By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Two strongly worded court orders place President Obama in an awkward position on the issue of whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, The New York Times reports.
Two strongly worded court orders place President Obama in an awkward position on the issue of whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, The New York Times reports.
In separate instances of employee grievance resolutions, judges of the federal appeals court in California said that the same-sex partners of their employees were entitled to health benefits. This position challenges the federal Office of Personnel Management, which has directed insurers not to provide the benefits, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines the word "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.
Obama must decide whether to support the personnel office, and risk disappointing the liberal base that helped elect him, or support the judges, and court conservative anger at a time when he needs them to help advance his daunting domestic agenda.
A White House spokesman declined to tell The New York Times how Obama would proceed if the judges tried to enforce the orders, although he did reiterate the president's support for legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
As a senator, Obama sponsored legislation to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. He and John Berry, his openly gay appointee to head the personnel office, both have endorsed providing health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
On the congressional front, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is a lesbian, plan to introduce bills to provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
