Signing a Pres Memorandum giving gay federal workers spousal benefits is a very good thing

[ruggerson]

It's a good, forward thinking move on Obama's part and it will help gay and lesbian federal workers and their families.

The President's rationale for not doing an Exec Order to stop the Don't Ask Don't Tell investigations has been that he doesn't want to see it undone by the next President. He wants congress to do it.

Ok.

Well, the federal partners benefits Memorandum he will sign tomorrow can also be undone by the next President, if that President so chooses and may actually expire at the end of Obama's term.

The only way federal partners benefits can be made permanent is through a statute legislated by the Congress.

Help me understand why he can sign a Memorandum providing federal benefits for same sex partners, but can't sign an EO halting DADT while Congress gets it's act together to repeal it once and for all.

[msongs]

1. you may now drink from the same water fountains but stay out of the pool ok? nt

[stray cat]

4. And the economy isn't fixed and there is still no health care passed

and we are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no peace on earth.

[chascarrillo]

32. Maybe allowing gays and lesblians to serve in the armed forces would help us in the wars, eh?

Too simple, and requires keeping promises, I know...

[LostinVA]

34. Rights delayed are rights denied

[waiting for hope]

2. Good question -

and why are Federal Workers given more rights than any other person in the same situation?

[atreides1]

3. What Tripe

It's not forward moving, it's ass covering!!!

At least have the honesty to call it for what it is.

[stray cat]

6. I think people should refuse the benefits then...

[ruggerson]

7. I'm being kind

[Cha]

10. Take your marbles

and go home then.

[IndianaGreen]

5. A memo is like a Post It note

An essentially meaningless gesture that cannot be enforced. This is worse than Bill Clinton's much ballyhooed Executive Order that could only be enforced within the White House.

[OhioBlue]

16. no it isn't - it is important

it sets a precedent. it sets and example. It is a step in the right direction.

he is establishing policy for federal workers.

This is a good thing.

[masuki bance]

18. It sets an example for who?

[OhioBlue]

19. other employers n/t

[LostinVA]

35. Other employers are already far beyond this Mickey Mouse memo

They offer full an complete benefits, like my employer, who is certainly much smaller than teh gov't. And, it isn't even all the benefits -- no healthcare, for instance.

[IndianaGreen]

26. A Presidential Memo will not generate a change in regulations

and it is those regulations that run the federal bureaucracy.

This is a "Feel Good" Memo that will be more forgettable than a one night sexual encounter.

[tekisui]

8. Why not an EO? Weak.

[ruggerson]

9. I agree

but I'm trying to be gracious while making a point. :)

An EO would also be up for grabs with the next administration. They could wipe it out with a stroke of a pen.

The point is this undercuts his entire argument about ending DADT.

[katandmoon]

11. That's some fierce advocatin', all right! Imagine if he were a *chickenshit* advocate!

Oh wait...

[MikeE]

12. Congress is already acting on this

There is legislation moving through Congress now. It will be law soon, so I think a memo is an interim thing.

[Colobo]

13. Probably. By the end of the year, many critics will be silent for sure.

Obama is working. At his own pace, but working for all of us.

[vaberella]

17. Most don't care or don't think it's fast enough. Whatever...n/t

[LostinVA]

36. Dismissing equal civil rights with an "whatever" -- niiiiice

[Crooked Moon]

14. are soldiers considered federal workers? (n/t)

[LostinVA]

15. Yes and no -- this certainly wouldn't cover them

You do know gays can't be in the military, right?

[Crooked Moon]

39. of course. it was rhetorical.

[CTLawGuy]

20. because the president cannot undo a law with an executive order

the president is not ACUTALLY a legislator and it would violate separation of powers for him to declare a law repealed without congressional action.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. This is not exactly true

Obama is empowered by Congress to make decisions about separation from military duty. The problem is not the grabbing more power, but that the power the Executive already has on this measure is excessive and illegitimate, a symptom of the post-war imperial presidency.

It should be noted that the very same provision that people are asking Obama to deploy in order to end DADT by executive fiat is the one Bush and company used to backdoor draft the reserves and issue stop-loss orders throughout the Iraq War. If we didn't like it then, it's not clear why we should like it now, as a principle of executive power. People are asking Obama to affirm the stop loss power. That's dangerous, and I'm glad he's not doing it. Congress needs to get off their asses and do this correctly.

[CTLawGuy]

22. he has power and room to maneuver

but such power cannot contravene the dictates of the law, so unless the language of DADT gives the president an avenue to circumvent it, he cannot use discretionary power to undermine it.

[ruggerson]

23. you haven't been paying attention to the program

Legal and military experts have said that Obama can *effectively* neuter Don't Ask Don't Tell by an EO (under his stop loss powers) ordering a halt to the investigations and discharges. Then DADT can be repealed at a later date by Congress when they are ready to do so.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[hulklogan]

24. How good of a thing is it if the benefits only include moving expenses and cafeteria privileges?

Without health benefits, this memorandum will be meaningless.

[vaberella]

27. Wait...you read the full memorandum already?

It's out with all the details written or are you just making that up based on your own beliefs?

[hulklogan]

28. Every current news story says it can't include health or retirement benefits because of DOMA.

These aren't "my beliefs"

[LostinVA]

37. You are the poster who posts things without knoing the facts -- as you yourself admit

Significant benefits aren't included. Discount soup and sammy. Big fucking deal.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Gotta ensure that teh gheys keep coughin' up teh cahs.

[tavalon]

29. Because this is a political move meant to mollify teh frustrated gays?

Really, I think that is the reason.

[glitch]

30. Signing a memorandum allowing all the "equal" rights, except for the ones prohibited by DOMA

which the DOJ just attempted to defend with a creepy brief for dismissal.

I'm thinking this won't produce the desired result... unless the desired result is to enrage civil rights supporters to the point where they march on DC and withhold cash and force Congress to repeal DOMA, in which case brilliant chess move!

[Aloha Spirit]

31. Ooh I have an idea

I missed this post earlier and made my own thread.
Alright, this is just an idea.
First the State Department did a similar thing and now Obama.
Obama desparately wants to create pressure and ultimately support to undo DADT.
If gay federal employees' spouses get partner benefits, but claiming such benefits would force a member of the armed forces to lose their job merely by claiming benefits (as opposed to "telling" people they're gay for some other reason), then that seems like a gray area filled with loopholes that undermine the legitimacy of dadt.
For example, could the partner claim those benefits as opposed to the soldier?
In that case, the soldier wouldn't be "telling".
Or maybe discussions with HR are confidential and would therefore weaken the policy.
I don't know, just thinkin out loud

[LostinVA]

33. It also isn't the same rights that married spouses get -- big fucking deal

It is insulting, no matter how some on here are trying to spin it.

[ecstatic]

38. It is a great thing, and I think the culture of the fed. govt differs

from the culture of the military. The military is like a whole separate world with a lot more problems to overcome--hundreds of years of sexism, racism and homophobia cannot be changed overnight. The federal govt, on the other hand, has no such (overt) legacy.

[Orsino]

40. It's another small step forward.

I'm not gonna tell anyone not to feel insulted over it, but I believe it will contribute to ever more positive attitudes about equality.

It's still separate-and-not-even-equal.