You want proof of this accusation? Check out how the Family Research Council is complaining about a recent decision of the Obama Administration:
Homosexuals may not want the government to interfere with their sex lives, but they have no problem asking taxpayers to subsidize them. Under this administration, the President's plan for getting the economy back on track is spending millions on benefits that violate federal marriage law. According to John Berry, the first openly gay director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), his office is close to finalizing a long list of perks for the same-sex partners of federal workers. Under the regulations, significant others would qualify for child care subsidies, insurance and retirement benefits, evacuation pay for overseas work, survivor annuities, eligibility for non-competitive federal jobs, and the employee assistance program. Although couples don't have to be in a legal union to qualify, OPM refuses to give straight workers the same benefits. Only gays and lesbians are eligible for these incentives, making it one of the more discriminatory policies in the federal workforce.
The following is just a few of these so-called "perks:"
Allowing an employee to obtain child-care subsidies for the children of a same-sex domestic partner.
Providing evacuation pay to cover an employee’s same-sex partner from an overseas location in the event of an emergency.
Treating domestic partners like spouses for purposes of choosing an insurable interest option at retirement. This could provide a survivor annuity for a same-sex partner.
Making same-sex domestic partners of federal employees eligible for noncompetitive federal jobs when a staffer returns from an overseas assignment.
Clarifying that the domestic partner of an employee may take advantage of an agency’s employee assistance program. The basic program services, according to OPM, include free, short-term counseling and referral for various issues affecting employees, such as substance abuse, stress, grief, family problems and psychological disorders.
So to the Family Research Council, providing these things, which are important to same-sex couples and our children, is somehow "subsidizing gay sex."
The implication of that is astounding as well as insulting. But FRC's complaint does reveal the organization's duplicity, particularly this part:
OPM refuses to give straight workers the same benefits. Only gays and lesbians are eligible for these incentives . . .
Well if that's a problem, then I have an idea. Allow same-sex couples to get legally married like straight couples can.
But of course FRC wouldn't want to advise that.
1 comment:
I recently retired from the federal government after 39 years. As a gay man with a "partner," and since I worked in human relations, I have followed the dialogue about extending benefits for years (this is not a new concept, bills to extend benefits to same sex couples have come up in every Congressional session for years).
You have no idea how it feels to see your co-workers, who happen to be hetero and thus legally able to be married, getting benefits at a level that put my (single) benefits to shame. Did they work harder than me? No. Did their contributions to our government outshine mine? Not even close. But their benefits package was WAY better than mine. This is unfair and discriminatory on the face of it.
The federal government wants to hire the best and brightest. However, I could never recommend it as an employer to a young person entering the labor market, primarily because of the discriminatory way they provide benefits. Not only did I not receive the same level of benefits as my married co-workers, but I also paid taxes at a much higher rate since I have never been able to file a joint return (in my case it would have reduced my taxes by about $5000 a year). Double whammy. Fewer benefits, higher taxes. Don't talk to me about being "subsidized."
Post a Comment