Pride Reception with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin

Pride Reception with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin

Join GLIFAA and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin in the Delegates Lounge to hear about LGBT issues on Capitol Hill.

All are welcome!

Location: Delegates Lounge (Across from the Loy Henderson Auditorium)
Main State
2201 C Street NW

Metro: Foggy Bottom

Monday, June 28th
4:30pm-5:30pm

Statement by the President on the Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees

Statement by the President on the Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees

“Last year, I issued a Presidential Memorandum that instructed the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State to extend certain available benefits they had identified to gay & lesbian federal employees and their families under their respective jurisdictions. Among those benefits were long-term care insurance and expanded sick leave for civil service employees and medical care abroad, eligibility for employment at posts, cost-of-living adjustments abroad and medical evacuation for domestic partners of foreign service members. In that same Memorandum, I called upon the federal agencies to undertake a comprehensive review and to identify any additional benefits that
could be extended to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees under existing law. That process has now concluded, and I am proud to announce that earlier today, I signed a Memorandum that requires Executive agencies to take immediate action to extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees a number of meaningful benefits, from family assistance services to hardship transfers to relocation expenses. It also requires agencies that extend any new benefits to employees’ opposite-sex spouses to make those benefits available on equal terms to employees’ same-sex domestic partners to
the extent permitted by law.

While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my
Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress -- the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law."

Secretary Clinton Responds to Congressional Concern about Uganda

I found this in today's HRC Backstory. I am pleased to see the Secretary stand up for us...still don't see myself serving in Uganda any time soon!

Secretary Clinton Responds to Congressional Concern about Uganda; Text Message Her to Show Your Support
Ty Cobb

In a written response to an October 30 letter from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Gary Ackerman and Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she shares Capitol Hill’s concerns that Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill would “create fear, promote hatred, and potentially divide communities” in Uganda. Moreover, she stated that “the United States has urged Uganda to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, harassment, or discrimination.” According to the Secretary’s letter, she continues to monitor the bill and will continue to speak directly about the bill with Ugandan officials, human rights activists, and international donors.

The United States was the first government to issue a public statement condemning the proposed legislation. If you want to let the Secretary know that you oppose the proposed Ugandan bill, send her a text message at 90822 with a message like this: “Thank you for condemning the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda. Please continue to stand up for international LGBT human rights.”

As a brief overview, the Ugandan bill:

* increases the penalty for consensual homosexual conduct from 14 years to life in prison;

*limits the distribution of HIV/AIDS prevention information through a provision criminalizing the “promotion of homosexuality;”

* creates a crime of “aggravated homosexuality,” punishing anyone who is HIV-positive with death for having consensual same-sex relations, even if the relations are informed and safe and regardless of whether the person is even aware of his or her HIV status; and

* exposes anyone in Uganda, including HIV/AIDS outreach experts, to a criminal sentence for not reporting to the government within 24-hours anyone who engages in homosexual activity.

HRC continues to work closely with the Council for Global Equality, a coalition of international human rights activists, foreign policy experts, LGBT leaders, philanthropists and corporate officials to encourage a clearer and stronger American voice on human rights concerns impacting LGBT communities around the world. The Council has taken a strong lead in condemnation of the Ugandan “Anti-Homosexual” bill.

Gay House members say gay-friendly bills are near

This from today's Washington Post is encouraging news for LGBT Foreign Service families. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in particular would mean insurance coverage and retirement benefits for the partners of federal employees. Now if we could just ditch DOMA...

Gay House members say gay-friendly bills are near
By LISA LEFF
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two of Congress's three openly gay members said Saturday that the U.S. House is poised to pass bills to provide health coverage for the same-sex partners of gay federal workers and to protect all gay and transgender employees from job discrimination.

Speaking to an international conference of gay politicians in San Francisco, U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., said they expect a domestic partner benefits bill to come up for a vote by the end of the year and the employment bill to reach the floor early in 2010.

The lawmakers said they are also confident that the House will include in the annual military spending bill next year a provision to repeal the law that bans gays from serving in the U.S. military. All the measures face a harder time in the Senate following the death of longtime ally Sen. Edward Kennedy, but Baldwin and Polis said they remained optimistic.

"I'm hopeful we will see those three pieces of legislation make it all the way, or damn close," said Baldwin, who is sponsoring the federal worker domestic partner bill.

Office of Personnel Management director John Berry, the Obama administration's highest ranking gay appointee, told the conference that the president strongly supports the trio of gay rights measures.

