Return to Article: Extending Benefits
-
60815
I just PCSed to Europe with my partner of 8 years. Of course we had to pay for her ticket since our marriage is not recognized on the Federal level. We were married legally in California when the state opened it up to same sex partners. Upon my arrival to my duty station I attempted to get her a dependent ID card so that she could have all the many privileges that other spouses have. I was very hurt to find out that because of DOMA that my spouse is not considered to be an "authorized" spouse. She can't shop on post or drive my car like all the "authorized " spouses can. Of course this is just a dent in comparison to the many other privileges that she will not have access to. A Visa would really be nice! I have seen heterosexual couples get married literally days prior to their PCS so that they can get these benefits for their new spouses. I have seen soldiers leave their families for prostitutes that they have "romanced" up in the red light district, marry them and get these "authorized" spouses ID cards. I have even known swingers in the government community that are able to get their spouses ID cards. Is it just me or doesn't it seem wrong and unjust that a monogamous and dedicated couple such as myself and my spouse of 8 years cannot get Federal benefits? Even after we have a legal marriage certificate from the state of California? What gives?
-
58846
To the workers whose religious view abound, this is why there is a need for separation of church and state, as for the benefits LGBT folks deserve the same benefits the heterosexual ones get.
As a 20 years government employee that has paid into the system, I should expect the same rights as well benefits. If I find that person that fits the bill, I will be seeking these benefits that some here would tell me I do not deserve.
In terms of choice, it is what you are born as, same as race, and in time the human genome project will no doubt prove this. When that happens, I would like to see how the different government agencies will address those that posted such hateful comments since the government does not tolerate racist or faith based discrimination.
-
55585
Opposite sex partners CAN get benefits for their "partner". All you have to do is apply and show proof that you are living as a couple (common-law). It's done all the time.
-
54568
Same sex union? How about the old fashion boy and girl partnership? Or is it a crime now?
-
53664
Please do not presume to take our scriptures out of context to use in favor of your preferences.
In the passage "Let he without sin cast the first stone" - Jesus was able to offer that woman forgiveness for her sin, because He was on His way to die on the cross for her. She acknowledged Him as "Lord," but He still told her, "Go, and sin no more." If she didn't repent, she would perish. It's not a get out of jail free card (and is NOT even part of the original manuscripts, and was added later).
Second, crack open that bible and take a look at Leviticus 18:22 - or perhaps take a gander at Sodom and Gomorrah - God is very clear on His feelings about homosexuality.
The Christian is not "judging others" but simply telling the world of God's judgment - that God (not the Christian) has judged all the world as being guilty before Him (Romans 3:19,23).
Christians are not called to be tolerant of unnatural things like this - things offensive to God. We are called not to judge a man's heart - that's His job - but we ARE to judge righteous judgments when things are clearly wrong.
"True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It's knowing what should be tolerated - and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn't."
Christians NEVER claim to be without sin - we are the biggest advocates that we ARE sinful! That we ARE flawed and we screw up just like anyone else - That's what makes God's grace so incredible. I pray you come to know that someday.
When Christ spoke the words "The least ye have done to these, ye have done to me." it was in reference to acts of kindness done in His name - loving the sinner, not the sin. Yes, we should do everything we can to help them - be they homosexual or anything else - that does not mean that we accept or advocate their way of life.
I will keep you and yours in my prayers.
-
44274
"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." Is it safe to assume that the rightous, wonderfully giving, upright, non-judgmental christians, which I am sure have never committed any sin and know the Good Book from cover to cover, and follow and believe our Loving Savior- Jesus Christ, when He said these words. "The least ye have done to these, ye have done to me." Therefore, if you truly believe that these horrid gay people are "aberrant", and ungodly and sinful, should we not do all that we can to help them? As for taxpayers, uhhh...last time that I checked, we "abberants" have been paying our share of taxes. Not to mention, we have much more disposable income than the average "straight" family, therefore, do more than our share to help this economy. Nevertheless, I would like to thank all the generous taxpayers, gay and straight that paid for my college education- (I went on goverment grants), which helped me acquire a federal job. Ohhh. by the way, while you were paying for my education, my partner was making six figures, we own two luxury homes and three luxury cars- two BMW's and a LandRover, and took several fabulous vacations. Had I been covered under his employee benefits and had to claim his income, I would have never gotten that free education. Well, not free, cause you paid for it. Thanks again.
