Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Bill Would Extend Federal Employment Benefits to Homosexual Partners
The New American ^ | 11/25/2011 | Dave Bohon

Posted on 11/27/2011 5:24:48 AM PST by IbJensen

In a deep bow to the homosexual lobby, a small army of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced legislation that would extend employee benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. Under H.R. 3485, homosexual partners of federal employees would be eligible for such benefits as retirement, life insurance, health insurance, workers compensation, and death benefits.

“The federal government must set an example as an equal opportunity employer,” the bill’s sponsor, lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was quoted by The Hill as saying. “If we are to treat all federal employees fairly and recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government, we need this legislation.”

Predictably, among the bill’s co-sponsors were three other homosexual Democrats: David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). Also not surprisingly, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, added her signature to the bill’s sponsorship. The Hill reported that Ros-Lehtinen, “who has a transgendered daughter, has said recently that her views have evolved on gay and lesbian rights over the last several years. Earlier this year, Ros-Lehtinen supported a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law she voted for in 1996 under which the federal government defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”

“I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation,” declared Ros-Lehtinen of Baldwin’s bill, “because we are a nation that prides itself on treating everyone as equals and this bill assures that we bring those same ideals to the regulations that guide federal benefits for domestic partners of federal employees. We have taken steps to gain equal rights for all, but much remains to be done. Passage of this legislation will be one step in the right direction.”

Despite such rhetoric, passage of the bill will be barred by the Republican majority in the House who oppose it, as well as by DOMA itself, which mandates that only marriage between a man and a woman can be recognized by the federal government.

But Democrats are hard at work to rescind DOMA, most recently with the introduction by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) of the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would give federal legalization of homosexual marriage. As reported by The New American, in mid-November the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approved Feinstein’s bill, historically marking “the first time a committee in either the Senate or the House has voted to repeal the 17-year-old [DOMA] law.” Without a majority in both houses of Congress, however, passage of Feinstein’s homosexual marriage bill will be postponed indefinitely.

Nonetheless, Democrats march gamely on with such efforts as Baldwin’s bill, which found its companion introduction in the Senate through sponsorship by two non-Democrats: Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), both leaders in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “This legislation is the next step to achieving equity for the gay community,” Lieberman intoned in a committee statement.” Lieberman explained that the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was rescinded “because we want the best men and women America has to offer to defend our country. The same is true for federal employees: we want to attract the best men and women possible to serve in federal government. One way to do that is by offering competitive benefits to the family members of gay federal employees. This legislation makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do.”

Likewise, Collins insisted that the bill represents “both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among Fortune 500 companies, for example, domestic partner benefits are commonplace.”

According to the committee statement, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of extending benefits to partners of homosexuals would be approximately $70 million per year through 2020. “Considered as a share of the federal government’s total budget for federal employees, this estimated cost would amount to only about two hundredths of a percent (0.0002),” explained the release.

According to The Hill, to counter the fraud to which the measure would be susceptible, a homosexual federal worker “would have to submit an affidavit attesting that he or she is in a same-sex domestic partner relationship. The affidavit must show they have a common residence (with some exceptions related to work or financial circumstances), that neither is married or in a domestic partner relationship with someone else, and that they generally share responsibility for a ‘significant measure of each other’s common welfare and financial obligations.’”


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crooksindc; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homopsychoagenda; homosexualagenda; homosexualism; homostatism; homotyranny; pederastagenda; pedophileagenda; taxpayermoneyatwork; wasteoftaxmoney
Stupid, socialist politicians in order to demonstrate their willingness to destroy decent American society attempt to gag the nation by shoving this evil legislation down our throats! Love homos and their evil, Godless methods of achieving filthy orgasms or else!

Homosexual benefits for homosexual federal workers! Congress has its priorities straight! These lunatics believe that shoving one's penus up another's anus is another normal.

1 posted on 11/27/2011 5:24:52 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This is crazy. The reason is because they change partners so much. I know that they tend to change partners as much as Newt does. This is not a good idea. I actually thought they did this already so I am pleased to see we can still fight this.


2 posted on 11/27/2011 5:27:57 AM PST by napscoordinator (Anybody but Romney, Newt, Perry, Huntsman, Paul. Perry and Obama are 100 percent the same!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I find the sight of hairy male bodies with flabby bellies colliding in bed unsettling but truthfully, we straight guys have always found beautiful lesbians a turn on. Not all gays are created equal. Sorry, liberals - if you were literally truthful, it would be a hard sell.


3 posted on 11/27/2011 5:29:03 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I’m sure the ‘best and the brightest’ will of course be homos looking for government handouts. Makes perfect sense... if you’re an idiot.


4 posted on 11/27/2011 5:29:27 AM PST by Track9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Track9

Why do gays need to be a federal protected class? Its not like most of us have a gay-dar. Idiots!


5 posted on 11/27/2011 5:31:30 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"must show they have a common residence (with some exceptions related to work or financial circumstances), that neither is married or in a domestic partner relationship with someone else, and that they generally share responsibility for a ‘significant measure of each other’s common welfare and financial obligations."

