Today, the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service & District of Columbia approved the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, a bill being shepherded through the House by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, on a 5-3 vote. The bill would provide for health care, family and medical leave and other benefits to federal employees with same-sex domestic partners. (The logo to the right is for Federal GLOBE, the organization for LGBT federal employees.) Baldwin said in a news release that she was “delighted” with the subcommittee’s action.
From the Washington Blade:
[Spokesman] Fernandez said House members who voted in favor of the bill were [committee chairman Rep. Stephen] Lynch [(D-Mass.)], Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Rep. William Macy Clay (D-Mo.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Those voting against the bill were Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.).
The subcommittee reported out the legislation after adopting an amendment to address technical issues. The roll-call vote for adopting the amendment was the same as the vote for reporting out the bill, Fernandez said.
I’m still looking for information on what those “technical issues” were and whether they addressed the concerns I’ve raised about equity in the bill for federal employees who live in states where marriage is legal between same-sex couples. As I wrote:
In order to keep this bill centered on equal rights and not “special” rights — clearly the angle sought out by Rep. Chaffetz — and in order to simplify the statutory language over time as changes in marriage laws continue, it seems to me that this legislation needs to be amended, hopefully in committee, in such a way that a state’s recognition of same-sex relationships supersedes and substitutes for the affidavit requirement.
In my interview with Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), he agreed with the need for such an amendment. He said:
Yeah, I think it’s reasonable to say that gays and lesbians would have to be married in those states to benefit from that if it’s available to them and if it’s denied to opposite-sex partners who aren’t married, I think it would be reasonable to say that if you are allowed to get married in a state that has it, then you have to be married to get that particular set of benefits.
The Blade’s use of the term “technical” to describe the amendment makes me think that’s unlikely, but I’m checking it out.
As to another amendment offered, a staffer from Rep. Brian Bilbray’s office said that the California Republican introduced an amendment to extend the domestic partner benefits to opposite-sex couples as well. The amendment was defeated.
The bill now goes to the full committee, which is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York. The bill also has been referred to the House committees on House Administration and the Judiciary.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found