-
41976
Stan Brown, I don't know you but you sound like an idiot. Since when are compensation and benefits packages for a job linked to what some one defines as a healthy or moral lifestyle? What is that exactly and who got to define it? If you are worried about healthy lifestyles being the decider for who gets benefits, look at smokers, drinkers (alcohol), obese people, and extreme sport enthusiasts right along with the homosexuals. The Fed Gov would do far better at reducing cost if they concentrated on hiring intelligent and/or skilled people and forget about trying to determine if someone has the right lifestyle in order to extend benefits as you would have it. And by the way, every lifestyle is a lifestyle of choice...
-
41151
I agree with Judy's comment. Children of federal employees and Elderly parents should be included in coverage.
-
41150
It will never happen with Pres Bush in office. He is very clear on his views of same sex relations.
-
41009
These benefits are long over due. I'm 25, been with the government for 2.5 years, and been with my partner for more than 2 years. We just really still at the beginning of our life together, but some our major concerns have been health benefits, legal rights, purchasing a home, and children. These are basic issues that we would not have near as many unknowns were we straight.
As for our "abhorrent sexual behavior" and "promiscuous life styles", well...are you ignorant or just a little "dim"? We're two monogamously coupled males in our mid to late twenties who are looking to start a family. This bill will most benefit people like us and couples that have a long-standing dedication to each other. "Abhorrent sexual behavior" and "promiscuous life styles" do not define the gay community any more than the straight community (and what's the divorce rate again?).
As for the cost, if you read the article it states, "Congressional Budget Office estimates that offering benefits to domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of benefits programs by less than one half of 1 percent". This is nothing compared to the total cost of the program. If that's your whole argument against this bill, perhaps you should take a closer look at the Budget.
-
40926
The Government's gay employees are looking for nothing more than the ability to protect their life partners the same way straight employees protect their spouses. If they could marry, this would be a non-issue. However, the Government, via the Defense of Marriage act, made that impossible. If the Government really wanted to defend marriage, they should have outlawed divorce and adultery which clearly are a far greater risk to marriage than a same sex, committed couple seeking legal recognition of their union (not running away from their legal union). Gay employees are not asking to extend benefits to parents, or friends, or siblings, etc. They just want the ability to protect the individual they chose as their life partners. Every straight employee has a means to do this via marriage. Gay employees deserve the same rights and compensation. This bill is long overdue!
-
40917
If federal employees can not insure the children once they turn 23 and are in college WHY should benefits be extended to same sex partners???!!! If this acceptable then why aren't we able to insure elderly parents? Are any Tom, Dick and Jane we want to assist with medical coverage!!!
-
40858
This is one bill that has been hitting close to home for me and my partner recently. He has been suffering from severe back pain for much of his life due to a hereditary defect and over the past few months has been told that he may need to have back surgery. The big issue for us is how to pay for his procedure. He currently works at a job with limited medical benefits and cannot get access to virtually any affordable private insurance policy due to this pre-existing condition. If the federal government makes this available, we will have a viable option in case it is needed.
-
40856
The morality issue aside, granting benefits to domestic partners would definitely increase the costs of the entire program. Either all federal employees will pay more for our benefits or we will end up losing some benefits. I know, I personally experienced this in the private sector.
I do not hate homosexuals. But I would not want the government to condone a lifestyle that is contrary to Biblical teaching.
-
40838
I'm sitting in the kitchen of the house I've owned for 3 years with my partner. This is our second house - we bought the first in '93. Our 18th anniversary was last year. In our time together, we've raised a child, handled a cancer diagnosis, nursed a mother with dementia, buried a father and two pets, and weathered a serious injury. We hold full-time jobs and hope to go to Disney next month.
If you'll excuse me, I need to take a break from my aberrant lifestyle and get an update on my idols, Britney and Lindsay.
-
40812
I wonder if some of the commentators here recognize the extreme contradictions in what they are saying.
First they blast homosexuals for being too promiscuous, then they blast this legislation which is clearly aimed at monogamous couples in long-term relationships.
