Joe Solmonese, President of HRC, appeared on Countdown with Keith Obermann discussing the “small change” Obama made today, extending “some” benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees. Watch:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BojGTD8ow9Y[/youtube]

President Obama has just signed the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination which extends “some” benefits to the partners of federal gay and lesbian employees. Those benefits are restricted to:

Civil Service Employees

• Domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program
• Supervisors are required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children

Foreign Service Employees

• Use of medical facilities at posts abroad
• Medical evacuation from posts abroad
• Inclusion in family size for housing allocations

The Memorandum unfortunately does not extend healthcare benefits to partners of gay and lesbian. In fact, many of the benefits already exist, as reported by John Aravosis at Americablog:

I just asked OPM Director John Berry, on a White House media conference call, whether in fact federal agencies already have the right to give these benefits to gay employees. The answer, “yes.” So what’s new about tonight? Obama is going to “tell” the agencies to give the benefits – as if any agency in the Obama administration would dare tell a gay employee no to a request for time off to attend their partner’s funeral?

Obama also announced his support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act which extends equal treatment in benefits for federal employees.

Video of Obama signing the Memorandum below:

The full text of the President Obama’s statement available here.

From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama plans to extend health care and other benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of federal employees. White House officials say Obama plans to announce decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president had not yet made the announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. Officials say Obama would detail more details of the decision on Wednesday.

I suspect this is an effort to quieten or placate the growing anger over lack of progress on LGBT issues and the recent DOMA brief.

Update: On the Rachel Maddow show this evening, Chuck Todd said there was some question whether the benefits granted would be through Executive Order or by Memorandum, which is how the administration is framing it. If by Executive Order, only another Executive Order could overturn it. In the case of a Memorandum, Todd was under the impression that a Memorandum only lasts the duration of that presidency.

If by Memorandum…. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Video to follow…

Update #2: Rachel Maddow video below…

The New York Times published an editorial today criticizing  Obama’s controversial defense brief for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which cited decisions involving incest and underage marriage to make it’s case. From the New York Times:

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

…

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

The controversy is definitely picking up steam, with coverage in the Wall Street Journal, CBS News and of course on the Rachel Maddow Show. Let’s hope Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is asked about it today.