Including transgender workers as part of the legislation to ban job discrimination and lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gay service members may especially meet opposition in Congress, Berry said. But he said that with a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities controlling the House and the Senate, victories were "within our grasp."

"The tide of public opinion is in our favor. The forces of intolerance are on the run. We have a president who has been clear in his support for our community and in his commitment to our equality," Berry said. "This is the best opportunity we will ever have as a community, and shame on us if we don't succeed."

Although gay activists have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving more quickly on their concerns, both Polis and Baldwin said the pressure should be directed at Congress because the president can not act alone.

"LGBT leaders need to be focusing in on the people we need to win over instead of just trying to talk to our friends and being angry they haven't delivered," Polis said.

A Start

So here it is. The announcement we have been waiting for. President Obama is right that it is a historic step and that it is only a step. There is so much more that we need, not the least of which is health insurance for our partners. And we need full marriage. Now. I can't even begin to describe to you how irritated I get with those who complain that the LGBT community has not given him enough time. These are people who have full rights. Who are full citizens. Who have marriages that are recognized no matter where they live. I don't. My church recognizes my marriage but my state and my country, the country I serve, does not. Stop telling me to be patient.

I understand that this is as far as the President can go for now. I am gratified that this appears to give Secretary Clinton the go ahead to release the letter leaked last month. Her letter and the benefits offered in it, go a long way towards making the lives of LGBT officers better. She too is doing all she can.

Now it is up to Congress. Repeal DOMA. Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Grant LGBT families marriage rights even if you have to call it something else. Make me a full citizen.

Statement by the President on the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination and Support of the Lieberman-Baldwin Benefits Legislation

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 17, 2009

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON FEDERAL BENEFITS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION, AND SUPPORT OF THE LIEBERMAN-BALDWIN BENEFITS LEGISLATION


In 2007, Michael Guest, the first openly gay Ambassador confirmed by the United States Senate, resigned from the Foreign Service. He loved his career, but he had to leave it in the end -- because he believed that the country he served was failing to implement the principles of equality it espoused abroad. His partner was ineligible for training provided to Ambassadorial spouses; he bore the costs of his partner's transportation to his placements abroad; and his partner did not receive the overseas benefits and allowances given to spouses of Ambassadors.

It is too late to prevent Ambassador Guest from having to make the choice he made, but today I am proud to issue a Presidential Memorandum that will go a long way toward achieving equality for many of the hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic LGBT Americans serving in our Federal Government -- Americans like Ambassador Guest. In consultation with Secretary Clinton, who in her role as Secretary of State oversees our foreign service employees, and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, who oversees human resource management for our civil service employees, my Administration has identified a number of areas in which greater equality can be achieved under existing law by extending to the same-sex partners of Federal employees many of the same benefits already available to the spouses of heterosexual Federal employees. I am therefore requesting the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to extend the benefits they have identified to the same-sex partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved consistent with Federal law. I am also requesting the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to conduct a review of the benefits they administer to determine which may legally be extended to same-sex partners.

But this Presidential Memorandum is just a start. Unfortunately, my Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.

I am also proud to announce my support for an important piece of legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress last month -- the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This legislation will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees the same benefits already enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. The legislation has a number of co-sponsors in both Houses of Congress, but among those many sponsors, I want to recognize one in particular -- Representative Tammy Baldwin, who has been a real leader on this issue, and more broadly on the LGBT struggle for equality. Representative Baldwin, I look forward to working with you to achieve the important objectives set out in this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I also look forward to working with the bill's Senate champions, Senators Lieberman and Collins; I know that they will approach this process with the same spirit of cooperation in pursuit of our shared goals that they bring to all of their work in the Senate.

Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do. It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.

As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union.

Memorandum signed by the President regarding federal benefits and non-discrimination.

The Advocate: Congressional Leaders Mull Partial DOMA Repeal

This would certainly make things easier for LGBT Foreign Service families.

Congressional Leaders Mull Partial DOMA Repeal

Some Congressional members are considering repealing part of the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages.

By Kerry Eleveld

Discussions around repealing a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages have heated up in the wake of recent legal challenges filed and the addition of two new states legalizing same-sex marriage.

Legislative aides familiar with the discussions say a handful of congressional leaders have been hashing out the details of the legislation, which would accomplish two goals: repeal section 3 of DOMA as it relates to the federal government's ability to confer some 1,100 federal benefits on same-sex partners; and provide a way for same-sex couples living in states that do not allow them to marry legally to access the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual spouses.

