthens the cause of LGBT rights.  


    Oh really?! (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known.

    coulda fooled a lot of people, oh wait . . . . .

    Parent

    Actions speak louder than WORDS (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    Yes, his views on these issues are now all too apparent.

    Parent
    I'm curious (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    as to what effect, over what time period, Obama expects his approach to have on our "national dialogue."  Did inviting Warren change anything?  Did going to Notre Dame change anything?  It seems like the culture wars have erupted below him.  I'm not sure if he figured that would happen anyway or if he thought his approach would prevent that from happening.

    Parent
    We're not worthy of him (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    He was this great transformational figure, the first to be able to bring all contending sides together behind him. And we didn't appreciate the gift we'd been given in living in the time of Obama, and we just continued our disagreements and contention anyway.

    Of course, there's never been a leader like Obama imagines himself to be in the history of the fricking world, but that only goes to show the depths of our unworthiness.

    You need to have the right perspective on these things. Mine just doesn't happen to be in front of Obama's mirror when he's preening.

    Parent

    I don't think he had/has the experience (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    to make informed decisions, just a delusion.  

    We can all sit back and dream about how we would do things, but without decent time in the ring and a few serious rounds with your opponent . . . .

    Parent

    The DNC should not cancel (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by mexboy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    But the GLBT community should refuse to attend or donate another cent.
    It is up to the community to say no more. The DNC will never act right unless it is embarrassed and  forced to. It is the responsibility of the GLTB community to stand up and say: "The abuse stops right here."

    Survey says they are doing so, as are (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    many nongay supporters of equal rights, myself included. And then they have the audacity to ask for money to help pass their health care bill? It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

    Of course, it goes without saying that anyone surprised by this has just not been paying attention. My refusal to donate extends to the entire party until they get their act together and go back to behaving like DEMOCRATS are supposed to.

    For them to assume that the LGBTQ community has nowhere else to go is arrogant beyond belief. this is an excellent opportunity for a third party which DOES value all people equally. Failing that, we may just sit on our hands next time - a result that the Rs will find just dandy.

    Parent

    Send them Easter Eggs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by queerplanet on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    They invite gays and lesbians to the Easter Egg event for a photo op, send them Easter Eggs in return.

    And stop giving the Democrats money.

    Vote Green

    I may not agree with the total Green platform (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    {lil' too animal rights for my taste} but when I dropped the Dem party and became an Indie, I also knew I was more "Green" than the other 2 options. I really wish they would make a bigger push right now. This could very well be a good time for them.

    Parent
    The Green Party (none / 0) (#64)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    has its own problems, but Easter eggs--yes!

    Parent
    It's going to be 4-8 years of pulling teeth (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    Not much fun to be seen as a political hot potato.

    Given what's apparently going on (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    on the healthcare front in the Senate, I wouldn't hold your breath.  They are reporting that Dodd's committee has produced a bill with over 300 amendments.

    Congressional action on DADT and DOMA would probably make the original bills look good by comparison given the way the 111th Congress seems to want to legislate.

    Parent

    I'm coming around to Sandy Levinson's position (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    that American is somewhat ungovernable, having outgrown its Constitution.

    I would be inclined to support a parliamentary system.

    Parent

    I think the transition to a (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    parliamentary system would probably get us into more trouble, not less.

    Our problems are rooted in public corruption.  A parliamentary system won't change that; and for the time it would take for people to understand and assimilate a new political system, I think the corruption would become much, much worse.

    Parent

    I think that's the least of our problems (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    I'd take a little corruption in exchange for abolishing the Senate.

    Parent
    You don't quite get what I'm saying. (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    You can abolish the Senate if you want, but the same players will rig the same game in a parliamentary system.  I've lived in a country with a parliamentary system.  It wasn't better imo.

    But more importantly, I think this boils down to the people - the elected people and the people who elect them.  Both need to change.  The system in which they operate isn't nearly as important as the quality of the people in power - which is terribly low on both sides of the aisle at this point in history.

