05/20/2009
Lawmaker Expects Clinton to Soon Fix Gay Inequities at State Dept.
On Monday I posted that Rep. Howard Berman had introduced the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410) late last week, which covers a broad range of foreign policy and diplomacy issues, one of which is to "end the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad."
Today, news of developments in that area: "Berman, in a hearing on funding for the Foreign Service, said he
would drop his legislative bid as 'it is my expectation, based on very
recent conversations, that the Secretary of State will move forward
with implementing all of the benefits provided in that provision in the
very near future.' The congressman invited to the hearing Michael
Guest, the former US ambassador to Romania who in 2007 left the Foreign
Service, citing unfair treatment of his partner."
In February, Rep. Tammy Baldwin sent a letter co-signed by Senators Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking that inequities be remedied. Clinton said that such remedies were "on a fast timeline."
Posted 1:50 PM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Rights, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
All good in theory, but can someone explain why DOMA doesn't prevent this?
Posted by: Arthur | May 20, 2009 2:13:37 PM
My question is why it took the threat of legislation to shame Secretary of State Clinton to move on these issues. These are entirely under her pervue and did not have to involve any legislative action. I am quickly losing trust and patience in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: loki7329 | May 20, 2009 4:28:38 PM
This is neat, but what I do not understand is why we are extending spousal benefits to Foreign Service members but not to any other federal employee. How was this decision made?
Posted by: mcc | May 20, 2009 4:45:09 PM
Loki: I believe, as the Clinton statement linked in the post said, that the state department was resisting this only because they did not believe they had the legal authority to fix this issue by themselves. Therefore it is not the "threat" of legislation moving the state department here, but legislation enabling something the state department wanted to do but didn't believe they could...
Arthur: So if you look at the bill in question, the relevant bit is:
"333. (1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 and any other applicable provision of law, persons covered by section 511.3 of volume 14 of the Foreign Affairs Manual shall be deemed to include the same-sex domestic partner of a member of the Foreign Service"
This section then empowers the state department to write up some regulations for determining who is a "same-sex domestic partner". If you look up section 511.3 of the manual it says:
"Eligible family members: (4) Spouse."
I assume the idea is that under the DOMA you can't give federal "marriage" benefits to same-sex partners. But this bill would require/allow the state department to offer "domestic partner" benefits, sidestepping DOMA...
Posted by: mcc | May 20, 2009 5:08:49 PM
MCC: I don't buy it. Tammy Baldwin sent a letter to Clinton back in February outlining changes that the State Department could impliment without Congressional approval. Did she misplace the letter?
The message I keep getting from this administration is that "we have a lot on our plate. We'll get to you when we get to you."
Guess what? I'm busy too. So I guess they'll understand if I'm too busy to donate to any election campaign until I see real results.
Posted by: loki7329 | May 20, 2009 9:22:47 PM
Mike Guest here. Since I've been involved in this fight for several years, let me try to respond to some earlier comments.
The issues under consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee were specific to the State Department's Foreign Service, which requires its employees to be posted overseas regularly but denies same-sex partners fundamentals like transportation, security, emergency evacuation, health treatment at post, eligibility for embassy jobs, visa support and training that are provided to all other family members. Given the service requirement of overseas postings, these inequalities are particularly discriminatory, even dangerous (e.g. in safety, health) to the families of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers; they also reduce the effectiveness and security or our overseas missions. These issues could have (and I believe should have) been resolved by now, by Executive Order. They don't conflict with DOMA because they are workplace fairness issues that seek to amend the regulatory definition of "eligible family member," with no reference to the institution of marriage.
There is a separate set of broader issues affecting the entire federal workforce that cannot be resolved by Executive Order, but instead require Congressional action. These include participation of partners in government-sponsored health insurance programs, life insurance programs, pension plans, and long-term care plans. These issues are addressed in the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations bill, which was put forward in both the House and the Senate yesterday. (No hearing dates have been announced yet.)
I worked in Obama's campaign because I trusted him to address the continued denial of our constitutional rights from the standpoint of principle. So far that has not happened, to my regret. I began pushing, quite reluctantly, for this legislation only after pushing without success for the State Department to take the steps it can take on its own. There's been sufficient time to do so, but no action. And so of course I'm disappointed that this has again been shunted to the siderails. Having left the Foreign Service over this issue, it's a matter of closure for me. And with the State Department's transfer season having begun, how many more men and women, whose job it is to advance important American interests abroad, and who do so with their hearts, will be forced to transfer to jobs overseas before the Administration does the right thing?
This is the first time I've commented on this blog, and who knows, it may be the last (I usually turn to blogs after everyone's hashed everything out already). So let me ask that everyone please take a look at the call by a number in our community, myself included, for Americans to stop this senseless division of our country and move now to grant constitutional rights that too long have been denied to our community. I've been in Washington for three decades, and my hair is now (prematurely) graying; how many times have I heard "not just yet, but soon...."? It's time to stand on principle. Please check out www.thedallasprinciples.org -- I hope you'll join in this grassroots effort to demand full equality now. Cheers and with lots of respect to those who are so involved --
Posted by: mike | May 21, 2009 7:15:43 AM
I have a question about this...if this passes and foreign service members get benefits for their same-sex partners, will this include foreign same-sex partners, or do they only get benefits for their partner if their partner is also American? For example, if a straight foreign service member has a foreign-born partner, they can marry them and get them benefits. What happens to the gay foreign service member who has a foreign partner. perhaps even a foreign partner to whom they are legally married in that partner's country?
Posted by: Lisa | May 21, 2009 4:10:11 PM
Mike, it would recognize any same-sex contracts recognized by the United States. Just like anyone's spouse can be a foreigner, as long as they are legally married in the U.S., the foreign spouse would receive benefits of their federally employed husband/wife. The same principle should apply to legally recognized same sex partnerships in the U.S.
Posted by: lotusleef | May 22, 2009 12:00:45 AM
Lotusleaf, are you sure? I'm asking about the specific situation where a foreign service member has a foreign partner who is not a citizen or green card holder. Imagine they have a partner in the US who is in the US legally as an H1B visa holder, and maybe they have even registered as domestic partners in their state. When the foreign service worker moves overseas with this partner, the H1B visa is irrelevant. The foreign partner no longer has a right to be in the US as anything other than a tourist. Yet they are still the life partner of the foreign service worker. Their relationship is not protected through marriage or civil unions in the states since these are not recognized federally. Immigration rights, i.e. the right to sponsor a partner are not granted to gay couples. That is why we have UAFA which will hopefully pass. My guess is that while this is a big step for foreign service workers, it will only protect foreign service workers whose partner is a citizen or green card holder. Meanwhile, straight foreign service workers can marry a foreign partner and get them access to benefits. Can anyone clarify this subtlety? Because if foreign partners of foreign service workers are protected outside of American soil, that will be a huge victory for those of us fighting for gay immigration rights. If they're not protected, then I hope the discourse around this subject will be address this as the bittersweet victory it is.
Posted by: Lisa | May 22, 2009 3:38:24 AM