In order to qualify for benefits, you would have to be in a marriage-like relationship: a long-term relationship between two people.
Yet people here claim that this legislation would somehow encourage promiscuous behavior? Sorry, but that does not logically follow. In fact, the precise opposite conclusion is what follows: the legislation would encourage people to enter into and stay in stable two-person households.
Perhaps some around here need to take a break from feeding at the taxpayer's trough for some classes on logical and analytical reasoning. Your improved job performance as a result would help reduce the cost of government (which you claim to care about).
-
40808
I never cease to be amazed by the ignorant, intolerant, hateful things some people express. I have been in a committed relationship with my partner for 17 years, and have worked for the Government for 20 plus years. I certainly did not "choose" my sexual orientation, my only choice was to accept myself as I am. It's absurd to think anyone would "choose" a lifestyle which makes them the target of so much hate and intolerance. I hope at some point in their lives the individuals writing such hateful, ignorant comments come to understand just how painful it can be to be on the receiving end of such intolerance. That being said, and putting their obvious ingorance aside, there is no valid reason that I should not be able to offer the same protections to my family as any married federal employee can. If the federal government won't let me marry, don't penalize my compensation because I'm not married. Same sex couples deserve the same benefits as married couples. And if the Government will not offer me equal compensation for equal work, please tell me how I am supposed to remain a motivated, loyal federal employee. Would you be loyal to an employer that discrimated against you and your loved ones? Congress needs to follow the lead of corporate America and make the right business decision on this issue!
-
40782
What...no Bible quotes?? I'm disappointed! (yes, please note the sarcasm.) It's about time that a bill like this comes to fruition. I am tired of being discriminated against. I have a more stable relationship than most "straight" people I know...9+ years of a relationship, 7 years owning a home together. If I die, why should my partner get taxed on half of the cost of a home that we bought together? Or pay taxes on death benefits payable to her because it is not seen as passing to a spouse, but as a "financial gift." It's ridiculous. Yes, the benefits should apply to hetero couples as well. Perhaps they could define the partnership better...own/rent a home together for at least a year, perhaps. Regardless, all of you ignorant folks out there need to wake up and realize that there are gay people sitting near you, whether you realize it or not. We are truly everywhere, even if we don't flaunt it or parade around with rainbow flags. Some of us sit quietly and do our work, and do it quite well. And we are tired of being discriminated against. I swear, if I have to say "my roommate and I..." one more time, I just might lose it! It's time we are recognized as being normal every day working people just like any married couple, and enjoy the benefits that everyone else gets.
-
40743
Why limit this to only same sex domestic partners?
-
40699
In my 34 years with the government I've met a lot of people that are somewhat less than smart, but Stan takes the cake, it's amazing that anyone that ignorant can even hold a job.
-
40665
Wow, all of you guys ranting about aberrant sexual behavior, animal "partnership" and immorality, ought to pull yourself together and get out in the real world a little more. You can believe anything you want--just keep your mitts of me and my family!
-
40662
I am amazed and saddened at some of these comments. I agree that in this great country, people are entitled to their opinion. Sometimes, it is scary to see those opinions in writing. Some of these comments are clearly based on misinformation and fear. I totally support this legislation and hope that if passed it is extended to cover heterosexual domestic partners as well. The federal workforce should be representative of all American people. The government should be on par with private industry for benefits for all employees. Believe me, these private companies aren't offering benefits to anyone out of the kindness of their hearts. Industry offers benefits that are responsive to the needs of their workforce. The federal government should do the same.
-
40660
Nice try, Stan. According to a 2003 Harris Poll, six out of ten heterosexual adults (62%) say that employees with same-sex partners should be equally eligible for key workplace benefits available to spouses of married employees. I would provide a link to the study, but the comment system won't let me include a URL. I'm sure you could Google it, but why let facts get in the way of your bigotry?
-
40658
It would be amazing to be able to take care of my future wife and kids. I work just as hard as anyone else and should have the right to give my partner the fruits of my labor.
-
40654
Wow. Thank you Stan, William, Alan, and Dean for making me feel like a valued member of the federal workforce. Perhaps I'll take my 10 years of job experience and very expensive Master's Degree that the government paid for and go work in the private sector. The federal government just can't compete for top talent, let alone continue to call itself an "Employer of Choice" unless the benefit packages are similar to those available in the private sector.