    Parent

    The main difference (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lacey on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    Is under the current system, individual politicians have to be bought off. In a parliamentary system, big biz just has to buy off the party's leadership. Corruption, without proper oversight, is easier under a parliamentary system.

    Parent
    IIRC that was how it worked (none / 0) (#23)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    where I lived.

    Parent
    nuts (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    There would be hell to pay for losing an election but thats all. Parliaments gave teh UK and canada Sp and teh NHS.

    Parent
    Did yiou try out your theory (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:58:41 PM EST
    On your Con law finalV

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    That's in a month

    Parent
    How can DOMA be overturned? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    Can it be done using a executive order?

    Or will it require a Congressional act?

    DOMA doesn't need to be overturned (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by fiver2 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 07:21:55 AM EST
    in order for Obama to provide health insurance to same-sex partners of federal employees.  Here's Lambda Legal's press release:

    Lambda Legal: Obama Administration Can Do More

    'The day is long past for incomplete, piecemeal fixes that leave hard-working families uninsured and struggling.'

    (New York, June 17, 2009) -- President Obama's planned announcement today misses the mark according to Lambda Legal's Executive Director, Kevin Cathcart.

    "While ending any of the discrimination against gay and lesbian federal employees is a welcome step, today's planned announcement falls far short of our hopes and expectations.

    "President Obama clearly understands how important it is for people to have health insurance coverage to protect their loved ones and this plan does not provide that.

    "Lambda Legal is representing Karen Golinskii, a federal employee who works for the judicial branch and who is seeking health insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. A federal judge has already issued an administrative decision in that matter, concluding that, within the existing rules, the federal government can choose to provide health insurance for same-sex partners. We think they should, and we'll keep fighting for Karen and her spouse -- and for all federal employees.

    "Fair treatment of gay employees regarding these benefits is not new -- many employers, states and local governments have been providing benefits for domestic partners for years. We call on the president to bring a swift end to our government's unfair treatment of its own workers. The day is long past for incomplete, piecemeal fixes that leave hard-working families uninsured and struggling.

    "Gay men, lesbians, transgender people and people with HIV are subject to significant discrimination. In a time when we are all facing record job loss and skyrocketing health care costs these problems need to be addressed in ways that help everyone in this country including gay men, lesbians, transgender people and people with HIV.

    "The administration and congress must work towards ending discrimination in the workplace--including the military--by passing a federal employment non-discrimination act and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Additionally, President Obama has said that he believes the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. We call on the administration to honor his campaign pledge to advocate forcefully for congressional repeal of DOMA. Married same-sex couples should be afforded the same respect by the federal government as their heterosexual married neighbors."


    Parent

    So who does he do it (none / 0) (#86)
    by Idearc on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    there's nothing in the press release that says how to do it.  There's not a single detail.
    Iit only contains a line about a federal judge saying he can.

    But it doesn't cite the case, nor the legal theory.

    on the other hand, the last paragraph does say a congressional act is need to repeal DADT.  That the president can't kill DADT with simply an executive order.


    The administration and congress must work towards ending discrimination in the workplace--including the military--by passing a federal employment non-discrimination act and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

    I like the language:  Non-discrimination act.   I think that can sell.

    Parent

    The case is Levenson (none / 0) (#89)
    by fiver2 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:41:37 PM EST
    It's a 9th Circuit decision.  But even in the absence of any case law, it's obvious from the face of DOMA -- from the plain language -- that it doesn't cover health care.  DOMA is short.  It has just 3 sections of a sentence or so each.  None of them say anything about health care.  DOMA speaks only of a federal definition of marriage, and purports to allow states to refuse to recognize other states' marriages.  Health care is not a benefit exclusive to marriage.  You kids, just to name one example, can get health benefits through your employer, and they're certainly not married to you.

    This was a weak dodge with no legal basis on Obama's part.

