« The normalization of evil | Main | The recession hits home »

February 03, 2009

A progressive alternative for Secretary Clinton

Karol Collymore has a post up at Blue Oregon about an effort by Senator Ron Wyden and several others urging Secretary Clinton to implement equal rights for same-sex couples who work for the State Department. I was unable to find the exact press release she cites from Wyden and I struck out on Feingold too. But I did find one on Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin's website.

Initially I was just going to comment on Karol's post but then I remembered something Carla said several years ago about how sometimes a comment would make a better post than a comment. So here I am.

Instead of quoting the entire press release let me just cut to the chase because that'll get to the crux of why I wanted to write about this in the first place.

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

The problem as I see it here is purely a practical one. Currently these are priviledges reserved solely for married spouses of hetero couples. Extending these priviledges to same-sex couples in the absense of uniform gay marriage statutes nationwide would mean that rather than verifying partner status via a legal document (marriage license or something indicating the same) the criteria would shift to the say-so of the employee.

Now, I understand the inherent difficulty posed to same-sex couples due to the unavailability of nationally recognized legal marriage to them. That is not their fault.

But on the other hand, neither they nor we can say with realistic certainty that every same-sex couple which these rules might apply to would be married to their Significant Other if they could. America is full of hetero couples who at one point or another were engaged or otherwise had every intention of getting married only to have it never materialize, for whatever reason. Plenty of other intimate couples seemingly thrived together unmarried for several years only to get married and end up divorced within a year or two. That's exactly how my first marriage went.

The point being that in real world terms what Wyden et al are advocating would discriminate against hetero employees who may have been with their Significant Other just as long but don't have access to these benefits because they're not married.

What I would therefore urge Secretary Clinton to do would be to change the rules to apply to each employee and one other individual whom the employee would have to designate upfront. Whether that one other person is a spouse, a lover, a platonic friend or even a sibling would be besides the point and not relevant to the benefits at stake.

One employee + one other person and their criteria would be their own. One other person, designated upfront and non-transferable without some sort of paperwork hoops to jump through roughly as royal of a pain in the keister as divorce paperwork - just to keep it fair for everyone.

Posted by Kevin at February 3, 2009 10:33 PM