President Barack Obama, under growing criticism for not seeking to end the ban on openly gay men and women in the military, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Mr. Obama plans to announce his decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office, a White House official said Tuesday. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/16/politics/main5092629.shtml
~@~
How do you feel about this progressive move by President Obama?
Too much or too little, too late ?
__________________ CLICK HERE if you would like help finding the Best Vaporizers on the Planet
The Following User Says Thank You to Richard Owl Mirror For This Useful Post:
Location: i live in the great state of south carolina
Posts: 2,965
Thanks: 553
Thanked 1,845 Times in 1,173 Posts
Rep Power: 234
in all honesty i agree with the comedian who said, " i would love for gays in the military, i would only serve with an all gay squad, because i man is more likely to save my ass if he wants a piece of it." im joking of course but i see no problems with giving gay men and women all the rights of everyone else, love is love, and bigotry is hate, no matter the source.
__________________
they call me ishmael, and mobys music sucks. smile if you get it.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Moonbiscuit For This Useful Post:
It's a political move that won't make him significantly less popular with the straight folks who voted for him, but might win him a little more support form glbtxyz groups. Also a good move for keeping the enthusiastic support of most of Hollywood, which is more significant now than some might think.
Plus, unless the same-sex partners of federal employees that apply for and get benefits are required to be in a civil union with the federal employees, it opens the door to odd legal actions, and maybe other ways to cheat the system. The article isn't really clear on requirements.
I'm a gay woman, but I'll never view President Obama as anything but an enemy to my country. Most bad guys do seemingly good things every once in a while. They're still bad guys. (Wasn't a fan of Bush, either.)
__________________ The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to The Pinks For This Useful Post:
It's a political move that won't make him significantly less popular with the straight folks who voted for him, but might win him a little more support form glbtxyz groups. Also a good move for keeping the enthusiastic support of most of Hollywood, which is more significant now than some might think.
Plus, unless the same-sex partners of federal employees that apply for and get benefits are required to be in a civil union with the federal employees, it opens the door to odd legal actions, and maybe other ways to cheat the system. The article isn't really clear on requirements.
I'm a gay woman, but I'll never view President Obama as anything but an enemy to my country. Most bad guys do seemingly good things every once in a while. They're still bad guys. (Wasn't a fan of Bush, either.)
Sexual orientation should never be a deciding factor in anything. A joining between two people is a joining, and these should be the rights of people, never mind if they happen to be the same sex. It has nothing in my opinion to do with anything, in my humble opinion. It is still discriminatory if there are differences, no matter what.
But it is the thin edge of the wedge and I hope it pushes this open wide and FINALLY equalizes things. It is for sure damn time.
I'm a gay woman, but I'll never view President Obama as anything but an enemy to my country. Most bad guys do seemingly good things every once in a while. They're still bad guys. (Wasn't a fan of Bush, either.)
It's the carrot and stick approach. Simple as that.
It's a political move that won't make him significantly less popular with the straight folks who voted for him, but might win him a little more support form glbtxyz groups. Also a good move for keeping the enthusiastic support of most of Hollywood, which is more significant now than some might think.
Yes, Pink...Hollyweird and the media HELPED him big time!
Plus, unless the same-sex partners of federal employees that apply for and get benefits are required to be in a civil union with the federal employees, it opens the door to odd legal actions, and maybe other ways to cheat the system. The article isn't really clear on requirements.
No Federal acceptance but regulations: "just in case?"
I'm a gay woman, but I'll never view President Obama as anything but an enemy to my country. Most bad guys do seemingly good things every once in a while. They're still bad guys. (Wasn't a fan of Bush, either.)
High Pink.. they're all (mostly) bad guys. In it for themselves, with the public as their dumbass shield, playing the liberal/conservative game on us... finger pointing at everyone but themselves...
Why is it that any piece of bad legislation (I'm not saying THIS one in particular is bad: but generlly speaking) can pass a vote if it is hidden within another bill that is good?
Their version of taking the good with the bad??!!!
Ranting again.. I'll stop.. sorry.. I can't help it.
I wish I took debating in school... maybe I could understand the 'other side of the fence'.
Sexual orientation should never be a deciding factor in anything. A joining between two people is a joining, and these should be the rights of people, never mind if they happen to be the same sex. It has nothing in my opinion to do with anything, in my humble opinion. It is still discriminatory if there are differences, no matter what.
But it is the thin edge of the wedge and I hope it pushes this open wide and FINALLY equalizes things. It is for sure damn time.
Peace
right, personal sexual nor spiritual orientation should play a role in the first place - that is private.