    Parent

    Congress has to amend or repeal it. (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    SCOTUS could strike it down, but I doubt that that will happen.

    Parent
    It will be (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    a year from Shavuot before that happens.

    Parent
    So it will require Congressional action? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    people keep saying Obama can specifically overturn the Defense of Marriage Act by himself, using the executive branch, but no one ever says how.

    that's why I asked, how can a executive order overturn a Congressional act, signed in to law.

    Parent

    Haven't seen anyone ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    ... arguing that Obama can repeal DOMA by himself.  He could push Congress to do so (and has not) and he could instruct the DOJ to stop filing briefs comparing homosexuals to pederasts and incest (and again, has not).

    Maybe you mean DADT?  He could stop the investigations immediately by executive order, and could probably lift the ban as well.  According to a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara in May, it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.  Again, at the very least, he could push Congress to move on this issue.  Repeal of DADT is supported by a majority of the public - including Republicans - yet he still won't do it.

    I still think at some point he'll repeal DADT, when enough pressure is brought to bear to force him to make good on his campaign promise.  I'm much less confident about DOMA, where he's likely to keep pointing at Congress.

    "The buck stops sixteen blocks that way, in that big, domed building over there".

    Parent

    no both (none / 0) (#44)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    I have seen both arguments made on blogs, that's why I asked.

    I've read the UCSB report when it came out.  I'm not sure a president can unilaterally halt an expressed law.

    I mean if you could, then why didn't President Clinton halt DADT.


    Parent

    As I recall, that is what (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by dk on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:22:07 PM EST
    Clinton planned to do in the first place, but then there was a revolt from certain Democrats (including Obama supporter Sam Nunn) who threatened to pass a law banning gay and lesbian Americans from the military.  Since, given the support of Republicans and many Democrats in congress at the time, such a law would have passed by veto-proof margins, Clinton couldn't go ahead with it.

    Parent
    DADT is a law (none / 0) (#85)
    by Idearc on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    and afterwards, Congress passed Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Bill Clinton didn't veto it, rather he signed it into law.

    My question is whether a president, any president, can repeal an established law, once enacted, by executive order?

    For example, if last year Bush vetoed SCHIP.  If Congress had over rode his veto, it would have become  law.  Could Bush have stopped the implementation of SCHIP though a executive order?  

    Parent

    Harry Reid says he'll introduce a (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    bill if Obama asks him and Obama says he'll support a bill if Congress introduces one.

    Rolling eyes.

    Parent

    Isn't this what SoS Clinton already did? (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

    Help me out here:

    non-biological, non-adopted children

    Huh?

    Re: Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    Yes, this is what she did, but she did it because she is a friend to the community, not because of the upcoming fundraiser. See also her remarks on the anniversary of Stonewall, which were also followed days later by Obama's tepid recognition. Leadership much?

    Parent
    I followed both of their statements (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:53:54 PM EST
    over the past 2 yrs. She was always out there first with a comprehensive statement, he followed with a statement that had a bit more wishy-wash (if not a lot more). from food safety to equality for women, LGBT and other "minorities" (yes, women are still a minority, go figure).

    I am so over this BS.

    {and yes, I do recognize her statements on the issue come from a different place than his :)}

    Parent

    I think it refers to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    the children of your same-sex partner, who you may or may not be allowed to adopt depending on state law.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by pukemoana on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    your partner gave birth to the child and you occupy the role of parent, but that role isn't recognized as such legally because there's no second-parent adoption in your state (if the non-biological parent were to adopt, the birth parent would have to give up her legal status as parent because the law doesn't recognize the possibility of two mothers/fathers).

    in New Zealand there was no second parent adoption provision but we were able to get guardianship--the lawyer said it was the legal equivalent of adoption except that it can't be used to confer citizenship and child couldn't challenge the will if the non-bio parent died intestate.  

    when we moved to the usa we found a third difference--the lawyer said the guardianship wouldn't be recognized as equivalent to adoption so while there we were in a legal limbo despite taking all the legal precautions we could in our home country.  now we live in canada and all the children have been adopted outright--legal status clear when crossing international borders (which we do regularly)

    Parent

    Thanks you 2! (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    I forgot about difference in adoption laws while trying to figure it out.

