General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEXCLUSIVE: State Dept. considers phasing out DP benefits
The Washington Blade has learned the State Department is considering phasing out domestic partner benefits for unmarried gay employees in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Courts 2013 ruling that struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Patrick Kennedy, under secretary for management at the State Department, told representatives of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies during a Dec. 22 meeting that the agency plans to move forward the proposed elimination of the Same-Sex Domestic Partner (SSDP) program.
GLIFAA President Selim Ariturk told the Washington Blade that many of his organizations members come from states that have yet to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. He said their partners could also lose their jobs simply for getting married to someone of the same gender. Ariturk further noted that legally married foreign-born partners of GLIFAA members could face additional threats in their respective homelands.
A diplomat from the embassy of an anti-gay country could walk into D.C. City Hall today and ask to see the marriage records of such a couple, Ariturk told the Blade. Those records could then be used to convict the foreign partner of homosexuality the next time he travels home. The danger is real.
- See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/01/14/exclusive-state-dept-considering-phasing-domestic-partner-benefits/?
jehop61
(1,735 posts)wait til I see it somewhere more main stream
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)if you have a problem with that, speak up! I'm inclined to agree, you sound just a little homophobic.
jehop61
(1,735 posts)I confused "The Blade" with the "Blaze" which we all know is run by a nutty person. I've never heard of this paper and needed instruction on exactly what it is. Mea culpa, I didn't mean to offend anyone, let alone my LGBT friends and family.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)I was hoping you got confused but, had to ask you to speak up so it was clear. Thanks again
glasshouses
(484 posts)to opt out of it.
This is screwy
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)More than 52% of midsize employers defined as companies with 500 to 4,999 full-time employees polled in August by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans said they cover domestic partnerships and civil unions under their employee benefit plans. After the Supreme Court's ruling, 75.4% of those employers said they intend to continue to offer benefits to domestic partners and civil unions at least for now.
We are seeing a lot of midsize employers, especially in states that permit same-sex marriage, saying that they are planning to eventually do away with coverage for domestic partners, just not for this coming plan year, said James Harmon, president of the employee benefits division at Cleveland-based Dawson Consulting Group, a subsidiary of AssuredPartners Inc.
A crucial factor in many mid-market employers' decisions about whether they will continue offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners likely will be the extent to which they also intend to cover opposite-sex domestic partners. Fifty-seven percent of mid-market employers polled in the recent survey said they do not cover opposite-sex domestic partners, and only one in five of those employers said they were considering doing so as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20131006/NEWS05/310069953?tags=%7C62%7C74%7C82%7C305