DP benefits for federal employees redux?

Federal employees have only limited benefits for their partners--some moving expenses, that kind of thing. Big ticket items like health coverage or pensions are not allowed. There's some effort to bring benefits to federal employees with domestic partners. The Advocate reports,

The bill would allow federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. They would also be subject to the same antinepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married heterosexual workers.

The irony? Thanks to DOMA, those of us legally MARRIED as opposed to living in the second-class civil unions will not be eligible.

Both BP and I have employers who would cover both of us. However, as I've explained before, thanks to DOMA, the federal government does not consider us married. If BP were on my health plan, the costs would be reported as extra income to me, which would incur a fairly substantial tax liability. So we could get the coverage, but we would pay dearly for it. Fortunately we are both employed but it means that we have to navigate two very different policies and often can't use the same providers.

Yet another insult from my government confirming my second-class citizenship, and forcing me to live under Roman Catholic/Mormon rules.

FMLA leave: there is less in this than there appears

When President Obama was elected, he promised to be a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community. For example, although he promised in his State of the Union speech there would be the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) this year, which is favored by something like 70% of Americans, that won't happen. The Pentagon and his own Defense Secretary dragged their collective feet (leading one to ask who is actually in charge here), and a compromise measure rescinding DADT "in theory" pending further study now languishes as an amendment to the defense bill that Obama threatens to veto (for other reasons). So much for the promise, eh?

Much less progress has been made on repeal of the invidious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or on passage of the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA) which is tangled up in conservative fears of trans people in restrooms. The White House expends no capital on these bills but issues empty proclamations. Andrew Sullivan calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever".

The little progress there has been has come through executive orders. The problem with these is that they are weak, and not permanent. They can be rescinded by the next President, so they are pretty perilous--don't count on them. And they have unexpected stings to their tail.

The latest is an extension to the FMLA, the Family Medical Leave Act. This allows people unpaid leave from their jobs of up to 12 weeks to care for a sick spouse, child, or family member. Much has been made that this is now to be extended to GLBT families so they can take care of their kids; the Williams Institute estimates that up to 100,000 children may benefit. Family values, right? Yes, that's grand, (as long as Bush the Third, whoever he may be, doesn't rescind it.)

But it's not about recognizing our families, that we have families. It is just extending the definition of who can care for a child. And while that's good, it's not really the point.

And there's one more thing. DOMA precludes using FMLA for partners to take care of one another. So if my wife were ill, under federal law, I would not be allowed unpaid leave to take care of her. Thus, the promise implicit in this executive order feels somewhat hollow. Fortunately many private employers are more forward thinking , and I'm lucky that my employer recognizes my relationship. But many people aren't so lucky.

DOMA spreads its invidious slime throughout many policies. The government is offering unmarried couples, straight and gay, some benefits. The Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act (DPBO, not yet passed) that would allow federal employees some benefits for their same-sex partners? Legally MARRIED same sex couples are likely excluded because of DOMA. The IRS is moving towards modest recognition of DPs, but NOT married couples. Ironically, I am even less of a person in this country being married, than with a $20 DP certificate notarized at Kinko's.

I got news for you, Mr President--and the useless, craven Democratic Congressional caucus, you too. I don't pay second class taxes. I don't cast a second-class vote. And I don't make second class donations. It's about time for some of that "fierce advocating", not just A-list cocktail parties where the High Gay tuft-hunters get to have their pictures taken with the President and congratulate one another that the Ambassador to New Zealand is Family.

I leave you with a quote:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Barack Obama, 1996.

More legal updates: DOMA, Perry, and DPBO

It's been a while since I last updated you on the anti-DOMA court cases, that argue that DOMA unfairly penalizes legally married couples. At that time I pointed out that Obama's DoJ was arguing the remaining case, Gill, should be dismissed. GLAD has now responded (PDF):

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.

