(2010-06-03) — Just a day after signing an executive order conferring taxpayer-funded spousal benefits on same-sex partners of federal employees, President Barack Obama today explained that he actually meant to grant the benefits to homosexuals who live with government workers, “not to everyone who has the same sex partner more than once.”
The White House reportedly has been flooded with inquiries, from elected officials and bureaucrats across dozens of government agencies, about limits on the number of people who can qualify.
“Apparently some folks didn’t notice the hyphen in ’same-sex partners’,” the president said. “But now that we’ve discovered how many people lack coverage despite periodic intimacy with a federal worker, I’ve ordered my staff to develop a policy for this new class of entitled persons.”
“After all,” Mr. Obama said, “love should not be limited by sexual orientation or other arbitrary factors like time, or whether you know your partner’s last name.”
7 responses so far ↓
1 Thursday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath // Jun 3, 2010 at 9:43 am
[...] The addendum to the memo. [...]
2 Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e121v4 // Jun 3, 2010 at 9:48 am
[...] addendum to the memo. This entry is filed under Links, Mark O.. You can follow any responses to this entry through [...]
3 Hawkeye_R // Jun 3, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It's nice to know that we have a lot of surplus money laying around in the government coffers to pay for all this "stuff".
(:X) Grrrr!
4 ChileSerrano // Jun 3, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I'm confused.
If you have sex with your partner the exact same way every time the two of you have sex, would they qualify as your "same-sex" partner?
Anybody?
5 boberin // Jun 4, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I think the concept you're groping for (some pun intended) is…"married"
Good stuff Scott!
6 onlineanalyst // Jun 4, 2010 at 6:02 pm
D.C. is riddled with same-sex partnerships. The EO is just looking out for those whose jobs have been created or saved.
7 ChileSerrano // Jun 5, 2010 at 3:53 am
ola: I could never quite figure out just who or what those jobs were being "saved" for.
Perhaps they were expecting a whole lot of primary challengers to Senate Democrats?
You must log in to post a comment.