The most immediate benefits of passing such a bill would go to legally married gay couples -- those who have married or will marry in Connecticut or Massachusetts, those who married in California while it was legal (pending the state supreme court decision over the validity of those marriages), and those soon to marry in Iowa and Vermont. Same-sex couples in New York, which recognizes legal marriages performed outside of the state, would also be among the first beneficiaries.

But Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said legislators are also intent on making federal benefits available to same-sex couples living outside those six states. "People are coalescing around the idea of a 50-state solution by recognizing unions that are recognized in at least one state,” he said. “There’s a growing consensus around that."

By all accounts, the bill will not disrupt section 2 of DOMA, which gives individual states the ability to determine what type of unions they deem legal. "It still protects federalism -- states are still able to make their own decision about what state benefits to offer," Anders added.

According to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, legislators involved in the planning include senators Christopher Dodd, Russ Feingold, and Chuck Schumer, and representatives Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, and Jared Polis.

Legislators declined to discuss specifics due to the fact that they are trying to reconcile different approaches in order to introduce matching bills in the House and the Senate.

"With the landscape changing so quickly, we want to make sure congressional leaders, advocates, and litigators are all in the same place," said Amy Rutkin, Representative Nadler's chief of staff.

The basic question surrounding the bill is which same-sex unions to recognize and how to make those unions portable in a way that will allow the federal government to provide benefits to gay partners regardless of whether they live in Alabama or Massachusetts.

According to those familiar with the discussions, some have advocated for only recognizing marriages while others have shown an interest in including civil unions and strong domestic partnerships too.

"The idea is to recognize a relationship or marriage that is recognized by a state," Anders explained. So if a couple is legally recognized in any state, he added, "you would be entitled to the federal benefits and protections and liabilities of marriage."

But the Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese said he is less concerned about the exact form the legislation takes at the moment than he is in getting "something on the burner."

"I think the House and Senate version wouldn't have to be one in the same, there can be differences," he said. "But once you get legislation introduced in both, you've got the educational vehicle and the organizing principle for the community to really get to work on."

Sources declined to discuss the exact timing of when such a bill might be introduced, but they generally agreed it would be before the end of the year and probably within the next several months.

While President Obama supports full repeal of DOMA, Solmonese said it was difficult to gauge whether this legislation would be prioritized by the White House because the Administration has not provided such information to the HRC.

"We have had weekly conversations with the White House about the agenda for our community, but we haven't gotten the priority list from the White House," he said.

Anders explained that the two key disparate groups legislators are keeping in mind are those couples who are the most mobile and those who are the least. For instance, they want to cover couples who live in Massachusetts or Iowa and marry but then choose to move to another state for a job or to care for a family member or to retire.

"But there are also lots of people who are living in the state they were born in," Anders said, "and it doesn't seem that people should be locked out of federal protections simply because they can't move and may not have the resources or mobility to do so."

Another option some have suggested is creating a set of criteria, or a federal trigger, that would qualify a couple for federal benefits regardless of whether they are legally unioned in any particular state. While this would provide a way to debate federal benefits outside of the emotion surrounding marriage, Anders said the option has not been under serious consideration and was losing steam fast now that there is a greater proliferation of states extending full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which essentially makes marriage regionally accessible to more people.

The Government Accountability Office reported in 2004 that a total of 1,138 federal benefits are associated with marital status; people generally cite issues like Social Security survivor benefits, federal health benefits, and equal tax treatment as major concerns. A same-sex partner cannot, for instance, collect the Social Security payments of a deceased partner. Partners of federal employees are not eligible for inclusion on their health insurance. In terms of taxation, same-sex partners cannot file joint tax returns; insurance benefits offered to same-sex partners by employers is taxed as extra income rather than being deducted from pre-tax dollars; and while married spouses can transfer an unlimited amount of money to each other without being taxed, anyone else is limited to transfers of up to $12,000 annually.

Secretary Clinton responds

Representative Baldwin's office received a response letter yesterday from Secretary Clinton's Actingin Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. While it would have been nice to get a time line, this is leaps and bounds ahead of what we had during Secretary Rice's tenure.

Thank you for your letter of February 2. As Secretary Clinton made clear in her remarks to employees on February 4, the policies relating to lesbian and gay State Depailment employees are of real concern to her. She views these policies as important not only for workplace fairness and employee retention, but important for their effect on the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide.

At her instruction, the Department is reviewing current policies, especially those that are set forth in State Department regulations. Please feel free to contact us further on this or any other matter of concern to vou.

Sincerely,
Michael C. Polt
Acting Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs

OUTTAKE VOICES Interviews Rep. Tammy Baldwin

OUTTAKE VOICES has a nice audio interview with Representative Tammy Baldwin on the issues facing LGBT foreign service employees and the letter she sent to Secretary Clinton. You can listen to it here.

