Archive for June, 2009
Activists, lawyers propose moving focus off same-sex marriage
Happy day after Pride! Not too sunburned or hungover, I hope. How many marriage posters and floats did you see?
As an antitdote, try these three fascinating articles:
- in The Nation, Lisa Duggan describes the expansive, progressive strategy that is winning real improvements for everyone in Utah (many thanks to Heather W. for finding this first)
- in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Tommi Avicolli Mecca describes the kinds of assistance that could have benefited impoverished LBGTQ people for the price of the marriage equality battle (many thanks to Rene A. for finding it!)
- and thanks to Stephen G. for finding the news in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that
Married and unmarried couples should be treated equally under Minnesota law, the Minnesota State Bar Association said in a unanimous policy vote by its general assembly Friday morning.
Share: 
beyond same-sex marriage, get gov't out of marriage
Comments 2
Jun 29th, 2009 by Nicky
Federal employment benefits for whom?
A lot of cooks are stirring the pot these days, trying to cook up more inclusive federal employment benefits. I’m hoping they’ll ultimately dish out a truly satisfying dish that allows federal employees to define and take care of their own families.
Most recently, President Obama hinted that he’d let same-sex partners share benefits via executive order. AtMP members reacted quickly and strongly, sending him over 110 emails saying
All federal employees should be allowed to put one adult on their health plan along with their children. At a minimum, benefits should go to both different-sex and same-sex partners of government employees.
In fact, Obama changed only a few rules, not touching the big prize: the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The executive branch believes it does not have the right to broaden the definition of family in its personnel policies.
The legislative branch has proposed both sweeping and targeted expansions. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act was re-introduced in both House and Senate in May. It would give same-sex partners blanket access to everything that spouses get. A more specific bill addresses benefits for foreign service officers.
The judicial branch is handling a case in which federal employees who married their same-sex partners in MA are suing for spousal benefits. Back in February a court decided in favor of a federal employee’s suit for benefits for his same-sex partner.
So far, all three branches look to be cooking up a thin broth that will be tasty only to people in same-sex married or marriage-like relationships. AtMP calls on all decision-makers, whether executive, legislative or judicial, to recognize that the real problem is treating conjugal (romantic, sex-based) relationships differently from all the other relationships in federal employee’s lives. We’d like to propose the Sergio A. Olaya Equal Benefits for All Employees Act, by which all federal employees would be allowed to put one non-dependent adult on their benefits plan along with their dependents. (And, we’d like to propose single-payer, truly universal health care!)
Share:
health care
Comments 1
Jun 29th, 2009 by Nicky
Care time: another face of discrimination in health care
I often check the New Old Age blog, because anecdotes suggest that unmarried people may be tapped (more than their married siblings or peers) to become caregivers for elderly parents. Today’s post caught my eye: families can write contracts to compensate the caretakers for lost income. That’s a good idea for people who leave their jobs entirely. But what about people who “just” take time off work to care for parents, siblings or anyone not their spouse?
I call “being able to take time off work to care for a family member without being fired” care time for short. Care time improves the health and economic well-being of workers and their families. Although unmarried people have real family care needs and responsibilities, they disproportionately lack care-time because
- their employers are allowed to penalize employees for taking care-time, or
- their employers are mandated to provide some kind of care-time, but are allowed to use marital status to determine which employees get care-time.
The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would greatly improve people’s right to care for non-spouses. It would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to permit leave to care for a same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent who has a serious health condition. Congress tried to pass it in 2007 but didn’t get anywhere. It was re-introduced on April 28th with more co-sponsors, and is now in committee.
A related proposal, the Family Leave Insurance Act would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave benefits to workers who need to care for an ill family member (child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling) or new child, to treat their own illness, or to deal with an exigency caused by the deployment of a member of the military.
AtMP is seeking a volunteer to track the progess on these bills and help us further develop our care time strategy. Though I love to meet our volunteers, this work can be done anywhere via phone and email. If you’re interested, please post here or send me an email.
Share:
health care, marriage promotion
Comments 0
Jun 26th, 2009 by Nicky
Kudos to Rev. Schwalenberg
from the Milwaulkee Journal-Sentinel:
“Society obviously benefits from healthy relationships. But healthy relationships are not limited to marriage,” said the Rev. Craig Schwalenberg, assistant minister at First Unitarian Society of Milwaukee, which recognizes civil unions by same-sex partners.
“Attaching a stigma to those who choose not to marry or to divorce for good reason is not something I’d be interested in promoting,” he said.
Share:
Uncategorized, marriage promotion
Comments 1
Jun 22nd, 2009 by Nicky
