Showing posts with label same-sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex. Show all posts
Friday, August 16, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors.
Yes, We’ve Opened The Door
To Polygamy And Incest: We Just Didn’t Want To Admit It Before
Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the
homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors. On
March 20, 2012, Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College,
participated in this mockery by his review of amicus briefs
that were given to the Supreme Court to defend the traditional (i.e.
heterosexual) definition of marriage. He wrote in
part:
“Then there’s the fixation on how a ruling in favor of gay marriage
will start the nation down a slippery slope toward polygamy and incest.
Adam and Steve today; tomorrow Adam, Steve, with Cain and Abel along for the
ride as well. But no one seems to notice that the slippery slope worries are as
great with heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. The slope between gay
marriage and polygamous or incestuous gay marriage is no steeper and no slicker
than between heterosexual marriage and polygamous or incestuous heterosexual
marriage. So how would this “slippery slope” danger play out? Is the worry that
recognizing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will drive straight men
into the arms of their sisters? Well, now you’ve lost me.”
That was written before the Supreme Court’s decision. Now that the
decision has been made, Greenfield is suddenly changing message:
“It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.”
What
follows is an examination of several attempts to stave off incestuous and
polyamorous marriages. They all plainly fail. Most telling is this one:
“arguments
for marriage equality do not really depend
on the claim that people have no choice about who they are. Rather, the
argument that resonates most with Americans is that LGBTQ people have the same
right to make choices about their families as straight people. Let’s be honest:
If science revealed tomorrow that sexual orientation is fluid and changeable,
the arguments in favor of marriage equality would essentially be the same,
wouldn’t they? Just like our arguments for religious liberty do not depend on
whether people are destined by biology to be a Methodist, our arguments about
the liberty to marry need not depend on science. In any event, if we throw all
our eggs in the ‘it’s about the hardwiring’ basket, are we sure we have made
the distinction we want? Are we confident that science will show that people
who are polyamorous or who are attracted to a cousin are not hardwired that
way?”
The
whole article is good (and by good, I mean it exposes evil), but one other
observation is especially important. The author asked homosexual “marriage”
advocates about the distinction:
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTION OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THROWS OUT PROP 8 APPEAL
THE BLAZE
June 26, 2013 10:09 am
This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.
The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).
The portion of the DOMA law that has been ruled against is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Gay couples, under federal law, will now be considered “married.” And in California, same-sex marriages will be able to potentially resume. The rulings do not impact gay marriage rights in the 38 states where it is currently not legal on the books.
The DOMA vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for himself and the liberals on the court. He wrote that DOMA is a violation of “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” On a more intriguing note, the argument that DOMA infringed on states rights to define marriage was also noted.
Read the DOMA ruling, below:
June 26, 2013 10:09 am
This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.
The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).
The portion of the DOMA law that has been ruled against is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Gay couples, under federal law, will now be considered “married.” And in California, same-sex marriages will be able to potentially resume. The rulings do not impact gay marriage rights in the 38 states where it is currently not legal on the books.
The DOMA vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for himself and the liberals on the court. He wrote that DOMA is a violation of “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” On a more intriguing note, the argument that DOMA infringed on states rights to define marriage was also noted.
Read the DOMA ruling, below:
Monday, February 25, 2013
Unwed Couples to Get Military Benefits — Only If They’re Gay
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has issued a directive stating that certain military benefits formerly reserved for married couples will now be extended to unmarried partners — but only if they’re same-sex partners.
Heterosexual unmarried partners do not qualify for the benefits.
Panetta issued his directive in a memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
Citing the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, Panetta states: “Discrimination based on sexual orientation no longer has a place in the military.”
The memorandum continues: “At the direction of the President, the Department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of Service members. We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations.
CONTINUED: http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6I6XNphFC2DjiIP1MvvGDuHU3bfbLI1Z
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Friday, July 16, 2010
House Democrats Insert Gay Rights into Immigration Debate
House Democrats Insert Gay Rights into Immigration Debate
By Jake Gibson
Published July 15, 2010--FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
With no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/
By Jake Gibson
Published July 15, 2010--FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
With no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Obama Administration to Expand Family Medical Leave Act to Gay and Lesbian Employees
Posted By Eve Zibel On June 22, 2010 @ 4:32 pm In "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Family Medical Leave
7 Comments
The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Critics say the Obama administration is going too far. “They're trying to redefine marriage and family by these arbitrary policies with no debate by congress, no public discussion about it," says Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family.
