A friend who works for the federal government alerted me to a memo she received from the Office of Personnel Management informing federal employees about “the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to apply for coverage under the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)”:
OPM issued a proposed regulation on September 14, 2009 to allow same-sex domestic partners to apply for coverage under the FLTCIP. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register today (June 1, 2010). The final regulation is unchanged from the proposed regulation. It adds a new section (5 CFR 875.213) expanding the definition of “qualified relative” to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees and annuitants. Like all “qualified relatives,” same-sex domestic partners will be subject to full underwriting.
We believe allowing same-sex domestic partners to apply for FLTCIP coverage will help agencies address the family needs of a diverse workforce and enhance the Federal Government’s ability to compete with the private sector for talent.
Emphasis added. Seems the government is following the lead of the private sector. As we have often reported here, an increasing number of private corporations offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees.
The documentation requirements are pretty lax: “Eligible individuals will need to provide documentation (a ‘declaration’) that they meet the definition of ‘domestic partnership.'” This declaration is the only required documentation. Now, to be sure, I think this is a pretty lax requirement, I understand that many states still do not recognize domestic partnerships (or civil unions) as I believe they should. Perhaps, they should require proof of such registry for states which allow such registration.
That said, this is definitely a step in the right direction and commend the Administration for moving forward on this.
And this isn’t the only action the federal government is taking on behalf of same-sex couples. Glenn Reynolds alerts us to this report, WSJ: IRS Grants Gay Couples Equal Tax Treatment Despite DOMA.
Speaking from the private sector, all I had to do was sign an affidavit that Donna was my DP, and that she relied on me for support (both of which were true).
We made a choice to cover her under my insurance between jobs, even though the employer portion of her premium was considered income. Just wanted to point that out for all the fairness whiners, it was a choice we knew the consequences of.
My sister works for a private company that provides DP benefits, except she told them that her friend (who had quit her job and didn’t want to pay for COBRA or an individual plan) was really her DP so that she could get on my sisters insurance. The irony is that bot these women think gay marriage is THE civil rights cause of our generation, but in a practical way they use it just to get cheap insurance.
Of course…gay-married for the insurance! {see an episode of ‘Drawn Together’ that addressed the same topic}..LOL
I support gay marriage and I think DOMA needs to be overturned pronto, but until it is, it doesn’t seem as if the IRS has the legal authority to just decide that they are going to recognize same-sex couples when federal law states (unfortunately) that federal agencies (such as the IRS) are legally restrained from doing such. And while this is great for same-sex couples in California ( at least until someone challenges it in court) it still sucks for those living in other states that will not be treated equally.
DOMA is still on the books and that needs to change before anything else can. There is a process that needs to be followed so that you don’t end up with the back and forth crap like happened with the gay marriage issue in Cali. But, I guess this way, the adminstration looks like it’s actually doing something for LBGT couples without actually having to committ to working to overturn DOMA.
I actually think that, in a perverse way, this ruling is correct and sustainable under Federal law.
The reason is that California’s community-property requirement literally splits ownership and responsibility in two for any situation covered by it. Marriage is one of the things that puts you into the community-property boat; domestic partnership is now the other.
So in a sense you can argue that the Federal government is not recognizing same-sex relationships as marriage; it is simply recognizing a community property arrangement as created under state law. In theory, California could create other legal arrangements with the community property requirement that would also qualify for this tax treatment.
The interesting thing on this would be if this is superseded or otherwise altered by a pre-partnership agreement. The hilarious and amusing thing among the gay-sex liberal community in CA that’s been happening of late is watching all the gay-sex liberals who got married try to get easy-peasy divorces — and realizing to their horror that their louse ex owns half of everything, including their house, AND has the right to alimony.
The hilarious and amusing thing among the gay-sex liberal community in CA that’s been happening of late is watching all the gay-sex liberals who got married try to get easy-peasy divorces — and realizing to their horror that their louse ex owns half of everything, including their house, AND has the right to alimony.
So much for the notion that they’re all models of monogamy.
I wonder how many of them got married just as an “in your face, religion!” gesture vs. how many were truly committed.