The President took a baby step toward giving benefits to gay couples. I have no objection to interpreting the family leave act to allow gay couples to take care of their partners. One has to wonder why leave out other unmarried couples? What is the legal basis? The problem occurs with the statements that this is just a down payment. Instead of taking this step to unite most Americans on the issue, he divided Americans. It will be interesting to see where this goes. This of course is why social conservatives are skeptical of ad hoc changes. It has nothing to do with being hateful; it has to do with understanding the otherside. Nevertheless, the good seems to overcome the questionable aspects so far. I will take it at face value. Fighting giving people their right to take care of a sick loved one seems to be both morally wrong and a political loser. The move doesn’t include health insurance. This seems to show the political agenda behind the move. Why worry about couples? Shouldn’t we have household insurance? Something like that shouldn’t be associated with sexual activity. Wouldn’t all of this social division be avoided by allowing people to take care of their household. Benefits could be extended tomorrow without changing DOMA if insurance is given on the basis of household coverage. Not going this way seems to speak of a political agenda outweighing truly caring about people. Gay couples seem to be just a pawn in their real agenda. The President’s talk of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in this context is wrong headed. The benefit problem is not inherent to marriage. It is the fact that the federal government has not done what some businesses have done and go to household insurance. His argument that DOMA does not respect state’s rights is as Orwellian as his losing sleep over deficit spending. DOMA is all about protecting state’s rights and the right of the people to self govern. At least the administration got it right in the court brief defending DOMA’s constitutionality.