« | »

Obama Gives Benefits To Homosexuals

From an elated Washington Post:

Obama extends benefits of gay federal workers

By Ed O’Keefe
Thursday, June 3, 2010

President Obama extended Wednesday a wider range of benefits to the same-sex partners of eligible federal workers, including access to medical treatment, relocation assistance, credit unions and fitness centers.

Do heterosexual partners get these benefits as well, or do they have to be married? If not, it would seem there is an excellent case for a class action lawsuit for discrimination.

The move goes beyond a memo Obama signed last June, which permitted same-sex partners to use the government’s long-term-care insurance and other fringe benefits. The Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday that same-sex partners will become eligible for such insurance next month.

And who is going to pay for these extended benefits? And would it be wrong to point out that homosexuals have far more health issues than non-homosexuals, as a rule?

Obama also ordered federal agencies last year to identify other benefits that could be offered to same-sex partners. A review by the Office of Personnel Management and Justice Department determined that at least some agencies could also permit credit union and gym memberships and access to counseling services, adoption counseling, and agency events or outings.

“Adoption counseling.”

A limited number of intelligence and financial regulatory agencies, Obama’s memo said, will be able to provide reimbursements for health-insurance premiums, dental and vision insurance, business travel accident insurance and tax reimbursements for gym memberships, physical exams and homeowners’ insurance.

We, the taxpayers are paying for gym memberships and homeowners insurance? And for people who are lying together and who claim to be homosexuals?

These benefits do not cover uniformed members of the military

Though Obama has extended a greater number of benefits to gay federal workers than any of his predecessors, he is prevented by federal law from providing full benefits to same-sex partners. To that end, he reiterated support for House and Senate legislation that would grant all federal benefits to same-sex partners.

So exactly what benefits are these darlings still being denied?

Beachfront properties on Fire Island?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, June 3rd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “Obama Gives Benefits To Homosexuals”

  1. proreason says:

    The backlash against the Obamunists is going to set back queer rights for decades. Can’t say that will displease me. It’s just part of the overall fascist strategy anyway.

  2. BobonStatenIsland says:

    Often times when walking down Broadway on the Upper Left Side in Manhattan some college kid with a clip board will stop me and ask if I would like to sing something for Gay Rights at which point I ask them, “They currently have the same rights as I do. Why should they be given more?”. This always stumps them. I walk away while they contemplate.

    • BobonStatenIsland says:

      I will also ask these cip board wielding drones, “Why does sexual preference dictate what rights you have?”.

    • JohnMG says:

      God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!

      This almost convinces me that Obama is queer as a three-dollar bill, and just like the majority of these drooling faggots, he’s got to be up in your face with it.

      When the dam breaks….and it WILL break….things are going to get really ugly. I hope this walking colostomy bag pretender-in-chief will reap what he has sown.

      In spades!!

    • Steve says:

      “and ask if I would like to sing something for Gay Rights”


  3. Liberals Demise says:

    What kind of Christian did dingleBarry claim to be?

  4. U NO HOO says:

    Obama said it was a difficult decision to be baptised. That could be because he didn’t want to be baptised but decided that baptism would give him some more street cred.

    And, have we seen his marriage license and/or marriage certificate?

    • canary says:

      Obama became a Christian when he ran for President. A reporter that taped Obama interview, asked if Obama if he ever made that walk to the alter, as his Dreams book did not go that far. In the interview he said he did, and was dishonest in the interview his mother was a Christian (Methodist, I believe,) and took him to church every Sunday.

      During his organizing withing churches, he was often questioned and encouraged, but avoided it, and mostly thought of the Malcom X gray beared preachers, or Richard Wright’s preachers, which he came to respect. Finally, it was suggested he try Rev Wright’s church which was made up of former muslims, gangbangers, & sex offenders, and Obama found a home.
      I do not believe Obama has ever confirmed typical Christianity, Jesus was son of God, died for our sins, resurrected.
      The Koran teaches that Jesus and Mary are bad a lied to the people, and they are bad. At least Jesus did not say to go out and kill people who don’t believe in them. He said if people didn’t believe to go on spreading the word to those who’d here it.
      I can’t even comprehend Obama being a Christian when he “shows more love muslims” than any other people in the world.

  5. So exactly what benefits are these darlings still being denied?

    This was never about equal benefits (but you know that). This is about having an agenda with which to demonize social conservative values, stifle religious expression (look what they do in Canada), and further undermine the family.

