Obama was responding to a question during a town hall meeting Thursday in Tampa, Fla.. He noted a bill is pending that would extend to domestic partners of federal employees benefits such as granting Social Security survivor payments and allowing hospital visitation.

Obama said: “My hope is we can get it done.”

Obama has acted administratively to extend some benefits to federal employees with same-sex partners. He has called for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of gay unions and the granting of benefits.

Considering the tremors – in fact, seismic booms  – that have taken place in our economy recently, many of my clients are asking, “now what?” 

I’m 32 and while I’ve been in the financial services industry for over 8 years, many of my clients are younger. We’re all wondering: with Social Security being the ultimate Ponzi Scheme, what now?  If you thought Bernie Madoff was horrible, have you taken a look at what our government does with our money?  And that’s the biggest problem. We as a nation honestly feel that the government is going to take care of us, rather than just waste our money. This, I believe, is why most of us don’t do a thing in preparation for our retirement (if we’ll even have something that resembles retirement). Talk about Earth shattering!

You should be saving at least 10 percent of your income in a Roth IRA, provided you qualify – some make too much to contribute.  A Roth IRA will allow you to save money in an account, invest it how you choose and will provide you with tax-free growth for retirement.  You won’t get a tax deduction for the contributions (some who make very little will actually receive a tax-credit for Roth IRA contributions), but the security is worth it. 

At the very least, you should have two to three months of savings piled up for the possible layoff that might still come.  If you own your business (which is a great idea) you will open yourself up to the ability to save much, much more.  A business is so simple to open these days and the economic stimulus package has some perks just for you!

Let’s be practical.  You must save and you must plan.  Look at 10 percent of your income as a bill you must pay for the rest of your life.  One that you can never avoid, never pay off and always expect to pay on the same day of each month.  Prepare yourself for the worst, and the best just might come.

The good times are not going to last, kids.  Not with the same behaviors we have displayed.  We overspend and under-save.  We act like children and wonder why Big Brother continues to watch over us.  We need to grow up before the next earthquake hits.  In order to be personally free, we must be personally responsible.

“This is long awaited relief for Gary Day and his children, who just want to be respected as the family that they are,” said Lambda attorney Beth Littrell in a statement.

“The Social Security Administration is supposed to provide families with help in a time of need regardless of a parent’s sexual orientation. After three long years and a federal lawsuit, the SSA has finally come through for these children.”

In February 2006, Day completed the applications for Child Insurance Benefits for his children. He provided birth certificates and court documents that acknowledge him as a legal parent of the children. The SSA acknowledged that they received the application and promised to provide a response in 45 days.

After more than a year with no response, Lambda Legal sent a letter on Day’s behalf seeking action by the agency. The SSA still did not provide an initial determination of eligibility citing unspecified “legal questions and policy issues” involved with the application.

Day provided all the necessary documentation to establish a legitimate parent-child relationship and fulfilled all of the SSA’s prerequisites, according to Lambda, yet his family was left without the social safety net that Day had paid into for decades and that all other families are provided on a regular basis.

In May 2008, Lambda Legal, along with co-counsel from McDermott Will & Emery, filed suit against the SSA compelling the agency to act on Day’s application and urging the SSA to recognize Day as a legal parent of the children.

The agency Friday finally sent a letter to Lambda recognizing the legal relationship between Day and his children without discrimination based on his sexual orientation or family status.

“As a parent, it is my job to provide for my children,” said Day.

” I am relieved to be able to fulfill my promise and also relieved that the SSA will provide the benefits my family needs, just as they do for other families.”

“This case has always been about the welfare of Mr. Day’s children and protecting them from discrimination … The sexual orientation of their parents is and should be irrelevant to such a determination,” said co-counsel Lisa A. Linsky.

We don’t earn much money — we’re two women in pay-by-the-hour jobs in a state not known for being super friendly to labor. So we don’t have a lot to save or invest.

But being in our middle years — me more than my partner — we try not to spend all that we earn.

We try to save.

We try to dedicate money each month to a money market account and still a little more money each month to a mutual fund. The money market and savings accounts gain a little interest for us, but the mutual fund is performing dismally. That probably is not surprising to most of you.

Being modest wage-earnings with modest needs, the Social Security benefits we will receive upon retirement will be needed income not disposable income.

I’d like to think that if I go before my partner, she would, as my survivor, receive my Social Security benefits — benefits I’ve been paying toward since I was 13 years old.

But present law says no, she won’t receive those benefits.

My brother’s wife would receive his benefits.

My sister’s husband would receive her benefits.

My mother would receive my father’s benefits and my father would receive my mother’s benefits.

But my partner, as the law exists today, will not receive my benefits as my survivor.

The topic of survivor benefits came up this last week at a local coffee house I frequent in mixed company — democrats, republicans and some characters who could be described as political agnostics.

Some acknowledged that they never considered whether a lesbian’s widow should receive Social Security survivor benefits. Some said the law exists to protect the traditional family. Some said the unfairness demonstrates the need for at least partial privation of the system so workers can designate a survivor of their choice — not the government’s — to receive their benefits. George W. Bush proposed privatization some years ago, though I don’t recall advancing gay equality as a foundation of his reasoning.

I said why do we need to privatize a government program to make it fair and just?

We need, of course, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The law states, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Earlier this month, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a federal suit in Boston challenging the government’s use of Section 3 in DOMA to discriminate against gays and lesbians on Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits and in the issuance of passports.

GLAD said that married gays and lesbians pay into the system and play by the rules, the government ought not to deny them federal protections and benefits.

And GLAD is right. Massachusetts, where the suit is filed, recognizes gay marriages and the complainants in GLAD’s case include a U.S. Postal Service employee not allowed to add her spouse to her health insurance plan, a Social Security Administration retiree denied health insurance for his spouse, three widowers denied death benefits for funeral expenses and a man denied a passport bearing his married name.

It’s exciting that GLAD, which has had such success in advancing gay rights in the courts over the years, is taking on DOMA, and it will be interesting to see how strong a defense an Obama-era Department of Justice wages.

But same-sex marriage, at least for now, is legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut. What is the solution for same-sex couples in the four states that legally recognize “civil unions,” which are not marriages? What is the solution for same-sex couples in the other 44 states? What is the solution for this lesbian couple in the Sunshine State worried about their safety net in their sunshine years?

One of the plaintiffs in the GLAD lawsuit, Herbert Burtis, is 78 years old. He lost his spouse last year, and has been denied the $700 a month in Social Security benefits that the federal government would have approved for a heterosexual widower.

Burtis told The New York Times last week that he didn’t expect to receive federal benefits in his lifetime. Of course, I hope he is wrong, and that GLAD succeeds in its case.

But beyond that, I hope in my lifetime I can come to feel certain that somehow, someway my partner will be recognized as my survivor and receive my benefits.