The cost of being gay

Great Martin discusses some of the ways in which same-sex couples are excluded from the rights heterosexual couples receive automatically at marriage, including some issues faced by foreign service officers. You can read the entire post here.

State and federal laws impose real dollar costs on real people. Call it “The Cost of Being Gay.” Many of the most significant examples of this cost occur in state and federal tax law. On tax day (April 15), Americans file both state and federal tax returns. For GLBT couples, tax day is a concrete reminder of the inequality that results from being denied marriage rights and from the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of same-sex relationships for over one thousand federal protections.

...At the state level, homes and savings are subject to unfair taxation too. For example, when someone puts his or her same-sex partner on the title to a home, it often constitutes a transfer of 50% of the value of the home -- as if the two were strangers -- and is taxed accordingly. Different-sex married couples do not pay this tax. Inheritance taxes apply when a taxpayer dies and leaves assets to another person. Different-sex spouses receive a complete exemption from such inheritance taxes, but same-sex partners do not (except in states with marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or special tax exemptions for partners). Because thresholds for state inheritance taxes are much lower than the federal threshold, inheriting the couple’s common home (or even the half of it that belonged to the deceased partner) can trigger inheritance tax.

Most workers look to their employers for health insurance, but this opportunity costs more for same-sex couples than other families. That’s because although employer-provided health benefits for different-sex couples are excluded from an employee’s gross income, domestic partner benefits are taxed. This can result in a tax hit of over $1700 annually.

Federal employment is an attractive option for many workers thanks to the diversity of opportunities and the competitive benefits programs. The federal government does not provide equal benefits for same-sex couples, however. A GLBT person who is a top employee is compensated unequally -- her family is denied health insurance, pension benefits, and even evacuation services for foreign-service officers’ families. This not only denies GLBT people access to good jobs -- it denies our government access to some of the top talent.

If that weren’t bad enough, how about having to choose between your job and caring for your family? The Family and Medical Leave Act provides up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for a spouse or child, but same-sex couples are excluded.

...That’s why HRC is promoting the Family Matters legislative agenda: the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would provide equal benefits to same-sex partners of federal civilian employees; the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would end the tax inequities that currently apply to employer-provided health insurance for domestic partners; the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, and legislation currently in development on other family protections.

Digger comments:

Another important law currently being considered is the Uniting American Families Act, which will allow people same-sex, foreign-born partners to petition to allow their partners to immigrate to the U.S. in much the same way as heterosexual married couples can. This is an especially important law for many gay and lesbian FSOs, because like their straight counterparts, many have met their partners while serving overseas.

Hillary will make gay rights US foreign policy

I found this today in Pink News, a GLBT publication out of Great Britain. You can read the entire interview with the Philadeplphia Gay News here. Obama declined an invitation to be interviewed by the same paper.

Hillary Clinton will make gay rights US foreign policy

Tony Grew

One of two contenders for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States has said that if elected she will be "strongly outspoken" on the executions of gay people in countries such as Iran.

In an interview with Philadelphia Gay News ahead of the Pennsylvania primary later this month, Senator Hillary Clinton answered questions on gay marriage, immigration policy for same-sex couples and the ban on openly gay people serving in the US military.

Her comments on attitudes towards homosexual acts in some Middle Eastern nations reveal a stance that is far more radical than that taken by EU governments.

"What changes would you make toward governments that execute gay people, such as Iran, Egypt and Iraq and numerous other countries in the Middle East and Africa? Will you offer political asylum?" she was asked.

"I would be very strongly outspoken about this and it would be part of American foreign policy," the former First Lady replied.

"There are a number of gross human-rights abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behaviour so we can try to prevent such atrocities from happening."

The UK government has called for universal decriminalisation of homosexuality and is developing a strategy for promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people overseas.

Last year Foreign Office minister Ian McCartney set out five areas where UK action can make a difference: non-discrimination in the application of human rights; support for LGBT activists and human rights defenders; health and health education; raising LGBT issues at international and multilateral institutions and bilateral engagement with key countries.

In the past the British government has lobbied in support of the UN-Economic and Social Council continuing to grant consultative status to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered non-governmental organisations.

But the idea of an international treaty or convention on the human rights of LGBT people has been ruled out as unfeasible.

"The government judge that there is not sufficient consensus globally to justify pursuing an international convention at present; though it is willing to work for the engagement of countries which would produce a worthwhile such instrument," minister Meg Munn told MPs earlier this year.

During her interview with Philadelphia Gay News Senator Clinton also offered changes in immigration laws to bring equality between gay and straight couples if she returns to the White House.

"Immigration is a federal responsibility and I am going to do everything I can to eliminate any disparities in any benefits or rights under our law at the federal level so that all people will have available to them every right as an American citizen that they should, and that would include immigration law," she said.

US foreign policy is directed by the State Department, which has been heavily criticised by its own staff for discrimination against same-sex partners of employees.

In December a former US ambassador left his post after criticising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's treatment of gay people.

Michael E Guest retired after more than 26 years as a form of protest against regulations that he considered as unfair to same-sex partners of foreign service officers.

The 50-year-old, who is openly gay, served as a US ambassador to Romania when President Bush took office.

He was the first out gay person to be confirmed by the Senate to an ambassadorial post.

