The Defense Dept. has rejected a policy proposed last month to recognize the same-sex partners of gay teachers because it conflicts with DOMA, the Stars and Stripes reports:
"Stars and Stripes reported last month that the Department of Defense Education Activity and two teachers unions had signed off on giving same-sex teaching couples the same consideration as married heterosexual teaching couples when requesting joint transfers to new schools. The policy, which also extended the benefit to unmarried but committed straight couples, was disapproved during a routine DOD labor agreement review, according to the statement...The transfer benefit would have been a way to help gay teachers and would not have cost the Department of Defense or DODEA any additional money, said Xavier Flores, the Japan representative for the Federal Education Association, which signed the policy change with the Overseas Federation of Teachers in mid-January."
Posted Feb. 15,2010 at 12:43 PM EST by
Remember last summer when Obama signed that memorandum promising federal benefits to same sex partners? Remember how it came out that memorandum didn't cover health or retirement, but touted "relocation benefits" as something it did cover? (A refresher: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/anyone_satisfied_with_half_a_loaf.php)
Now we're not even getting that half a loaf we were promised.
Posted by: Adam | Feb 15, 2010 1:01:40 PM
Oh, it will be OK.
Obama proclaimed himself to be a fierce advocate for the LGBT community so everything will be just fine. Wink, wink.
Posted by: Disgusted | Feb 15, 2010 1:24:28 PM
I say, round us all up and put us in ovens. That'll teach us!
Posted by: Jubal H | Feb 15, 2010 1:34:54 PM
I'm really sad to see this. I married my husband in CA and just finished my Masters in Special Education. I was planning on applying to work with the DODEA. Now I'm planning on not bothering. It is an especially sad decision because it comes at no additional cost to the government. How often can the government do the right thing AND have it be cost effective?
I guess I'm a little extra sore right now because I just did my taxes and had to check the 'single' box again.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 15, 2010 1:47:14 PM
Just gratuitous meanness.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Feb 15, 2010 2:13:41 PM
"Just gratuitous meanness"
BRAVO -- that's exactly what it is OR simple retardation.
Contrary to this opinion, and, worse, the excuses being made by the Obama Nostra in defying A FEDERAL JUDGE's order that a lesbian court employee be allowed to purchase health insurance for her partner DOMA DOES NOT IPSO FACTO FORBID SUCH THINGS.
The ONLY thing DOMA forbids is that any use of the words "married" or "spouse" by federal agencies ONLY apply to heterosexual, legally married couples.
Even a 10-yr. old would say, "Then just don't use those words and extend the benefit using other words" JUST LIKE CIVILIAN CORPORATIONS DO for their domestic partnered employeess, gay and nongay.
There's no "gay marriage" in Australia either yet a gay servicemember in the Australian military is allowed to live in military housing with his/her partner alongside straight, married couples.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Feb 15, 2010 2:46:39 PM