Defining Domestic Partners
I've received a lot of questions in comments about how the State Department and other agencies are going to define "domestic partners" for the purposes of extending benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees. Here's the language from the revisions to the State Department's manual:
A. Definition of a Domestic PartnerA domestic partner for purposes of this section is an individual who meets all of the criteria listed in and who has been declared to be a domestic partner of an employee in accordance with subpart (B) below.
B. Declaration of a Domestic Partner
To obtain benefits and assume obligations of a "domestic partner" under the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR), an employee must file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations (3 FAM 1610 Appx.) with
• the Bureau of Human Resources, Executive Office, Assignment Support Unit (HR/EX/ASU) (for Department of State employees),
• Office of Human Resources/Foreign Service Personnel Division (for Agency for International Development employees)
• Office of Human Resources/Operations and Benefits (OHR/O) (for the Broadcasting Board of Governors employees)
• Office of Foreign Service Human Resources (OFSHR) (for Foreign Commercial Service employees)
• Office of Foreign Service Operations (DAFAS) (for Foreign Agricultural Service employees)
identifying the domestic partner of the employee and certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee -(1) are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain committed to one another indefinitely;
(2) have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;
(3) are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
(4) share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations;
(5) are not married to, joined in civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else;
(6) are same-sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside;
(7) agree to inform the Department of State of any dissolution of the partnership in accordance with subpart C below;
(8) understand that the domestic partner will be held to standards of conduct in the FAM that apply to family members; and
(9) understand that falsification of information within the affidavit may constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and may lead to disciplinary action.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
This policy discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. But for my status as a heterosexual man, I would/should be entitled to register my longtime, live-in girlfriend (AKA domestic partner) and receive benefits for her.
The only discriminator in my case is the requirement that we "(6) are same-sex domestic partners."
Critics might argue that same-sex couples are deprived of the right to marry in many states, but I am perplexed that this new policy will, by way of a declaration/certification, accord the relationship the same standing as one in a legally binding marriage. Please.....
If the Federal government is going to extend benefits to domestic partners, then do so for all.......or none. Period. Again, the inequalities continue.....
Curious Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:07 PMIt's a start, at least.
And it's funny, Curious, that you can get the benefits you want without going through the hoops, simply by going before a judge and getting married to your girlfriend. In most states, gays still can't do that.
But it seems that you're complaining that you don't want to get married, but you want the benefits anyway.
*Shrugs*
Rachel Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00 AMThis is clearly discrimination as it is solely focused on homosexuals and their immoral behavior, and unfortunately creates yet another entitlement program. So now the government is going to provide funding to support and incentivize same-sex immoral behavior. What’s next on the liberal’s destructive agenda? The government has NO business recognizing the homosexual agenda, except for offering treatment to afford homosexuals the opportunity to treat their sickness and begin functioning as human beings are intended to.
American Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:17 AMI know I am late to the table on this.
Curious and Rachel raise an interesting point, one that can (and I believe should) be fixed by a slight tweak to the policy. The benefits should be extended only in those states which do not permit homosexual marriages or civil unions. In states where the relationship between two people of the same sex can be formalized, they should be.
wallyp Posted Monday, July 6, 2009 7:28 AM