    Parent
    It probably also applies to people (none / 0) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    who are married and have children from their spouse's former marriage living with them overseas.

    Parent
    What we need is a Supreme Court appointment (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:20:35 PM EST
    That would be satisfactory.

    You mean like (none / 0) (#57)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlin?  

    Parent
    Aravosis makes it official (none / 0) (#50)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    He and the LGBT community are under the bus. Click here for his piece at Salon.

    I'd laugh, but my disgust with Obama would make me choke. I didn't believe his support for LGBT issues in the first place (see here), but I really wanted to be proven wrong.

    One good outcome: (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lil on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    Obama's signing of this seems to have really made the right wingers crazy. Good to know their feeling like this was a loss for their side and in the smallest of ways it was. So that means our side at least moved in the right direction as far as PR goes.

    Bush holdovers wrote DOMA brief? (none / 0) (#70)
    by good grief on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    So reported Chuck Todd today on MSNBC in a passing reference as though allusions to child molestation and incest in the DOMA brief were more acceptable because these were sentiments of Bush holdovers, not Obama people. WTF! What was the election for? Elsewhere I've heard the  argument that Obama administration keeps the holdovers for their "experience." What a joke! Their experience in bigotry, hatred, and stripping of the Constitution?

    It won't amount to a rat's ass but will make me feel better to write to Holder, copy to Obama, to say if they can't find the guts to do the right thing by the LGBT community to push Congress to rescind DOMA and nix DADT by exec order (within prez's authority per UCSB committee of military law experts in May 2009), they have the power -- and the obligation to voters -- to get rid of all Bush-appointed/Bush-minded holdovers in the entire executive branch.

    Now. P-e-r-i-o-d.


    Donni McClurkin (none / 0) (#79)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 06:55:36 AM EST
    should have been the first clue as to Obama's lack of respect for the gay community. This was almost 2 years ago when Obama began his campaign for the Presidency. Where did it begin? It began with The Faith Tour throughout AA churches  in the South. Obama sat through many sermons demonizing us and talking about how Jesus saves from the evil of homosexuality. We yelled about it when nobody would listen, instead we heard way too many excuses. The man refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome because he supported gay rights and was the mayor of SF. He refused interview with gay publications until he got the nomination. He refused to march in or attend the Gay Pride Festival in Chicago although it would have taken only a minute  out of his schedule that day of a basketball game and a steam. Me thinks he's running as fast as he can from anything that would make him look sensitive to GLBT issues. Now why would a straight man be so araid of associating with the gays? Maybe we should ask that Larry Sinclair dude. Oh yeah, he can't excorsize his right to free speech because he may be arrested by Joe Biden's son again.

    Avarosis got all upset ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:16:51 AM EST
    ... over McClurkin for @ a week, then quickly forgave Obama because he was so obsessed with demonizing/defeating the evil Hillary.  Now he's back to feeling betrayed again.

    That's such a shame ...

    Parent

    Did you really expect more? (none / 0) (#84)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    It still amazes me when I read or hear people being outraged at Obama's lack of support for gay rights. Where were these people throughout the primaries and general election?

    He's flip flopped on just about every progressive issue (even before the election. Remember FISA) But as far as gay rights, he's consistantly shown he has no interest in advancing the agenda.

    He hides behind the smoke screen that this is an issue that has to be won at the "grass roots" state level. (An easy way to pass the buck down the road). I wonder what his political chances would have been had LBJ taken that same approach? I doubt seriously if he would be sitting in the WH today.

    There are times when even a politician has to take a stand for what they believe this country is about. We lecture the rest of the world about human rights and yet we can't even deal with the isue at home.