Skip to comments.New Bill Would Extend Federal Employment Benefits to Homosexual Partners
Posted on 11/27/2011 5:24:48 AM PST by IbJensen
In a deep bow to the homosexual lobby, a small army of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced legislation that would extend employee benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. Under H.R. 3485, homosexual partners of federal employees would be eligible for such benefits as retirement, life insurance, health insurance, workers compensation, and death benefits.
The federal government must set an example as an equal opportunity employer, the bills sponsor, lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was quoted by The Hill as saying. If we are to treat all federal employees fairly and recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government, we need this legislation.
Predictably, among the bills co-sponsors were three other homosexual Democrats: David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). Also not surprisingly, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, added her signature to the bills sponsorship. The Hill reported that Ros-Lehtinen, who has a transgendered daughter, has said recently that her views have evolved on gay and lesbian rights over the last several years. Earlier this year, Ros-Lehtinen supported a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law she voted for in 1996 under which the federal government defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation, declared Ros-Lehtinen of Baldwins bill, because we are a nation that prides itself on treating everyone as equals and this bill assures that we bring those same ideals to the regulations that guide federal benefits for domestic partners of federal employees. We have taken steps to gain equal rights for all, but much remains to be done. Passage of this legislation will be one step in the right direction.
Despite such rhetoric, passage of the bill will be barred by the Republican majority in the House who oppose it, as well as by DOMA itself, which mandates that only marriage between a man and a woman can be recognized by the federal government.
But Democrats are hard at work to rescind DOMA, most recently with the introduction by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) of the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would give federal legalization of homosexual marriage. As reported by The New American, in mid-November the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approved Feinsteins bill, historically marking the first time a committee in either the Senate or the House has voted to repeal the 17-year-old [DOMA] law. Without a majority in both houses of Congress, however, passage of Feinsteins homosexual marriage bill will be postponed indefinitely.
Nonetheless, Democrats march gamely on with such efforts as Baldwins bill, which found its companion introduction in the Senate through sponsorship by two non-Democrats: Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), both leaders in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This legislation is the next step to achieving equity for the gay community, Lieberman intoned in a committee statement. Lieberman explained that the militarys Dont Ask Dont Tell policy was rescinded because we want the best men and women America has to offer to defend our country. The same is true for federal employees: we want to attract the best men and women possible to serve in federal government. One way to do that is by offering competitive benefits to the family members of gay federal employees. This legislation makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do.
Likewise, Collins insisted that the bill represents both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among Fortune 500 companies, for example, domestic partner benefits are commonplace.
According to the committee statement, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of extending benefits to partners of homosexuals would be approximately $70 million per year through 2020. Considered as a share of the federal governments total budget for federal employees, this estimated cost would amount to only about two hundredths of a percent (0.0002), explained the release.
According to The Hill, to counter the fraud to which the measure would be susceptible, a homosexual federal worker would have to submit an affidavit attesting that he or she is in a same-sex domestic partner relationship. The affidavit must show they have a common residence (with some exceptions related to work or financial circumstances), that neither is married or in a domestic partner relationship with someone else, and that they generally share responsibility for a significant measure of each others common welfare and financial obligations.
Homosexual benefits for homosexual federal workers! Congress has its priorities straight! These lunatics believe that shoving one's penus up another's anus is another normal.
This is crazy. The reason is because they change partners so much. I know that they tend to change partners as much as Newt does. This is not a good idea. I actually thought they did this already so I am pleased to see we can still fight this.
I find the sight of hairy male bodies with flabby bellies colliding in bed unsettling but truthfully, we straight guys have always found beautiful lesbians a turn on. Not all gays are created equal. Sorry, liberals - if you were literally truthful, it would be a hard sell.
I’m sure the ‘best and the brightest’ will of course be homos looking for government handouts. Makes perfect sense... if you’re an idiot.
Why do gays need to be a federal protected class? Its not like most of us have a gay-dar. Idiots!
So a single child taking care of an elderly widowed parent would qualify? Seems like an equal protection issue if this bill discriminates against other types of "partnerships.
DEFUND socialist collectives foreign and DOMESTIC.
I find that clause interesting. Are liberals admitting same sex marriage is not really marriage? But they don’t see their own hypocrisy on display there, in black and white. If I was gay, I would be outraged at liberal homophobia codified into our nation’s laws!
...it must be a very, very small army.
This is supposed to be actuarially sound and effectively has the individual employee paying for the benefit for the spouse.
When it comes to the gayblades their abbreviated lifespans probably make this a moot point ~ just won't be anybody around to collect.
When it comes to the lesbians it's a different story of course. They live at least as long as non-gays.
your imagery brought a bit of puke up into my mouth....
that being said...I do not believe any govt. (state, feds, local) needs to be in the MARRIAGE business.
all partnerships should be ‘civil partnerships’ and your ‘Marriage’ should be between you and your religious organization...
Polagamists need these benes more than gays. After all, they raise children!
YYup. Like I said, not all gays are created equal.
And these new federal benefits have a catch: to get them, gays must let the federal government into the nation’s bedrooms.
Well... their bedrooms and liberals are telling them to forget any expectation of relationship privacy. With friends like those, gays don’t need enemies.
There really is no such thing as “beautiful lesbians” as it’s mostly a myth of Hollywood proportions. In other words, a marketing tool.
99.9% of REAL lesbians are of the “Chaz” and “Kagan” sort.
then, i as a single person, claim discrimination. it used to be that spouses/traditional families were given special treatment to encourage family stability. if this is opened up to cover homosexuals, then why not singles? actually i’d prefer that things stay with traditional families: God knows they need the help.
The country is beset with serious problems but many in congress would rather play in the weeds.
As everyone knows there's no privacy for federal employees or retirees.
True.... in porn though that works because men being highly imaginative creatures, can imagine inserting themselves in the action.
Apart from that, its hard to think of an instance where the gay lifestyle is truly mainstream.
The Left wants to regiment us. Why stop with gays? You know where this is going to lead. Its not about equality under the law.
See, we don’t need to worry about illegals getting benefits - the pols will find many ways to take our money and give it to those that don’t deserve it.