Since his return home in 2004, he has appealed directly to the US Secretary of State Rice to end gay discrimination.

"For the past three years, I've urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees," he said during his farewell speech in Washington.

According to Guest, under the current regulations only a US State Department's spouse can claim several rights which are denied to unmarried partners and same-sex partners.

Digger comments:
Clinton also notes in the interview that she is a co-sponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act.

These include issues such as the lack of training for same-sex partners to recognise terrorist threats, the lack of medical care and the need to pay for one's own transportation when one's partner is on duty.

Guest said that these issue could have been solved simply with Ms Rice's signature, but his pleas had never received any attention.

Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service

The following letter from Joe Solmonese was sent out in an email to members of the Human Rights Campaign and was posted on Political Wrinkles.

Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service

Michael Guest, a well-respected and committed public servant, had risen to a top position in the Foreign Service. The first openly gay American to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an overseas Ambassador, Guest left his prestigious post – and the career he loved – because of the State Department's second-class treatment of his partner.

Our nation has lost countless talented public servants like Michael because it doesn't give their same-sex partners equal benefits and protections.

But there's a bill in Congress that would help our government catch up to the private sector – and make sure GLBT Americans can serve their country proudly, at home and abroad.

Click here to tell Congress to pass the bill that would give equal benefits to its employees' domestic partners. Take Action: Partnership benefits NOW for GLBT public servants!

For Michael Guest, it wasn't just the basic indignities, like the government's insistence that he and his partner pack for Romania in separate suitcases. The discrimination he experienced extended to graver matters: even in the immediate wake of 9/11, Guest's partner was unable to receive security training (to know how to recognize a terrorist threat or intelligence trap). Nor was he entitled to evacuation in the event of hostilities.

Upon his retirement from the Foreign Service in December, Michael lamented being forced to choose between his family and service to his country. "That anyone should have to make that choice," he said, "is a stain on...[our] leadership and a shame for this institution and our country."

Erasing that stain would be both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Nearly 10,000 private companies, including more than half of the Fortune 500, offer benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Because they know that it helps them compete for the most talented and qualified employees.

The business community gets it; why doesn't our government?

Tell your elected leaders that patriotic GLBT Americans demand no more for their families than the basic benefits and protections afforded to different-sex spouses.

Send a strong message to your lawmakers to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. Your Members of Congress are federal employees too. Ask them if it would be fair if their families couldn't get basic benefits and protections.

Congress will respond once there is a groundswell of support. So spread the word. Tell your friends about this critically important bill, and ask them to join you in the fight for domestic partnership rights.

Warmly,
Joe Solmonese

A Letter From My Congressman

I received this today from my Congressman, David Price (D-NC):

Thank you for contacting me in support of H.R. 4838, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. I am pleased to report that I am a cosponsor of the bill.

As a matter of conscience, I support providing homosexual couples in committed relationships the same benefits available to heterosexual couples. More and more companies are extending health care and other employer-provided benefits to domestic partners, and government employers should do the same.

As you know, H.R. 4838 would extend benefits eligibility to the domestic partners of federal employees . This bill would cover a range of benefits including retirement benefits, life insurance, health insurance, compensation for work injuries as well as transportation and relocation costs, and COBRA benefits, as well as other benefits. The bill would also cover domestic partners' children, who would be treated like stepchildren. H.R. 4838 has been referred to the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, and Judiciary for consideration.

It may also interest you to know that I am a cosponsor of the Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) Inclusion Act, H.R. 2792, which would enable employees to take family and medical leave to care for the serious health conditions of same-sex spouses and domestic partners, as well as adult children, parents-in-law, siblings, and grandparents. I believe the FMLA has been successful in balancing the needs of employees to care for loved ones with the burden that extended employee leaves can have on employers, and I think it is appropriate to expand the application of the law to recognize that society's definition of "family" is broader than it once was. This bill has been referred to the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, and Education and Labor for consideration.
I will continue working for enactment of these, and similar pieces of legislation in the 110th Congress. Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch on issues of concern.
Sincerely,
DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress

Washington Post article gets results!

This press release was forwarded to me last night by Glenn Kessler, the author of the Washington Post article on Ambassador Guest's resignation. Wow.

Lantos Advocates Bill Extending Basic Employment Rights to Same-Sex Couples

Washington, DC – Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) today joined with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to introduce a bill that would extend basic employment rights to same-sex partners of federal employees.

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 4838) would extend the employment-related benefits to same-sex domestic partners that are currently available to spouses of married federal employees, including those in the Foreign Service.

“These dedicated men and women serve their country, yet our government does not honor the basic rights of the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families,” Lantos said. “There is no rational explanation for a same-sex domestic partner to be treated as a second-class citizen, and it is a national embarrassment that we are forcing good people out of government service.”

As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lantos highlighted the particular difficulties facing gays and lesbians in the Foreign Service. Partners of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers are refused diplomatic passports and the security training normally provided to spouses.

Gay and lesbian partners of Foreign Service officers are also denied the housing support granted to other employees while their partners serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as any financial support in joining their partners as they travel to their jobs overseas.

“We ask our diplomats to serve their nation in many high-threat posts, but deny them the ability to fully protect their families,” Lantos noted. “This is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable.”