"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

I wonder if this case will be strengthened by the NInth Circuit orders we discussed on Friday. One thing we know for sure: this won't end soon. (Update: Lawdork has commentary.)

Next, there's the ongoing saga of Perry, which is the case challenging Prop 8 in Federal Court. A while ago, the Judge ordered the Prop 8 supporters to release their documents. Seems a big part of the case relies on whether or not the proponents were motivated by simple animus, or by actual concern about marriage and children. They don't want to turn the papers over, and have appealed up to the Ninth Circuit. Yet another order came out last week demanding that, in the absence of a stay, they have to turn them over. A great blog to follow this is Prop 8 & the Right to Marry which is based on legal commentary. I've book marked it in the information blogroll, on the left sidebar.

Other news: The Domestic Partners Benefits ad Obligations Act (DPBO) passed out of markup Wednesday. A description of the arguments pro and con here. As we discussed last summer, This would allow federal employees with legal same sex partners to have access to proper employment benefits, like health care and pensions. Ironically, however, because of DOMA, those who are legally married, rather than DP'd, might not have relief under this act...like Mr Levenson in the case we discussed Friday. So it enshrines a separate category of not-quite for GLBT people.

DPBO moves out of committee.

What is DPBO you ask?

Its the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) we talked about here sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Lawdork reports

The bill would provide for health care, family and medical leave and other benefits to federal employees with same-sex domestic partners. ..... Baldwin said in a news release that she was “delighted” with the subcommittee’s action......

The bill now goes to the full committee, which is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York. The bill also has been referred to the House committees on House Administration and the Judiciary.

Lawdork has some thoughtful consideration of how this bill will make sense of the disparate ways GLBT people can be legally connected in their home states. He has some suggestions here. More commentary from Pam's House Blend.

Also, you can read testimony (PDF) from the WIlliams Institute at UCLA which studies policy around sexual orientation.

Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517)

A couple weeks ago during the last DOMA kerfuffle in DC, a great production was made about giving gay Federal Employees some family benefits. Only it turns out they weren't much--no health care, no retirement, ostensibly because of DOMA.

THe President pointed at a bill in Congress that would allow the Fed to recognize gay families to some extent: Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) or DPBO, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin in the House. HRC gives us the background:

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Fifty-seven percent of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 19 states and over 200 local governments offer their public employees domestic partnership benefits. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

How the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act Would Work-- Who’s eligible?
Same- or opposite-sex couples who:
Include a federal government employee, excluding members of the armed forces, and his/her domestic partner;
Live together in a committed, intimate relationship; and
Are responsible for each other’s welfare and financial obligations.....

Domestic partner is deemed a spouse for purposes of receiving benefits.

You can almost predict the opposition to this, and Chris Geidner at Lawdork is on it:

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) repeatedly expressed repeated concerns about discrimination . . . against heterosexuals. Among his comments, per Eleveld, is one that “heterosexual couples who are not married would not have the same benefits as same-sex couples under this bill.” Baldwin, per Eleveld, responded: “Should heterosexuals desire those benefits, they would have the opportunity to marry.”

Geidner goes on to consider other issues that put this bill in conflict with DOMA and others.

As much as Baldwin might be able to dismiss that concern as to Utah and Wisconsin citizens, and as poorly as Chaffetz appeared to ask the question, there is a related question there that is very real and that the language of the bill does not resolve. The bill speaks only in terms of “domestic partners” with that almost quaint in some areas of the country “affidavit” requirement where same-sex couples, basically, attest that they are married in all but name.

The reality today, though, is that there are an ever-growing number of states in which there are same-sex couples married in name as well as in theory. That means that, for example, a married federal employee in Massachusetts married to a partner of the same sex, following the hypothetical passage of this bill, would be married under Massachusetts law, in a domestic partnership under federal employment regulations and single under federal tax and other laws.

If that doesn’t illustrate the long-term unsustainability of this mismatch of laws, I don’t know what does.

Expect to see a battle regardless.