    • heykev says:

      Yes, and even McDonald’s is helping to undermine the family! Here’s a video (from France – where else) that promotes a homosexual agenda. It shows a teenage boy having a secret phone conversation with his homosexual lover while his father, unaware of his son’s homosexuality,buys lunch. The father, typically is a naive, semi-buffoon.

      What have we come too where McDonald’s is hell bent on using its resources to promote subversive moral, social, and political views about homosexuality to children!


    • proreason says:

      “What have we come too where McDonald’s is hell bent on using its resources to promote subversive moral, social, and political views”

      Business doesn’t have morals like people do. All the lip service to that effect is bogus bullshit. Business is in business to make money. Period.

      Consequently, business will do whatever it has to do to maintain itself. In this case, they are catering to the French government. In the US, business is currently catering to wtf Obamy wants it to do. That’s the root of the kowtowing before Congressional Idiot Commissions and all of the green nonsense, which any sane business person knows is the height of stupidity.

      But I don’t really present it as a negative….although it’s frustrating to watch it happen when the governments are as corrupt and immoral as governments are today. At least it’s easy to know what motivates business, and over the long haul, the motive of making money has benefited society enormously……far far far far far more than any government anywhere anytime.

    • heykev says:

      Pro – While I understand that works for companies like General Electric, The Wall Street Cabal, GM, etc. I’m not so sure I’d throw in McDonald’s into that group. Yes, they are in the business of making money, but they don’t want to do ANYTHING to piss off it’s customers even more than kowtowing to France (perhaps they took a page out of Obamy’s playbook, minus the bowing).

      Making money is not a negative or amoral. I worked directly for a man who ran a sizable NYSE listed company. He cared for the community his companies were in, did everything imaginable to save jobs and as a result, even in bad times, his company grew and made $$. It grew so well, it got bought by a Huge Conglomerate. They only cared about bottom line and not about long term growth. Their first decision was move production from our companies to new facility they started in MS – to save even more money by using new employees. But since the products made needed experts to make them. Quality tanked and companies we had long term relationships with – over 30 years left to get parts elsewhere and only later had an epiphany that they were needed.

      As a result, the division we were absorbed into (annual sales over 5bn) had to be sold to an investment group because it was doing so badly…so morals do have a place in companies. If you don’t do the “right thing” you will not be rewarded. Short term maybe…but not long term.

    • proreason says:

      I think you are slightly off-base on this one heykev. You are confusing good business practices with your personal morality.

      What your boss who cared was doing was operating his business smartly. Whether or not he was a good person by your or my standards is irrelevant. What he did worked, that’s all. The market will eventually punish immoral businesses because the customers won’t buy the products. That’s what happened to the conglomerate. The ruthlessness turned customers off. But don’t confuse smart or dumb business practices with “caring”. It’s not the same thing.

      It’s why Health Insurers are self-correcting (whereas the government won’t be). You should actually WANT business to only react to financial incentives. Left alone, people will flee Health Insurers who don’t cover reasonable pre-existing conditions, etc; provided the competition is free and fair. And then the market will reflect what people really value, not a businessman’s version of morality of the government’s version of morality. (note: the free and fair part is the hard part, particularly in 2010, with so much money at stake, and a country filled with criminal politicians.)

      You might argue that it is too easy to manipulate the buying public. But I would argue that it is far easier to manipulate the voting public. I’d rather take my chances with the market. It will react much faster and more “ethically” than politicians. Why? (a) Because profits (in a free market) are countable virtually in real-time and (b) because you can’t really lie about bankruptcy.

      Frankly, if McDonald’s disgusting ad works in France, then so be it. All it means is that French morality is in a different spot than we are at in the US. I don’t hold it against McDonald’s at all. I don’t expect them to impose my values on a different country.

      You might also argue that there are absolute boundaries that business shouldn’t cross; promotion of adultery, for example. But even that makes me nervous, not because I approve of adultery, but because someone else’s absolutes might differ than mine (i.e., Sharia law). Those types of questions should be debated by theologians rather than through business activities.

  6. canary says:

    Well, that flamboyant manner of Obama shouting out to the gays, that good things were on the way, I never dreamed gays would get more rights than non-gays. This is sexual discrimination. I think I’ll start a match-making business for non-gay’s to become partners (more like Hillary & Bill type partnership on paper only).

  7. proreason says:

    Allen Hunt has a brilliant article about the Moron’s total lack of leadership skills. Well worth reading slowly and all the way through. He makes the point that the boy king has divided the leadship of the Joint Chiefs in pursuit of a minor political goal. And it’s not the first time he has done something that stupid either.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »