TOPICS
TOPICS
Senators back extending federal benefits to same-sex partners
A bipartisan team of senators introduced a bill Wednesday to offer federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners of civil servants.
The bill (S. 3955) offered by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., would allow domestic partners to benefit from federal retirement, life insurance, health insurance, workers' compensation, long-term care insurance and dental and vision benefits.
Lawmakers have tried to open federal benefits to domestic partners before. In 2003, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., introduced legislation that would have extended many benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners. That bill gained no Republican co-sponsors and died in subcommittee.
This time around, both Smith and fellow Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island signed onto the bill.
"Federal workers should be able to extend their benefits to loved ones," Smith said. "It's a matter of fairness, and I think the government should be leading the way rather than following. I believe we need to rid the workplace of discrimination, not just in hiring decisions, but also in the rights and privileges afforded employees."
In an August letter seeking co-sponsors, Lieberman and Smith said the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost less than one-half of 1 percent of the current cost of the benefits to extend them.
"While this bill has a very modest cost to the government, it will have a significant impact on federal employees living in domestic partnerships and will assist our government in competing for the most qualified personnel," the senators wrote.
So far, 13 additional co-sponsors have signed on. The bill is too new to have been debated, but the failure of previous similar bills signals resistance.
"I think it's a very bad idea because this bill would treat same-sex relationships the same way the federal government currently treats married couples," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian conservative legal group. "Employers don't give benefits, health insurance, just out of the kindness of their hearts. It's something that employers give to benefit the employee to encourage that relationship...the government should not be doing that for same-sex relationships."
Lieberman and Smith said domestic partner benefits are offered by thousands of private companies including General Electric Co., Chevron Corp. and Boeing Co., and by 13 states including Connecticut and Oregon.
COMMENTS
- While I have no problems with same sex relationships, I do have an issue with offering benefits to the domestic partners of a same sex relationship. No unmarried government employees are not able to get benefits for their domestic partners without marriage. Instead of focusing time on this issue, which will never get passed, we need to focus on giving all of the same rights to same sex marriages that we do to opposite sex marriages. GovExec.com reader Posted November 14, 2006 11:50 AM
- What about Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, and numerous other jurisdictions? I hear that Canada and Europe are also very open-minded regarding alternate lifestyles too. If you're not happy with the way things are where you live, either change them through the democratic process, or go somewhere where you will be happy. That right is guaranteed to everyone. GovExec.com reader Posted November 2, 2006 4:01 PM
- No, there isn't "another way" for gays to get all the same legal rights that legal marriage affords. Some of these rights are granted by some companies in some locations or by specific legal documents, but nowhere in the United States does a gay couple have the same legal standing as marriage. Laws are in place to protect individual and group rights i.e., it isn't legal to steal from me, because you should not have the right to violate my right to ownership, and not because God said "Thou shalt not steal." All of our laws, be they traffic laws, fraud or murder are about protecting people. We don't legislate keeping the Sabbath as day of rest, or talking God's name in vain. Keeping gay marriage illegal protects no one; it just keeps people from having a legal right that some of you don't want them to have. GovExec.com reader Posted November 1, 2006 3:25 PM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