-
40652
Does the American Public get to vote on amnything anymore or has this country moved away from democracy after trying to push it on other countries.
-
40649
No, No, No! This would be in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by ex-president Bill Clinton. What's wrong with this country? So-called gay people are NOT the same as normal men/women, one Swedish study found that they didn't receive enough "brain proteins" in utero. Equal means identical, period. No taxpayers should pay for their unfortunate lifestyle.
-
40646
Will someone in Congress please step up and stop this insanity? I disagree with these bills both on moral and financial grounds. Promiscuous life styles whether homo and hetero sexual should not be rewarded with financial benefits at the expense of those that have taken marriage vows and work at keeping them. Easy divorce and single parenthood are already highly destructive societal blights. We do not need to to encourage more destructive behavior in our society. Such congressional behavior appears to be shameless pandering for votes from vocal fringe elements in our citizenry.
-
40644
I can't help but be dumbfounded by reading such ignorant comments. As a gay advocate, I understand that people are entitled to their opinion. 75% of the Nation is a incorrect figure, Stan. Read the newspapers, maybe observe your neighbor. Gay people are everywhere and they deserve rights as well. If they want to leave there money to their domestic partner, that should be there choice. Gays have to pay as part of their taxes that go to supporting straight, hetero couples. I do agree with the comment that we should have benefits extended to opposite-sex couples as well. While that is definitely a concern and one should be able to apply their decision towards whomever they choose.
One should certainly not be punished for living a lifestyle they choose in a free country. This is 2008, not 1800's. Wake up! And, animals as equal partners? How insulting. Gay individuals deal on the daily with incompetent comments as such, but there is no reason to be so demeaning.
This bill would be a huge step towards EQUAL RIGHTS, and fairness, as gay individuals are taxpayers and count as a vote as well.
-
40636
I hope the Congress will be successful in extending these benefits to same-sex couples. I look forward to sharing my benefits with my partner, rather than being discriminated against.
-
40633
This is wrong. Taxpayer money should not be used to support a lifestyle that is morally wrong to many taxpayers. Male-female marriage is the only context for a sexual union that God established.
-
40629
If our government passes legislation to extend benefits to same-sex partners, then they should also extend the same benefits to men and women who live together.
-
40625
This is discriminatory against opposite sex domestic partners, of which I am one. We have chosen not to marry for certain reasons, but plan to be together for the rest of our lives. Why can't I be eligible to extend benefits to my partner?
-
40623
I don't want to pay a half or a whole percent more for same-sex benefits. We all know that the costs will exceed that. Since these are lifestyles of choice I don't see why people who live healthy lifestyles have to give away freebies to those who choose to live un-natural lifestyles.
If you choose these lifestyles you should choose to accept the consequences of your decision. People keep saying this is a natural consequence when at least 75% of the nation disagrees with this homosexual agenda.
The things our politicians would not do for a vote. Since its so natural and right why don't all Americans raise our children to mate with the same sex that way we won't have to deal with a population explosion and we can achieve self imposed genocide.
This whole thing is ridiculus and costly. Why is everyone trying to find a way to tax hardworking people in this country?
-
40617
Will this legislation also cover domestic partners of opposite sex?
-
40616
I don't want to pay a half or a whole percent more for same-sex benefits. We all know that the costs will exceed that. Since these are lifestyles of choice I don't see why people who live healthy lifestyles have to give away freebies to those who choose to live un-natural lifestyles.
If you choose these lifestyles you should choose to accept the consequences of your decision. People keep saying this is a natural consequence when at least 75% of the nation disagrees with this homosexual agenda.
The things our politicians would not do for a vote. Since its so natural and right why don't all Americans raise our children to mate with the same sex that way we won't have to deal with a population explosion and we can achieve self imposed genocide.
This whole thing is ridiculus and costly. Why is everyone trying to find a way to tax hardworking people in this country?
-
40609
The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act was introduced in the Senate and is the direct result of aberrant sexual behavior, nothing more. If this makes it through, what is next? Animals as equal partners?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.