Gay rights activists, who strongly supported President Obama’s campaign, wish the administration would go further. “It's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one," says Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
The announcement comes as the president declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with an event Tuesday night at the White House to celebrate it. But even as some are ready to fete the occasion, the president is already creating a new firestorm, with his recent Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations which referenced families that include “two mothers” and “two fathers,” respectively, a move conservatives criticized and called “divisive.” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said the president “was just trying to be inclusive of all sorts of families.”
But at an event celebrating Father’s Day on Monday, Obama talked, as he has before, about how he missed having both a father and a mother present while growing up. "He [Obama’s father] left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill,” Obama said.
President Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“This is just one more example of where the Obama administration is really bypassing the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman,” Earll told Fox News.
Moulton of HRC, a group working on behalf of the LGBT community, says the latest move by the administration is a step in the right direction, toward perhaps an eventual repeal of DOMA. “Certainly it's not medical leave to take care of a partner, it's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one.”
Meanwhile, it’s not just the Family Medical Leave Act the Obama administration is handling that pertains to the LGBT community. The White House is also focused on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – something the president said he would work on in his State of the Union address earlier this year.
“We would like to see it happen sooner, I think we keep moving along a pace and the Pentagon will finish its review and we are hopeful and confident president is going to move toward that certification as soon as possible,” says Moulton.
Critics feel that the military’s policy on gay service members will be one more step toward a further erosion of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will set the stage for the federal government to have to recognize same sex relationships of identified gays and lesbians in the military," says Earll.
While candidate Obama was popular with the gay and lesbian community for saying he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he began to run into trouble with gay and lesbian organizations once in office. In October of last year, the President had to once again affirm his pledge of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell at an annual dinner after months of what the community called stalling tactics.
"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie, " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner in Washington on October 10, 2009."So, I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." That statement, at the time, was met with applause from those in the room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Row 2, Seat 4: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/
URL to article: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/obama-administration-to-expand-family-medical-leave-act-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees/
7 Comments
The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Critics say the Obama administration is going too far. “They're trying to redefine marriage and family by these arbitrary policies with no debate by congress, no public discussion about it," says Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family.
Gay rights activists, who strongly supported President Obama’s campaign, wish the administration would go further. “It's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one," says Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
The announcement comes as the president declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with an event Tuesday night at the White House to celebrate it. But even as some are ready to fete the occasion, the president is already creating a new firestorm, with his recent Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations which referenced families that include “two mothers” and “two fathers,” respectively, a move conservatives criticized and called “divisive.” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said the president “was just trying to be inclusive of all sorts of families.”
But at an event celebrating Father’s Day on Monday, Obama talked, as he has before, about how he missed having both a father and a mother present while growing up. "He [Obama’s father] left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill,” Obama said.
President Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“This is just one more example of where the Obama administration is really bypassing the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman,” Earll told Fox News.
Moulton of HRC, a group working on behalf of the LGBT community, says the latest move by the administration is a step in the right direction, toward perhaps an eventual repeal of DOMA. “Certainly it's not medical leave to take care of a partner, it's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one.”
Meanwhile, it’s not just the Family Medical Leave Act the Obama administration is handling that pertains to the LGBT community. The White House is also focused on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – something the president said he would work on in his State of the Union address earlier this year.
“We would like to see it happen sooner, I think we keep moving along a pace and the Pentagon will finish its review and we are hopeful and confident president is going to move toward that certification as soon as possible,” says Moulton.
Critics feel that the military’s policy on gay service members will be one more step toward a further erosion of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will set the stage for the federal government to have to recognize same sex relationships of identified gays and lesbians in the military," says Earll.
While candidate Obama was popular with the gay and lesbian community for saying he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he began to run into trouble with gay and lesbian organizations once in office. In October of last year, the President had to once again affirm his pledge of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell at an annual dinner after months of what the community called stalling tactics.
"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie, " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner in Washington on October 10, 2009."So, I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." That statement, at the time, was met with applause from those in the room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Row 2, Seat 4: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/
URL to article: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/obama-administration-to-expand-family-medical-leave-act-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
