Does Hillary Clinton Support Federal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples at State?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wrapping up a worldwide trademark listening tour, has apparently been lending an ear to Foreign Service officers, too. The American Foreign Service Association, which represents the officers and USAID workers, reveals in a newsletter that Clinton is open to many of their workplace complaints, including a demand to expand benefits to same-sex couples. "This issue has been presented to the new secretary of state, and she seems understanding and supportive towards increasing these benefits," says the influential group. The assessment was included in the group's latest member survey. In that poll, members were asked: "Should AFSA advocate for official recognition and benefits for same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service members?" About 71 percent said yes, with only 17 percent opposed. The group also said that Clinton is keen on addressing another of its issues: the overseas pay gap, the nearly 20 percent drop in pay department employees incur when leaving high-priced U.S. cities like Washington to move overseas.
The survey also includes many comments and complaints from Foreign Service officers, including this tart note: "We had a feeling of caring under Colin Powell in regards to training priorities, family support, and quality of life. We no longer feel that under the current [Bush] administration, and I am not optimistic we'll get that with the new. The current atmosphere in the Foreign Service seems to me to be like DoD—where you're used, abused, then thrown out the door when they're done with you."
Check out more of the new Washington Whispers.
Reader Comments
here is the answer
make everyone pay for their benefits.. end of discussion
domestic partnerships/relationships/discrimination
is it not right to also offer the same benefits to female/male relationships that are not married, if it's done for same sex domestic relationships?
fair and balanced
I am not sure that Haberman was responding to my posting (almost simultaneous). My comments were directed to the case where the employer pays all or most of the premiums for health insurance (more common for government than in the private sphere). If employees pay the full amount, then of course they should be entitled to the full benefits. It certainly appears that most of the argument for coverage, for those not now eligible for family rates, is asking for extra compensation which is not paid to singles (also: if two married employees work for an employer who pays the premiums, usually they would be enrolled under one "family" policy, though they might be allowed two "single" policies). As a Libertarian, I think government should stay out of the sex/marital issues, and surely not countenance the discriminatory treatment of the single employee. (The $7000 I mentioned is really an understatement, since employer paid health insurance is not considered taxable earnings -- hence the equivalent value of the differential is probably well over $10000/year.)
advertisement
