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.
“Seems like an equal protection issue if this bill discriminates against other types of “partnerships. “
It would be discrimination against a child who financially supports their parent/s who live with them, and vice versa.
Where a parent supports an adult son, or daughter.
If the federal govt is going to open pandora’s box, then let the discriminatory civil actions begin.
Well it looks like we’ll be paying benefits for the Fudge Packers. It all about the votes people.
Unless this law provides the same options for heterosexual’s living together and not married then this law has to be unconstitutional because it gives rights to a class a people based solely on their sexual preferences.
You can not grant “rights” to one group on the basis on their sexual orientation, and in the same law deny rights to another group because of their opposite sexual orientation.
It’s got to be all or none.
I guess if your hetero live-in is not homosexual, they should declare themselves to be so, and become eligible for becoming a lifetime co-ward of the govt
No marriage, no divorce, imagine the court battles over partner benefits
I have an idea. How 'bout if we figure out how much we are already paying for Federal "employee" "benefits" and if the Federal "workers" want to divide that money over some larger group then they can do so but the ones who are receiving some largess now should know that it will become a smalless as they are asked to share it with one special interest group after another.
This bill will etch it into stone.
OK, let me get this straight: If two homosexuals decide they want to live together, they can have access to taxpayers’ money to make their cohabitation validated. What about two heterosexuals merely living together without marriage? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory against them to give homosexuals benefits without any two cohabitating partners?
He's Baaaaack !!!!
With the exception of Federal Employee Health Benefits.
A recent poll showed that 40% of the people think that marriage comes from man and thus the state, that it can be whatever the state decides it is. They have been conditioned to think that the state defines marriage. And the homosexualists and statists love it.
a virtual armette!
Oh yeah .... what we need is more people like Barney Frank in the federal government.
You are totally wrong. There are many drop-dead, totally gorgeous lesbians. You may not know them or possibly you know them but don't realize they are lesbians.
Back to the topic of this thread - I am sick and tired of politicians who pander for votes. They won't be happy till they get everybody but the producers on the dole.
Now we come to the point. It never was about anything else but money.
That’s your and my tax money folks, going to pay for one of the unhealthiest, most expensive demographics in the world.
A deep bow??!! They don’t want us to bow to them. They want us all to BEND OVER for them. I knew this crap was coming. That is one of the reasons I choose to retire from the military. I absolutely REFUSE to support this type of lifestyle. We had a brief by our commander about the repeal of DADT. I asked him about the statistics that PROVE homosexual lifestyle is more prone to DISEASE and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! He said, “I didn’t write the policy.” We’ve already had one case of domestic violence (male-male relationship). I’m just hoping my retirement date gets here fast. I’d hate to be sitting at the hospital waiting for an appointment and Jim and John come in holding hands and sit next to me. Of course I am not allowed to use my freedom of speech on base. That might upset the fairies!
This is something that will thrill the American people, 75 percent of whom wanted the military “open” to “diversitiy.”
I am afraid that the American people are not in the least sympathetic to your position, freedomfighter.
I’m sure MA would agree. People in MA are no longer admirers of the original John Adams.