The New York Times has a story that looks at the ongoing discriminatory treatment dished out to same sex couples by the federal government when it comes to employee benefits. It clearly provides another picture of why DOMA must go and it also shows the idiocy of Obama's worries about getting GOP support on health care reform and other issues. By now it should be obvious to even the worse simpleton that the GOP is NOT going to cooperate with Obama and the Democrats on anything no matter what lip service they may give. The reality is that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have the votes to proceed on any manner of issues and they need to grow some balls and/or a backbone and proceed without the GOP which is increasing irrelevant except for the simpering behavior of the Democrats who love to participate in circular firing squads as Rachel Madow describes it. I also wish someone would call anti-gay discrimination for what it is: discrimination based on religion which is already barred by both the federal laws and the U.S. Constitution which overrides DOMA. Obama, the Congressional Democrats and the Courts need to tell Christianists like Gary Bauer - who looks like a would be pedophile in my personal opinion - to go Hell with the religious based discrimination. Here are some story highlights:*
Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
*
In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers. But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
*
But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
*
Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.
*
In Ms. Golinski’s case, Judge Kozinski said that federal law authorized the Office of Personnel Management to arrange health benefits for federal employees and their family members. The law, he said, defines the “minimum requirements” for health insurance, but the government can provide more.
*
Judge Reinhardt confronted the question differently, and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act, as applied to Mr. Levenson’s request, was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of “due process of law.” “A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot provide a rational basis for governmental discrimination,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.
*
Judge Reinhardt said the denial of benefits to same-sex spouses would not encourage gay men and lesbians to marry members of the opposite sex or discourage same-sex marriages. “So the denial cannot be said to nurture or defend the institution of heterosexual marriage,” the judge wrote.
*
Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative advocacy group, said that if Mr. Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, he would “provoke a furious grass-roots reaction, reinvigorate the conservative coalition and undermine his efforts to portray himself as a moderate on social issues.”
No comments:
Post a Comment