So a single child taking care of an elderly widowed parent would qualify? Seems like an equal protection issue if this bill discriminates against other types of "partnerships.

6 posted on 11/27/2011 5:32:59 AM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

DEFUND socialist collectives foreign and DOMESTIC.


7 posted on 11/27/2011 5:33:49 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

I find that clause interesting. Are liberals admitting same sex marriage is not really marriage? But they don’t see their own hypocrisy on display there, in black and white. If I was gay, I would be outraged at liberal homophobia codified into our nation’s laws!


8 posted on 11/27/2011 5:36:16 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"a small army of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced legislation"

...it must be a very, very small army.

9 posted on 11/27/2011 5:42:13 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Currently a retired federal employee can add a spouse only by giving up a part of the retired pay that would be otherwise due.

This is supposed to be actuarially sound and effectively has the individual employee paying for the benefit for the spouse.

When it comes to the gayblades their abbreviated lifespans probably make this a moot point ~ just won't be anybody around to collect.

When it comes to the lesbians it's a different story of course. They live at least as long as non-gays.

10 posted on 11/27/2011 5:42:55 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
...hairy male bodies with flabby bellies colliding in bed unsettling but truthfully...

your imagery brought a bit of puke up into my mouth....

that being said...I do not believe any govt. (state, feds, local) needs to be in the MARRIAGE business.

all partnerships should be ‘civil partnerships’ and your ‘Marriage’ should be between you and your religious organization...

11 posted on 11/27/2011 5:43:47 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Polagamists need these benes more than gays. After all, they raise children!


12 posted on 11/27/2011 5:45:05 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

YYup. Like I said, not all gays are created equal.

And these new federal benefits have a catch: to get them, gays must let the federal government into the nation’s bedrooms.

Well... their bedrooms and liberals are telling them to forget any expectation of relationship privacy. With friends like those, gays don’t need enemies.


13 posted on 11/27/2011 5:48:28 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

There really is no such thing as “beautiful lesbians” as it’s mostly a myth of Hollywood proportions. In other words, a marketing tool.

99.9% of REAL lesbians are of the “Chaz” and “Kagan” sort.


14 posted on 11/27/2011 5:49:24 AM PST by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

then, i as a single person, claim discrimination. it used to be that spouses/traditional families were given special treatment to encourage family stability. if this is opened up to cover homosexuals, then why not singles? actually i’d prefer that things stay with traditional families: God knows they need the help.


15 posted on 11/27/2011 5:50:20 AM PST by avital2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The country is beset with serious problems but many in congress would rather play in the weeds.


16 posted on 11/27/2011 5:51:31 AM PST by JPG (Hold on tight; rough road ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
That's always so weird ~ we had the gays beating down the government sponsored round ups at the beer joints on the grounds of bathroom privacy, and now we find them begging the same government to come into their bedrooms and watch and take pictures.

As everyone knows there's no privacy for federal employees or retirees.

17 posted on 11/27/2011 5:51:34 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU

True.... in porn though that works because men being highly imaginative creatures, can imagine inserting themselves in the action.

Apart from that, its hard to think of an instance where the gay lifestyle is truly mainstream.


18 posted on 11/27/2011 5:51:41 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The Left wants to regiment us. Why stop with gays? You know where this is going to lead. Its not about equality under the law.


19 posted on 11/27/2011 5:54:51 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

See, we don’t need to worry about illegals getting benefits - the pols will find many ways to take our money and give it to those that don’t deserve it.


20 posted on 11/27/2011 5:55:06 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

“Seems like an equal protection issue if this bill discriminates against other types of “partnerships. “

It would be discrimination against a child who financially supports their parent/s who live with them, and vice versa.
Where a parent supports an adult son, or daughter.

If the federal govt is going to open pandora’s box, then let the discriminatory civil actions begin.


21 posted on 11/27/2011 6:02:30 AM PST by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Well it looks like we’ll be paying benefits for the Fudge Packers. It all about the votes people.


22 posted on 11/27/2011 6:06:23 AM PST by Rappini (Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Unless this law provides the same options for heterosexual’s living together and not married then this law has to be unconstitutional because it gives rights to a class a people based solely on their sexual preferences.

You can not grant “rights” to one group on the basis on their sexual orientation, and in the same law deny rights to another group because of their opposite sexual orientation.

It’s got to be all or none.


23 posted on 11/27/2011 6:22:59 AM PST by msrngtp2002 (Just my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I guess if your hetero live-in is not homosexual, they should declare themselves to be so, and become eligible for becoming a lifetime co-ward of the govt

No marriage, no divorce, imagine the court battles over partner benefits


24 posted on 11/27/2011 6:25:38 AM PST by silverleaf (common sense is not so common- voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Yeah. Let's increase the cost of government some more!

I have an idea. How 'bout if we figure out how much we are already paying for Federal "employee" "benefits" and if the Federal "workers" want to divide that money over some larger group then they can do so but the ones who are receiving some largess now should know that it will become a smalless as they are asked to share it with one special interest group after another.

