State Department, Same-Sex Partners Benefits | 05/26/2009 9:55 am
Hillary Clinton to Announce Spousal Benefits for Gay Diplomats
Draft memo being prepared for Clinton’s signature says benefits will help recruit the best diplomats U.S. has to offer
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats will receive some of the same benefits as their straight, married peers.
According to a draft memo being readied for Clinton’s signature and obtained by outlets like The Advocate and The Washington Post, same-sex partners of staffers could be eligible to receive paid travel to and from overseas posts, visas and diplomatic passports, shipments of household items to duty stations, emergency travel to visit sick or injured partners, use of medical facilities at posts overseas, and emergency evacuation if needed. Some heterosexual couples who aren’t married but are domestic partners will also be entitled to such benefits.
The draft memo states (via The Avocate):
According to a draft memo being readied for Clinton’s signature and obtained by outlets like The Advocate and The Washington Post, same-sex partners of staffers could be eligible to receive paid travel to and from overseas posts, visas and diplomatic passports, shipments of household items to duty stations, emergency travel to visit sick or injured partners, use of medical facilities at posts overseas, and emergency evacuation if needed. Some heterosexual couples who aren’t married but are domestic partners will also be entitled to such benefits.
The draft memo states (via The Avocate):
Historically, domestic partners of Foreign Service members have not been provided the same training, benefits, allowances, and protections that other family members receive. These inequities are unfair and must end. Providing training, medical care, and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety, and effectiveness of our posts abroad. [Providing these benefits will help the department] attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. At bottom, the Department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do.”
Read more about: Diplomats, Foreign Service, Hillary Clinton, Michael Guest, News, Same-Sex Partners, Secretary of State, Spousal Benefits, State Department, U.S.
- Dear Margo: When You Think You've Heard Everything ... You Haven't
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- What's your viewpoint on a one-term presidency for Obama, no matter the reason?
- Could Mammograms Fall Victim to Obamacare? by Liz Peek
- Liz Smith: Sharon Stone, Steve Tyrell, Sarah (You Know Who), Glamour, Lesley Gore – and More!
- Liz Smith: In a Concert Hall Far, Far Away
- Queen Martha, by Cynthia McFadden
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- Remember shopping pre-Internet? What era/memory in the evolution of shopping do you think of most fondly?
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- Dear Margo: When You Think You've Heard Everything ... You Haven't
- Liz Smith: Sharon Stone, Steve Tyrell, Sarah (You Know Who), Glamour, Lesley Gore – and More!
- Liz Smith: In a Concert Hall Far, Far Away
- Joan Ganz Cooney Still Shops the Way She Always Has
- Joan Ganz Cooney Looks at Unemployment, Not War
- Let Down and Felt Up? by E.D. Hill
- The World in Vogue (Photos)
- What's your viewpoint on a one-term presidency for Obama, no matter the reason?
- Could Mammograms Fall Victim to Obamacare? by Liz Peek
- Dear Margo: When You Think You've Heard Everything ... You Haven't
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- Remember shopping pre-Internet? What era/memory in the evolution of shopping do you think of most fondly?
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- Mr. wOw: Falling in Love Again With 'Marlene'
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- Let Down and Felt Up? by E.D. Hill
- The Love Goddess: In Sickness and in Health ... But Hold the Sickness
wOw Features
Reader Voices
Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
The Palin Book, as Dear Margo Sees It
44 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
…."because it is the right thing to do.” …
Enough said!
My friend Belinda, please tell us what it is that you disagree with, and why.
Namaste.
It depends on how the policy is written. The article makes reference to "some domestic partners" who are heterosexual as being eligible for benefits as well. There is no some in my view. If you are going to open the door to homosexual men and women and those that claim to be domestic partners, the same should apply for heterosexuals across the board.
The cynic in me immediately reading this thought of countless men and women bringing their (truly platonic) friends on free trips. Where in cases where they are claiming them to be a spouse, they would/should provide a marriage certificate. And there in lies the importance (in my opinion) of legalizing gay marriage. If we are going to allow special provisions for married couples do so, but this open ended"domestic partners" label is something I have a real problem with.
exactly belinda!
Yes, this is yet another example of why same sex marriage should be legalized across the board. However, it is not fair to tell same sex couples that they simply have to wait the decade or so it will take for that to get sorted out once and for all.
In any case, I should think it would be easy to require some sort of documentation to prove that the domestic partner you’re bringing is not simply a friend. Either way, I’d rather give some rights to people who lack them and end up sending a few people on free travel than the other way around.
I agree Joy.
there is room for fraud here.
Believe it Belinda…Hilliary is starting her pandering in hopes of the 2012 election….
If gay couples want to be "married" then they should move to the appropriated state and be "married". Only married couples are "married" couples….anyone else should be exempt.
How ridiculous to even begin to think of giving benefits to those that are not legal spouses…..
dear, even if they are married in a state, the federal government does not recognize the union and thus would not be eligible for federal marriage benefits, which is why they need this extra provision for gay couples.
educate yourself, you sound ignorant when you spout silly ideas that don’t matter.
"Some heterosexual couples who aren’t married but are domestic partners will also be entitled to such benefits."…. why?
I can understand giving benefits to unmarried gay couples because they are not given the same rights to GET married, but hetrosexual couples who are not married should not be getting benefits.