Advocate: Gay Rights on Fast Track at State Department

From today's Advocate:

Gay Rights On Fast Track At State Dept.

Days after pledging review policies that discriminate against LGBT employees at the State Department, Secretary Clinton said her staff is reviewing inequities and preparing to make appropriate changes "expeditiously."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told participants at a town hall meeting in Washington, D.C. Wednesday that equalizing the treatment of the State Department’s LGBT employees and their partners is being reviewed and “is on a fast timeline” to be remedied.

“We are reviewing what would need to be changed, what we can legally change,” Secretary Clinton said. “A lot of things we cannot legally change by a decision in the State Department. But let’s see what we can determine is within our realm of responsibility, and we are moving on that expeditiously.”

Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question posed by Ralan Hill, a foreign service officer with a same-sex partner, who noted that in an emergency situation abroad, the State Department would be responsible for evacuating him but would have no such obligation to his partner. The department does, however, provide evacuation assistance to heterosexual spouses of officers stationed overseas.

“This is an issue of real concern to me,” Clinton responded. “And even though, as you pointed out, all of our personnel share the same service requirements, the partners in same-sex relationships are not offered the same training, the same benefits, and the same protections that other family members receive when you serve abroad. So I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide.”

Clinton signaled that she would review the inequities faced by LGBT employees during her confirmation hearings and momentum has been growing ever since. Earlier this week, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) along with Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking her to change the discriminatory policies.

“The lack of equitable treatment could force dedicated, intelligent, and needed FSOs (Foreign Service Officers) and officials to make an unfortunate choice between serving their country and protecting their families,” read the letter. “The State Department’s past inattention to these disparities places it below parity with the best employment practices used in the private sector, where the majority of Fortune 500 companies extend employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners.”

Baldwin and her colleagues singled out the following changes in State Department policy regarding Foreign Service Officers (FSOs):

• Inclusion in travel orders for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

• Access to training, including all language classes, area studies, and embassy effectiveness classes for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

• Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

• Access to post health units for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

• Visa support for same-sex domestic partners accompanying FSOs to overseas postings, and for same-sex foreign-born domestic partners accompanying FSOs to postings in Washington or elsewhere in the U.S.

• Preferential status for employment at post comparable to that enjoyed by Eligible Family Members (EFMs) for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

Congressional members sent a similar letter to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last year but the concerns fell on deaf ears. Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Bergner sent a response stating that the department recruits and promotes employees “without regard to sexual orientation” and affords benefits to unmarried partners of employees in accordance with the Foreign Affairs Manual (at 3 FAM 4180). The letter failed to acknowledge any inequalities faced by officers in same-sex relationships.

Sources familiar with the State Department say LGBT employees today are more hopeful than they have ever been about the direction of potential policy changes. Last week, 2,200 government employees (gay and straight) working in foreign affairs signed a letter advocating for fair treatment of LGBT employees that was hand-delivered to Secretary Clinton's office.

Michelle Schohn, president of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), welcomed the support of Congressional members and said she firmly believed policy changes are imminent.

“We are delighted that these members of Congress share our concerns about the inequities facing gays and lesbians in the foreign service,” Schohn said. “I am confident that these are issues that the Secretary already takes seriously.”

Tammy Baldwin: Secretary Clinton Must Address State Dept. Policies on LGBT Employees

This was written by Rep. Tammy Baldwin on The Hill's Congress Blog ("where lawmakers come to blog).

Secretary Clinton Must Address State Dept. Policies on LGBT Employees
By Rep. Tammy Baldwin

During her confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to examine current policies relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees at the State Department. Her willingness to examine these issues signals positive change on many levels. Not only has our nation evolved in its recognition and acceptance of LGBT American, but our new administration understands that the strength of our diplomatic corps is undermined by inequitable employment policies.

As Secretary Clinton noted during the question and answer session of her confirmation hearing, many other nations now extend training, protection, and benefits to the partners of LGBT employees. Yet, the U.S. currently denies same-sex partners of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) access to travel and visa assistance to and from a posting abroad, and embassy health, protection, and emergency evacuation services that other “Eligible Family Members” (EFMs) enjoy. The lack of equitable treatment at the State Department could force — in fact, already has forced — dedicated, intelligent, and needed FSOs and officials to make an unfortunate choice between serving their country and protecting their families.

Secretary Clinton can remedy many of these inequitable policies immediately, without legislation; and, in our letter, Sens. Wyden, Feingold, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, and I urge her to do so. At a time when America’s core values and belief in democracy are most on display to the rest of the world, our nation is tarnished by practices that are contrary to those values and beliefs.

But Congress must also work to end discriminatory practices against LGBT Americans. For example, we must pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to put the federal government on par with a majority of Fortune 500 companies by extending employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners of federal employees to the same extent those benefits cover spouses of federal employees.

Last Spring, Congressman Barney Frank and I founded the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. To date, 74 Members have joined our caucus to achieve the extension of equal rights, the repeal of discriminatory laws, the elimination of hate-motivated violence, and the improved health and well being of all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. In the 111th Congress, the Caucus will continue to serve as a resource for Members of Congress, their staffs, and the public on LGBT issues.

The very existence of an LGBT Equality Caucus makes a strong statement about the values this Congress and our nation hold dear. I hope more colleagues will join us in creating a more perfect Union, assuring equal rights for all here at home, and safeguarding the human rights of LGBT people in all parts of the world.

Coverage of the New Letter

Pam's House Blend covered the new letter from Baldwin et al here. She has images of the letter in case you are interested.

Towleroad covers it here, and has video of Secretary Clinton's second swearing-in ceremony.

The new letter was also covered by U.K.'s PinkNews, gaypolitics.com, My Gay Minneapolis, Outtake blog, and 2015 Place.

Noticably lacking is any mainstream coverage.

A New Letter to the Secretary

As you know if you have been reading this blog for any amount of time, several Representatives of Congress, including Rep. Tammy Baldwin, wrote repeatedly to Secretary Rice asking her to address inequities facing gay and lesbian employees at the State Department. Today, Representative Baldwin's office sent out a press release regarding a new letter, this one to Secretary Clinton.

The text of the release reads:

Baldwin Calls on Clinton to Change State Dept. LGBT Policies

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address inequities in employment practices concerning gay and lesbian State Department employees and to take remedial action.

In a letter sent today, Baldwin, joined by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), wrote:

“The lack of equitable treatment could force dedicated, intelligent, and needed FSOs (Foreign Service Officers) and officials to make an unfortunate choice between serving their country and protecting their families. As you noted during the question and answer session of your Senate Foreign Relations confirmation hearing, many other nations now extend training, protection, and benefits to the partners of LGBT employees. Further, the State Department’s past inattention to these disparities places it below parity with the best employment practices used in the private sector, where the majority of Fortune 500 companies extend employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners. Without remedying these inequities, the State Department may fail to attract and retain qualified personnel.”

Baldwin and her colleagues asked Secretary Clinton to institute, among other things, the following changes in State Department policy regarding Foreign Service Officers (FSOs):

 Inclusion in travel orders for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
 Access to training, including all language classes, area studies, and embassy effectiveness classes for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
 Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
 Access to post health units for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
 Visa support for same-sex domestic partners accompanying FSOs to overseas postings, and for same-sex foreign-born domestic partners accompanying FSOs to postings in Washington or elsewhere in the U.S.
 Preferential status for employment at post comparable to that enjoyed by Eligible Family Members (EFMs) for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

Former U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, a distinguished diplomat, resigned last year from the State Department because of inequitable employment practices. Such disparities “should not be the reason why highly qualified employees leave the State Department at a time when their service is needed more than ever,” Baldwin wrote. More than 2,200 government employees, members of the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), also sent a letter to Clinton expressing their concerns on this issue.

Citing Secretary Clinton’s pledge during her confirmation hearing to examine current policies relating to lesbian and gay employees at the State Department, Baldwin and her colleagues wrote: “As you work to advance America’s national security and exemplify this great country’s values around the world, we hope you will follow through on this pledge and also work to fully support your diverse workforce.”

Here is the text of the letter:

Congratulations on your confirmation as our new Secretary of State. We welcome your leadership in promoting America's security and standing in the world and look forward to working in partnership with you. As you begin your work, we hope that you will also focus on equalizing the internal State Department rules and regulations for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Foreign and Civil Service employees.

Recently, you received a letter from the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), signed by over 2,200 government employees, expressing their concerns on this issue. As in the case of former Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, the inequitable treatment of LGBT Foreign and Civil Service Officers (FSOs) and their partners should not be the reason why highly qualified employees leave the State Department at a time when their service is needed more than ever. Many of these inequities, however, could be remedied through your leadership as Secretary, without legislative changes.

As you may know, by not including same-sex partners in the definition of an "Eligible Family Member" (EFM), the Department excludes them from many of the State Department benefits, protections, and services afforded to family members of FSOs. These benefits are important to the safety, effectiveness, and morale of our communities abroad.

We are particularly concerned that the Department has not taken enough steps to assure the safety and security of non-EFM partners of FSOs. According to the State Department's own literature, 85% of FSOs are likely to be a victim of crime at some point during their overseas career. While same-sex partners are now allowed to take security classes through the Foreign Service Institute, their access is only on a space-available basis. Moreover, they are still denied access to embassy health services, even in countries where grave health crises exist. They are not included in protocols for the distribution of Tamiflu in the event of an avian flu outbreak, undercutting the most basic preventive step against a potential pandemic outbreak.

Further, if an evacuation is ordered, same-sex partners are financially responsible for their own evacuation - creating a frightening choice between safety and resources.

The lack of equitable treatment could force dedicated, intelligent, and needed FSOs and officials to make an unfortunate choice between serving their country and protecting their families. As you noted during the question and answer session of your Senate Foreign Relations confirmation hearing, many other nations now extend training, protection, and benefits to the partners of LGBT employees. Further, the State Department's past inattention to these disparities places it below parity with the best employment practices used in the private sector, where the majority of Fortune 500 companies extend employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners. Without remedying these inequities, the State Department may fail to attract and retain qualified personnel.

Madam Secretary, we urge you to take the initiative in addressing these basic concerns, all of which can be handled through internal regulatory changes and would not require Congressional action. Your leadership in these policy areas would make a difference in the safety and morale of those who support American policy goals overseas:

* Inclusion in travel orders for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Access to training, including all language classes, area studies, and embassy effectiveness classes for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Access to post health units for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Visa support for same-sex domestic partners accompanying FSOs to overseas postings, and for same-sex foreign-born domestic partners accompanying FSOs to postings in Washington or elsewhere in the U.S.
* Preferential status for employment at post comparable to that enjoyed by EFMs for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

Many of these changes might be efficiently addressed through the inclusion of same-sex domestic partners under the definition of an EFM in the Foreign Service Standardized Regulation 040(m). None of the changes above are contrary to the letter or spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In addition to these issues, we ask you to consider leading the State Department in recognizing partners of diplomats from other countries while they serve in the United States. This offer of equality and hospitality can restore our nation's leadership role on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights while bolstering our diplomatic efforts.

Also, we similarly hope you will provide guidance to U.S. Missions to the United Nations to enable American employees at the UN to designate their same-sex partners as domestic partners. It is our understanding that the UN will defer to the instructions of the relevant Permanent Mission of the country of origin of the staff member when deciding whether to grant benefits to same-sex partners of UN employees. While they are not FSOs, these individuals lead dedicated lives of service, and deserve the opportunity to provide for their families.

During your confirmation hearing, you pledged to examine current policies relating to lesbian and gay employees at the State Department. As you work to advance America's national security and exemplify this great country's values around the world, we hope you will follow through on this pledge and also work to fully support your diverse workforce. Madam Secretary, we would be pleased to work with you in addressing these matters and look forward to your response.

Final Response to the Baldwin Letter

I have been admittedly lax in posting lately. Blame it on senioritis...I'm finishing up my tour, preparing to start my bridge assignment, and still entertaining fantasies of leaving the service and moving back South. I got this response from L to Rep. Tammy Baldwin's letter last week, but I am only just now getting around to reposting it.

The letter is admittedly a little more forward leaning than the last response. Still, the last paragraph is a bit annoying in its almost chiding tone. We are all aware that MOHs include more than just same-sex partners. But in a fair world, same-sex partners would be treated like married spouses. But even those legally married in Massachusetts or California still are not.

Here is the letter:

Dear Ms. Balwin,

Thank you for your letter of May 7 regarding the Department's treatment of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

The Department believes that treatment of Members of Household (MOH) is a matter of great importance. We are currently examining initiatives that would address some of your concerns, taking into account statutory and procedural requirements and any resource considerations. We will keep you informed of our progress in this regard.

Please note that MOH concerns are not limited to the Department's treatment of same sex partners. This is a much broader issue that could affect many Department empluyees, as well as those of other agencies with personnel stationed abroad. Members of Household include all unmarried partners, parents, children, and even siblings who, despite being adults, are reliant on our Foreign Service members to comprise their households. Any change to our regulations must take into account this broader picture.

We hope that this information has been helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey T. Bergner
Legislative Affairs

Baldwin Discusses Gay Bills in Congressional Limbo

GLBT News Summary for Progressives - Ray's List also covered Wednesday's discussion.

-Baldwin Discusses Gay Bills in Congressional Limbo

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is predicting that in the next session of Congress, bills related to employment non-discrimination and hate crimes will be more successful than legislation aimed at repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) made the comments today at a Center for American Progress forum geared toward highlighting the importance of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would grant the partners of gay federal employees the same benefits that are available tothe spouses of straight counterparts. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) joined Baldwin in the panel discussion. Other speakers at the event included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, who resigned his 26-year career as a foreign service officer last year in protest of federal employment practices. Baldwin said she is "very optimistic" that ENDA and a hate crimes measure would pass Congress next session, particularly if Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has supported these initiatives, take the White House.

The event was covered by Daily Motion as well, and this site has video of the discussion.

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

We Have to Start Somewhere

The Religious Action Center for Reform Judiasm covered Wednesday's panel discussion on the Domestic Partnership and Benefits Act at the Center for American Progress .

"We've Got to Start Somewhere"

By Kate Bigam

In a bipartisan panel yesterday at the Center for American Progress, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) conveyed their strong support for providing Americans in same-sex relationships with domestic partner benefits. The event also featured former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Michael Guest, former U.S. Ambassador to Romania and this country's first openly gay ambassador. Guest resigned last year when he decided the Foreign Service's "inequities were just too strong" in the arena of discrimination against GLBT employees.

Smith's end of the discussion was particularly interesting, especially when an audience member pointed out the proverbial elephant in the room: If Smith is so supportive of GLBT equality, why did he favor 2006's Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and which was vigorously opposed by supporters of the GLBT community? Smith responded passionately, insisting that although his religious beliefs couldn't allow him to support same-sex marriage, he is committed to ensuring GLBT equality in terms of opportunity and benefits (he also supports adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes laws). What's more, Smith seemed genuinely optimistic that the legislative tides are changing in favor of equality, citing a "change in the hearts and minds of Senators on LGBT issues" and the increasingly popular view amongst members of Congress that providing domestic partner benefits, at least, is "a simple issue of fairness and equality."

Despite our drastically different beliefs on the issue of marriage equality, I very much respect Sen. Gordon Smith's comments on this subject, to which he has clearly given much thought. Ensuring domestic partner benefits is one of many crucial steps that will ultimately lead to full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people - including marriage equality. And we've got to start somewhere.

Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees

I found this today on the Center for American Progress's video blog, SEEPROGRESS. In addition to the text below, you can watch some video highlights from yesterday's panel discussion.

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of Americas largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

Domestic partners discriminated against

This event took place today at the Center for American Progress and was covered by Talk Radio News.

Domestic partners discriminated against

The fact that the U.S. government covers the travel cost of a family pet yet does not cover that of a domestic partner was brought up at a discussion held at the Center for American Progress (CAP). Unlike spouses of married foreign service personnel, domestic partners are ineligible for medical benefits, life insurance and are not even permitted to attend a two-day safety training course which the State Department offers to spouses.

Digger comments:
Members of Household are now allowed to attend that course, the Security Overseas Seminar.

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, spoke during the discussion, recollecting when James Hormel became the first openly gay ambassador appointed by President Clinton to Luxembourg in 1999. Albright also considered former ambassador Michael Guest’s resignation as ambassador to Romania a big loss to U.S. foreign policy. Guest resigned from his post because his partner was unable to receive the same benefits that spouses of his straight colleagues were offered. Albright wondered how America could expect itself to be a leader in promoting civil liberties when it still discriminated its own people.

Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), also speaking at the discussion, pointed out that to an employee, health benefits are second in importance only to salary. Smith described how, in order to keep the best and brightest Americans working in the public sector, equal health benefits should be afforded to all. Also, Smith discussed his theory that a key to reducing health care costs is to widen the pool of those eligible, even if the “paradigms of families get shifted”.

Digger comments:
I was at this event today. I was impressed with all of the speakers, though naturally I would have preferred that Senator Gordon Smith also support gay marriage, which he does not. He is a strong proponent of religious freedom (he sponsored the Smith Amendment, which requires Russia to prove it is not disciminiating against religious groups there before it can get any money from the U.S.), and yet he supports denying religions the right to decide what constitutes a marriage. My church, United Church of Christ, endorses and performs same-sex marriage. M and I were married in our church.

At the presentation, the VP of the center said that there are an estimated 216,000 GLBT folks in the Federal government. And John Podesta, the president of the center and Clinton's former chief of staff, said the cost to give benefits to us would be about $260 million over ten years, a drop in the bucket compared with the total federal budget. Eighty-seven state and local governments already offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Both Baldwin and Smith said they did not expect to put the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act before Congress until the next administration because they feared a presidential veto.

Ambassador Guest finished off the event. He said of his retirement: "the career I loved at first sight had come into conflict with the partner who I had also loved at first sight." He said he had expected more of Secretary Rice and that "this is still discriminatary and it deserves no place in the institution the Secretary leads."

Washington Blade: Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

This article was in the May 16 Washington Blade, D.C.'s GLBT newspaper.

Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies
Decries ‘inequities facing gays and lesbians’

By JOEY DIGUGLIELMO
May. 16, 2008

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is continuing a correspondence with the U.S. State Department in a quest — that’s been fruitless thus far — to secure policy changes to benefit the same-sex partners of gay foreign service officers.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) last week replied to an April 17 letter from Jeffrey Bergner, assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs for the State Department. Bergner’s letter was a reply to an earlier letter Baldwin sent in February. Baldwin addressed both her letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Baldwin’s initial letter addresses what she called “basic and common-sense policy changes” that would eliminate “inequities facing gays and lesbians at the State Department.”

Baldwin cited partners’ inability to qualify as “eligible family members” in the department’s eyes, which would qualify them for safety training and language classes, access to health services, medication in the event of an epidemic, financial assistance in the event of an evacuation and help obtaining visas and help with employment opportunities, all of which the department grants to those it deems “eligible family members.”

In her first letter, Baldwin said she was greatly concerned and cited Michael Guest, the openly gay former U.S. ambassador to Romania, who ended his 26-year career in the Foreign Service in December citing what he considered unfair treatment of gay diplomats and their partners.

In a Blade phone interview this week, Baldwin said the letters tie into her broader work as lead sponsor of a House bill that, if passed, would secure domestic partner benefits for federal employees (it hasn’t been voted out of committee).

“I’ve long been interested in the fight for equality not just for LGBT individuals but also for LGBT families,” Baldwin said. “In a number of federal agencies, there are actions that could be taken short of needing to pass legislation because, of course, we know what a long, laborious process that can be. The secretary has significant latitude to address the issues.”

Bergner’s reply to Baldwin’s first letter said the department hires “without regard to sexual orientation” and that same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried partners are treated the same.

Baldwin’s follow-up conveyed to Rice that Bergner’s response “was unsatisfactory” and points out several matters in the first letter that Bergner failed to address.

The State Department did not respond to a request seeking comment.

But how realistic are Baldwin’s requests considering Rice’s boss, President George Bush, has indicated a likelihood to veto pro-gay legislation during his administration?

Guest said Rice, when pressed, made one concession, pointing to a Feb. 13 Foreign Affairs Committee session in which Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who co-signed Baldwin’s letters with Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), questioned Rice on the issue. Rice then made one training course available to same-sex partners.

“It can be effective for elected representatives to go to the secretary in the interest of safety, effectiveness, morale and workplace equity,” Guest, who’s now working on the still-forming Council for Global Equality, said.

“I hope in time the response will be better.”

Rice, who is unmarried, has declined to comment on her sexual orientation. Rice biographer and Washington Post correspondent Glenn Kessler discovered that Rice owns a house with another unmarried woman, filmmaker Randy Bean.

Though Guest said Rice had repeatedly declined to make allowances for gay State Department employees and their partners, the secretary has occasionally acknowledged gays and their partners, most notably during the swearing-in ceremony in October 2006 of openly gay Dr. Mark Dybul as U.S. Global AIDS coordinator.

Rice referred to Dybul’s partner, Jason Claire, and referenced Claire’s mother as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

Baldwin said she didn’t know if Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) or Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had been asked about provisions for gay employees and their partners in the State Department.

“We all know, of course that they’ve expressed strong support for same-sex couples,” Baldwin said, “and this is clearly a subset of those kinds of benefits.”

Staff in Baldwin’s office said letter exchanges are standard procedure for these kinds of requests. Elected officials typically find correspondence preferable to in-person meetings so there’s a paper trail.

More coverage of the letter

Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is continuing a correspondence with the U.S. State Department in a quest - that's been fruitless thus far - to secure policy changes to benefit the same-sex partners of gay foreign service officers.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) last week replied to an April 17 letter from Jeffrey Bergner, assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs for the State Department. Bergner's letter was a reply to an earlier letter Baldwin sent in February. Baldwin addressed both her letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Baldwin's initial letter addresses what she called "basic and common-sensepolicy changes" that would eliminate "inequities facing gays and lesbians atthe State Department." See Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

More Coverage of the Letter

The Miami Herald is also covering the new letter to the Secretary from Representatives Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Berman and Ackerman. You can read that article here.