ML/NJ

25 posted on 11/27/2011 6:26:06 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
This administration already does extend most benefits to same sex partners.

Here

This bill will etch it into stone.

26 posted on 11/27/2011 6:31:27 AM PST by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

OK, let me get this straight: If two homosexuals decide they want to live together, they can have access to taxpayers’ money to make their cohabitation validated. What about two heterosexuals merely living together without marriage? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory against them to give homosexuals benefits without any two cohabitating partners?


27 posted on 11/27/2011 6:32:19 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

He's Baaaaack !!!!


28 posted on 11/27/2011 6:33:26 AM PST by Iron Munro (Unattended children will be towed away at the owners expense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun
This administration already does extend most benefits to same sex partners.

With the exception of Federal Employee Health Benefits.

29 posted on 11/27/2011 6:33:29 AM PST by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

A recent poll showed that 40% of the people think that marriage comes from man and thus the state, that it can be whatever the state decides it is. They have been conditioned to think that the state defines marriage. And the homosexualists and statists love it.

FReegards


30 posted on 11/27/2011 6:36:23 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

a virtual armette!


31 posted on 11/27/2011 6:48:27 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government

Oh yeah .... what we need is more people like Barney Frank in the federal government.

32 posted on 11/27/2011 6:50:07 AM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU
There really is no such thing as “beautiful lesbians”

You are totally wrong. There are many drop-dead, totally gorgeous lesbians. You may not know them or possibly you know them but don't realize they are lesbians.

Back to the topic of this thread - I am sick and tired of politicians who pander for votes. They won't be happy till they get everybody but the producers on the dole.

33 posted on 11/27/2011 7:01:11 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Now we come to the point. It never was about anything else but money.


34 posted on 11/27/2011 7:10:23 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

That’s your and my tax money folks, going to pay for one of the unhealthiest, most expensive demographics in the world.


35 posted on 11/27/2011 7:11:13 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

A deep bow??!! They don’t want us to bow to them. They want us all to BEND OVER for them. I knew this crap was coming. That is one of the reasons I choose to retire from the military. I absolutely REFUSE to support this type of lifestyle. We had a brief by our commander about the repeal of DADT. I asked him about the statistics that PROVE homosexual lifestyle is more prone to DISEASE and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! He said, “I didn’t write the policy.” We’ve already had one case of domestic violence (male-male relationship). I’m just hoping my retirement date gets here fast. I’d hate to be sitting at the hospital waiting for an appointment and Jim and John come in holding hands and sit next to me. Of course I am not allowed to use my freedom of speech on base. That might upset the fairies!


36 posted on 11/27/2011 7:17:45 AM PST by rfreedom4u (Forced diversity causes dissent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This is something that will thrill the American people, 75 percent of whom wanted the military “open” to “diversitiy.”


37 posted on 11/27/2011 7:33:41 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

I am afraid that the American people are not in the least sympathetic to your position, freedomfighter.


38 posted on 11/27/2011 7:35:10 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: layman

I’m sure MA would agree. People in MA are no longer admirers of the original John Adams.


39 posted on 11/27/2011 7:36:25 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Wait a minute. I am missing something here.
Unemployment is paid to the unemployed worker, not the spouse.
How does being gay change anything?
40 posted on 11/27/2011 7:39:28 AM PST by DeaconRed (My Hat Don't Hang on the same Nail to Long. I am a CAT adjuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The simple solution is to treat all federal employees the same. Pay them a salary based on the job (if there is a line out the door of qualified applicants to replace them, then the pay is too high).

Let them buy their own “benefits” on the free market. No added compensation for marrieds, or with kids (human or goat), or with “partners.”

Equal treatment for all.

Same with tax policy. No discrimination based on marital status.


41 posted on 11/27/2011 7:46:48 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun

Someday the people will take that stone and brain those politicians with it!


42 posted on 11/27/2011 9:40:48 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Just like people in Texas are all for illegal immigration.


43 posted on 11/27/2011 10:28:32 AM PST by rlmorel (The Rats won't be satisfied until every industry in the USA is in ruins and ripe for nationalization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

That isn’t correct as far as what I’ve read. Lesbians do not live as long as straight females on average. They may live longer than gay males but not straight females.


44 posted on 11/27/2011 11:29:41 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Then some of them might well live long enough to collect ~ just not as much as normal white women, but certainly far longer than gay blades.

Remember, no matter how long they live their eligibility depends entirely on the payments made by the partner (if currently retired), or is worked into the base earlier.

I'm not sure this involves enough people to be statistically significant.

45 posted on 11/27/2011 11:49:51 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Then some of them might well live long enough to collect ~ just not as much as normal white women, but certainly far longer than gay blades.

Remember, no matter how long they live their eligibility depends entirely on the payments made by the partner (if currently retired), or is worked into the base earlier.

I'm not sure this involves enough people to be statistically significant.

46 posted on 11/27/2011 11:50:04 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Any Repubs voting for this need to be marked, targeted and thrown out on their butts in the next election. They better not pass it!!!

47 posted on 11/27/2011 2:49:40 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson