El Paso has inclusive definition of domestic partners; Mayor and council members face recall

I've got a special connection to El Paso, given that my partner and I have a residence across the New Mexico border in Las Cruces. El Paso is our local airport. It's also a city hard hit by the Mexican drug wars across the border in Juarez, something we were following as a local story for years before the national press picked up on it.Well El Paso has been in the news for another reason. The

New government report tells us how many employees can include same AND different-sex domestic partners on their health benefits

This week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report on benefits offered employees in the public and private sphere in March 2011. For the first time, the data include the percentage of employees eligible for health benefits that cover domestic partners. The report includes separate statistics for how many employees can cover same-sex partners and and how many can cover different-sex

NY Times op-ed weighs in for a "beyond marriage" approach

Columbia Law prof Katherine Franke got a prime placement today in the New York Times for a tempered view of what comes with marriage equality for same-sex couples. The piece is well-timed as everyone watches the cliffhanger in the New York Senate. Among Katherine's excellent points -- that the availability of marriage has made domestic partner benefits disappear and that neither same-sex nor

Marquette University to offer domestic partner benefits...to those who register with the state in a registry that is the subject of court challenge.

Going on two years ago, Wisconsin adopted a domestic partner registry in spite of the fact that it has a "super-DOMA" constitutional amendment. Almost immediately, the registry was challenged as unconstitutional, as I wrote about here. Well, the past week has seen two items of related news. The same Wisconsin governor who has been forcefully criticized for his union-busting efforts recently fired

Health benefits for family of Michigan state workers in doubt

Last month I lauded the recently granted "plus one" benefit scheme implemented for 35,000 Michigan state employees. Well, those benefits are in grave danger. The state senate has already overturned the decision to award these benefits. My thanks to the Alternatives to Marriage Project for alerting me to this grave situation. ATMP is urging everyone to contact the Michigan House before it's too

Ninth Circuit hears case on Arizona domestic partner benefits...but only for same-sex couples who say they would marry

In 2008, by administrative regulation, Arizona made available to state employees health benefits for their domestic partners, defined by at least a year of living together and a set of criteria demonstrating financial interdependence. Same-sex and different-sex partners were eligible. In August 2009, the Arizona legislature rescinded these benefits through a statute limiting state employee

35,000 Michigan state employees to gain "plus one" health benefits

Almost three years ago, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that granting health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of government employees was a violation of the state's "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 2004.Well the Michigan Civil Service Commission voted last week for a "work around" that will actually expand eligibility for benefits. What's

"Member-designated" benefits may expand to meet the needs of openly gay servicemembers (and others!)

The long-awaited Defense Department report on issues associated with repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is now out. One of its tasks was to address the impact of repeal on various benefits available to servicemembers.The report takes great pains to explain the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which requires federal law to recognize as married only different-sex couples. (A footnote in the

Kudos to American University for expanding domestic partnership benefits to include different-sex couples

It's no surprise to readers of this blog (or my book) that I dislike domestic partner benefits extended only to same-sex couples. The first employer-provided DP benefits were for same- and different-sex partners, and the theory behind them was that "marriage" was too narrow a category for what counted as family and that a couple should not have to marry for one to be able to protect the economic

New FMLA regs clarify what was already the law so let's not claim this is a dramatic shift

When the Obama administration issues its regulations on taking leave to care for a partner's child under the Family and Medical Leave Act, it will simply be reiterating what is already the law. It makes me a tad crazy that the new regulations suggest they are a change. While I believe that employers might have acted in violation of the law in the past (as the story of one couple in this New

Final OPM regs value broad range of relationships and should be model for other reforms

I posted last fall about proposed regulations from the Office of Personnel Management concerning for whom a federal employee may use sick or bereavement leave. Yesterday, OPM issued the finals regs, in the process responding to comments received on the proposed regs.The lesson from the definition of family in these regs is not just how family is defined, but the chronological process getting us

Excluding different sex domestic partners bodes ill for federal law reform

Domestic partners of federal employees are now eligible for long term care insurance. The Obama administration determined that it could make this change, without going to Congress, as part of the review of federal employee benefits the President announced last June. The program will be limited, however, to same-sex partners. The final regulations state that "opposite-sex domestic partners were

Federal government employees can ALREADY use their sick leave to care for partners -- did no one tell Obama that?

Early news says that one of the benefits Obama is extending to gay federal employees is the ability to use their sick leave to care for partners and their children. Well -- news flash! They already have this right.Federal government employees can use their own sick leave to care for "any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a

SEIU resolution values all families

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has been reading my book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the LawHere is the full text of Resolution # 109 Adopted at the 2008 SEIU ConventionValuing All FamiliesMembers of SEIU work hard every day to provide for their families and build for them a better future. Our members’ love of and commitment to their families

Same-sex and different-sex domestic partners of foreign service personnel to receive benefits

The Advocate has printed the draft of a letter by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of foreign service personnel assigned abroad. In describing the letter, the Advocate article begins by saying it "details her intentions to extend certain benefits to same-sex partners of foreign service officers posted abroad."This characterization of

How about the freedom NOT to marry?

Freedom to Marry week garnered more attention than usual this year, no doubt a result of all the attention to California's Prop 8 and the litigation challenging it.Most Freedom to Marry activists say they want same-sex couples to have the choice to marry. When questioned by marriage skeptics, they assure that they don't believe everyone needs to marry; they just want gay people to have the

HEARING TODAY ON DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, presided over hearings today on S. 2521, the bill that would provide domestic partners -- same-sex only -- with the benefits now extended to spouses of government employees. You can watch the hearings here. Kudos to Maine Senator Susan Collins, the Committee's ranking Republican, whose opening

MARRYING FOR HEALTH CARE

Thanks to Nicky Grist at Alternatives to Marriage Project for bringing to my attention a bit of news I had overlooked: A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 7% of those surveyed said that, in the past year, they or someone in their household married to get access to spousal health care benefits. This number is so unlikely that Kaiser felt a need to explain it. Universal health care is

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT NIXES DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

The Michigan Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling that cities, counties, state universities, and other public employers cannot offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. The Court ruled that such benefits violate the state's constitutional amendment that reads: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of