Posted on 12/26/2009 9:37:47 AM PST by Steelfish
Benefits For Gays? Us Too, Say The Unwed Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service say they should be treated the same.
Paul Richter December 26, 2009
Reporting from Washington - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses to gay and lesbian partners.
Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives.
"They should have seen this coming," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who had opposed extending benefits to gays. "It's a Pandora's box."
The family benefits, although a small part of diplomats' overall benefit package, are important to Foreign Service officers. Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for gay partners, although spouses are covered.
Foreign Service officers contend such help is only fair, especially given the conditions they face in remote and often uncomfortable posts.
Conservatives who oppose easing the rules cite the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says that no state shall be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This makes sense to me. Why should a same-sex unmarried couple living together get govt. benefits when a heterosexual couple living together can’t. Fair is fair.
And furthermore, I hope heterosexual unmarried couples challenge this in court, and win.
No. Benefits are based on the legal definition of marriage and all its resulting legal consequences, not on sex.
If the govt is supposed to stay out of the bedroom, then the govt should not consider the sexual behavior of any person when it comes to providing or mandating employment benefits.
No benefits for roommates or boarders. Only for husbands or wives. Every one is free to get married. Marriage is a long-defined thing. The only requirement is that a married couple gives the appearance of being able to procreate - something that homsexual couples can’t do. Interestingly, two homosexuals CAN get married (a homosexual woman can marry a homosexual man) as long as they are not the same gender. So there is no discrimination. Just a logical societal preference for procreation by those who are committed to eachother.
Sorry. Unwed normalsexual couples aren’t a specially-privileged “victim” group established by the government so as to give them public funds and collect campaign contributions.
They’re “people” too, my "kids" and my dependents.
In fact, I should be able to claim them on my taxes as dependents.
Accomodate all the oddballs or accomodate none.
Yes-all law is based on a concept of morality. This is why you can be held criminally liable for mistreating your own pet in your own house on your own lonely island. Why? Because society finds such conduct morally unacceptable.
“normalsexual”
Stealing that one for future use.
Hope ya don’t mind....:)
Of course. Once marriage is left open for redefinition, anything goes. The sky is the limit. With disastrous, absolutely disastrous, as in children are going to suffer mightily, consequences.
Which is why we must fight to defend real marriage at every level.
Hmmm....doesn’t this fall under “equal protection”?
At what point is a non-married partnership a partnership? Is every one night stand to be counted into your health benefit plan? How long do you have to live together before you’re qualified to file as married if it’s to your advantage?
Do we need a marriage “lite” like the French have? Or a secondary level of “well, it’s temporary”?
This is logical to me. In fact, an unwed heterosexual couple is far closer to a definition of marriage than a “union” of two homosexuals. This is what gets me about the ELCA’s position on homosexual clergy. If an unmarried male clergyman lives with an unmarried female, he can be defrocked for immorality; however, if a male clergy lives with another male, that is perfectly acceptable. Welcome to the world of Bizarro!
Unwed Opposite-sex partners kind of like a dog and a leg.
Why should you have to be in a sexual relationship? Why can’t your brother or uncle share in your benefits if you room together?
The shack-ups are perfectly correct.
BTW: If two men or two women apply for benefits as a couple, does the government send someone to spy on them to make they’re having sex? That they live in the same domicile?
And what about Monosexuals? Is the government saying that sex with ANOTHER PERSON is somehow more WORTHY, more MORAL, of GREATER VALUE, than sex with oneself??? What about Separation of Church and State???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.