I thought the photo was an illustration of the oft predicted slippery slope, same sex partners today, mice and men tomorrow?

And who really believes in such nonsense? That legalizing gay marriage will eventually lead to legalizing bestiality? Please, that's pathetic...

Apparently, health benefits require a change in the law since the law specifically uses "spouse" but some other benefits are administratively controlled. In the long run, this will increase the personnel costs to agencies since extending benefits to previously non-covered persons will obviously have some expense. Whether the funds will come from new appropriations or from funds diverted from programs is the real question.

Plus, I mean this pretty much proves the point that gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dogs, or mice as the case may be.

Well hell, I guess Antonin Scalia had to be right about something...

You know, I've always been suspicious about those two....

Yeah, seriously! Mickey's high-pitched voice, for example. Plus, I mean this pretty much proves the point that gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dogs, or mice as the case may be.

Nor is it clear how one determines who is a “partner” without a marriage certificate.

I don't have the actual data, but considering my own experience, I would guess that a majority of Fortune 500 companies extend benefits to "partners", same-sex or not. There are various housing requirements (more than one year under the same roof, etc.) and affidavets to sign, but it's not like this is a new idea or one not often applied. My fiance was on my health insurance nearly a year before we were married.

I'm just curious...what is the point of the picture used with this post...

The statue is called "Partners" and was the most prolific thing that came up on a Flickr search for the term. Also, given Disney's out front position on gay rights, I thought the double meaning especially amusing.

I would assume it's because Walt and Mickey are partners, in the "friends" sense. So they would qualify for benefits (if Walt was still alive and worked for the feds).

You know, I've always been suspicious about those two....

It’s not clear to me how he has the authority to make such a sweeping change without Congress passing a law.

Then you say:

For one thing, this would have to be massively expensive, unless he's going to take away benefits from married couples to pay for it.

Finally:

The expense is certainly relevant, in that he can't just willy nilly spend gobs of money on his own whim.

When do you suppose the Congress will advise him of the limits of his authority or let him know he needs to stop spending "gobs of money on his own whim"?

The question of how you separate a "partnership" from two people living together seems to be to be the big irritant. Sure they'll set up rules but at some point a live-in 'friend' is going to sue for the benefits of a government employee just like spouses and former spouses. Evangelicals may find this beneficial since it could make "living in sin" financially risky.

This man has taken over much of the nation in total defiance of constitutional power ...

So you're saying he's just like the last few Presidents?