I see it as Pink does, it is a huge new gape for all kind of silly law suits and surely will be used to abuse the system as with any special right that been given to an minority group.
And as usually with Obama, it is all PR spin. He angered his gay supporters earlier, driving them all away, and as his general support is plunging to rock bottom he is trying to win those back again - sure hope no one in the gay community will fall for that carrot.
__________________ Keep the gun oiled and the thumb green!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to green_nobody For This Useful Post:
Somehow I don't think any of you would be happy with anything except anarchy
You dead wrong Rich - what we are about is personal freedom and equality in front of the law. Anarchy is what we partly have today, for you and me the law is applicable yet others seem to be high above it: banks can commit fraud, kops run amok, politicians sell our skins to the highest bidder... Why should i want to see such continue Rich?!
Peace
__________________ Keep the gun oiled and the thumb green!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to green_nobody For This Useful Post:
And exactly how are you planning on replacing our current system?
Besides, I find it disingenuous to bring failing banks and hypocritical politicians in to this focused issue.
I realize your are angry and disenchanted with government on every level but, electing Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh won't resolve our issues.
__________________ CLICK HERE if you would like help finding the Best Vaporizers on the Planet
Location: i live in the great state of south carolina
Posts: 2,965
Thanks: 553
Thanked 1,845 Times in 1,173 Posts
Rep Power: 234
nothin will solve these issues besides voters standing up and fighting for it. anarchism isnt my forte, im a libertarian. i beleive that the states should have the final say in their laws. just like it was in washingtons day.
__________________
they call me ishmael, and mobys music sucks. smile if you get it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Moonbiscuit For This Useful Post:
Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy and is not sponsored by Palin or Limbaugh. Wanting the government out of your personal life/relationships shouldn't be considered anarchy either.
nothin will solve these issues besides voters standing up and fighting for it. anarchism isnt my forte, im a libertarian. i beleive that the states should have the final say in their laws. just like it was in washingtons day.
Are you saying there should be a patchwork of laws from state to state without any consistancy?
Would that include "Whites-only" ?
Perhaps each state should also issue their own form of currency?
Would each state have the ability to set their own health and safety standards, levels of allowable pollution?
I guess I'm uncertain where you would draw the line between State Laws and the role of the Federal Government.
Should individual states be able to set laws regarding people with disabilities are not welcome, people of racial populations are not allowed to own property or vote?
__________________ CLICK HERE if you would like help finding the Best Vaporizers on the Planet
It's called the full faith and credit clause. We can be a nation of patchwork laws. In fact, we are. Why does each state have to be the same?
I'm not sure how we went from anarchism to racism, but most people here are not decrying either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 10 of the Constitution.
Somehow I don't think any of you would be happy with anything except anarchy
No, Richard. Anarchy is where we're headed if big gubment don't back the f*ck down & leave us the Hell alone!
We would be happy with freedom & personal liberties restored. Unjust laws wiped from the books, and our unjustly prosecuted & convicted brethren released.
We want a government that will respect the will of the people.
A government that is bound by the Constitution that they all swore to uphold! A government that is free from graft & corruption.
A government that is not run from Wall Street.
A government that can prove where every tax dollar goes & can also justify the expenditure.
A government that does not rush through "secret" legislation that will effect millions of people without at least reading it & making it subject to public scrutiny.
We want a transparent government that is not constantly trying to screw us over & take our rights away.
A government that does not think it is better than the people it is supposed to be serving.
You are an intelligent man. I'm surprised you can't see that.
__________________
What gives a government the right to outlaw nature? War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself. Snick's MySpace Page
The Following User Says Thank You to snickelfritz For This Useful Post:
You are an intelligent man. I'm surprised you can't see that.
How much of this can be attributed to the demon Obama and his administration?
All of the issues you cite are the same issues that he wanted to correct.
Yet, all I hear is partisan rhetoric condemning him for his efforts.
__________________ CLICK HERE if you would like help finding the Best Vaporizers on the Planet
The Following User Says Thank You to Richard Owl Mirror For This Useful Post:
What efforts? A memorandum while the war effort is extended? Last I looked he couldn't even hold on to a bill for 5 days so that everyone can look at it, as promised, and he hasn't managed to keep his other promises on transparency (torture photographs anyone?). So I'm curious, what efforts? Are you talking about the banker bailout? The auto company bailouts / collapses? (Both of which are a little shady...)
"Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant ... no more secrecy. That is a commitment I make to you as president." -- Barack Obama, the candidate.
If he at least kept his promises on transparency, I might be more of a fan, but he hasn't.
Sorry, Obama really isn't your friend. He is a politician, and he is a shrewd one at that, measuring civil rights against political expediency.