TOPICS
TOPICS
Tide may be turning in favor of domestic partner benefits
Five years ago this March, Michelle Schohn joined the Foreign Service.
Diplomacy wasn't her initial field of choice; she already had a job as an archaeologist. But there was one very significant factor influencing her decision to change careers. Schohn's partner, Mary Glantz, already was a member of the Foreign Service. And when Glantz was posted overseas, things got complicated. The State Department classifies the spouses of gay and lesbian employees as "members of household," according them different benefits than heterosexual couples who are legally married.
Members of household are not eligible to participate in special early-round applications for jobs at embassies, as heterosexual spouses can. They cannot be covered by their partners' health insurance, so they are not guaranteed coverage when they go overseas. They do not have access to diplomatic posts' medical facilities. And if posts have to be evacuated, members of household are not guaranteed evacuation pay or subsidies to cover expenses.
"I was in a career I liked very much," says Schohn, now president of the organization Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. But she was faced with the choice of either going overseas unemployed with her partner and without diplomatic protections, or quitting her job and joining the Foreign Service so she and Glantz could get equal treatment. "I didn't like either option," Schohn says.
She may be one of the few people ever to decide to join the federal government because of the way its employment policies distinguish between straight and gay couples. Often, the policies have the opposite effect. At a September 2008 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Frank A. Hartigan, a deputy regional director for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said if he were starting out in the job market again, he would look outside government for an employer that would allow him to add his partner to his health insurance. Soon, though, Schohn, Hartigan and thousands of other federal employees might not have to make such a choice.
A combination of events -- including two court orders from California federal judges, the appointment of an Office of Personnel Management director with a long history of working to change policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees, and the inauguration of a president who has voiced support for expanding gay rights -- have created a climate favorable to enacting domestic partner benefits for federal employees.
In the May 1 issue of Government Executive, Alyssa Rosenberg explored the changing landscape.
COMMENTS
- To Mr. Peon: What do you really believe and why dont you identify yourself? Will you post anything other than attacks on others that do not believe as you do? Look at your posts and tell me who is hateful? You stated: "Whine all ya want, bible-thumpin' conservatives, but change is here! Enjoy it or move to Iran" Now, that is a really well thought out and useful statement. You also said: "And it's your blind ideology that is becoming more and more the minority opinion." Oh really? You claim that I do not have my "facts" right. You think you do? You talk in generalities and without any stats to back up your claims, Yes, there are a just a few states that have approved gay marriage by very close margins. The majority of states have not and you will recall that California just voted gay marriage down and it does not appear that religion had anything to do with it. Throughout the country, the majority, religious or not, still believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This is not hateful, just the opinion of the majority. Now, you can reply to this post if you want, but I will no longer reply to you. I have made it clear, and I think I represent most Americans, that I do not hate gays and I don't even care if gays shack up together. I will not tell anyone how to live or behave, up to the point it trespasses on my rights or the rights (as defined in the Constitution) of others. I do wish you well and encourage you to be a little more constructive in your posts. You seem to be a thoughtful and engaged individual, though somewhat angry. This is just my impression from your posts. charles thompson Posted May 22, 2009 5:57 PM
- Charles said: "Blind ideology either on the right or on the left has never resoved anything." You are correct Charles. And it's your blind ideology that is becoming more and more the minority opinion. Thank God! And before you start labelling gay couples with children "outside the norm", you'd better check your facts and see just how many states are allowing more and more gay couples to adopt. Wake up and smell the coffee, religious persecutors, there's a new sheriff in town and it's about tolerance now, not hate! Overpaid Peon Posted May 21, 2009 3:45 PM
- This is addressed to Mr Peon and Mr Fed: Policy has to be based on the majority and on the norm with consideration for the minority and the exceptions. Otherwise society will spin off into oblivion. Of course you can find exceptions to the norm. There are "straights" with children that should not and there are "gays" with children who should. Those are not the norms and most of us know that. If we are not willing to see things as they really are and as they really will be, then there can be no useful discussion. Blind ideology either on the right or on the left has never resoved anything. charles thompson Posted May 20, 2009 1:09 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
