Will Marriage Matter in Federal Employment Benefits?

Recent moves by the Obama administration to treat federal employees' same-sex partners, at least in some respects, like married spouses is – surprise, surprise – encouraging both-sexes couples who are unmarried to ask for the same treatment. Paul Richter had a recent story in the Los Angeles Times.

They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

We were treating people equally when marriage was the requirement, as every individual has the same freedom to marry, even if not all have the same desire to marry. Once you start moving beyond marriage, where is the line drawn and why? What is your objective criteria for extending benefits? If we are going to operate on the premise that all couples should be treated equally, then how can unmarried both-sexes pairings be excluded? But why is the premise based on couples anyway?

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives.

Taxpayers should get ready to pay more. Marriage (bride+groom) brings benefits to society and so a legitimate argument can be made for extending benefits to spouses. The same can't be said, at least not to the same extent, when it comes to other kinds of voluntary relationships.

Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for [same-sex] partners, although spouses are covered.

That will change.

Nationally, most employers -- including almost all public employers -- that extend benefits to same-sex partners also offer them to unmarried, opposite-sex partners, said Ilse de Veer, a principal in the international consulting group Mercer.

I do believe it should be a private employer's choice whether or not to extend benefits and how. That is different from a federal government workplace.

Those that offer benefits to same-sex partners but not to opposite-sex mates typically cite heterosexual couples' option of marriage, de Veer said.

Interesting – shouldn't the "freedom to marry" also honor and support the freedom not to marry?

[Continued after the jump.]

Unwed heterosexual couples in the United States comprise about 10% of opposite-sex couples living together, census data show.

And most individuals in that situation have been, plan to, or will be married at some point if not with the person they are paired with now.

Schohn said her group supported extending benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. "They're our natural allies," she said.

Why not trios, quartets, and so forth?

A senior State Department official said any benefit extension was up to the White House.

"We're prepared to take that step if that's what the White House wants to do," the official said.

In June, Obama signed a presidential memorandum extending family benefits to same-sex partners -- a concept opposed by Bush's administration.

I remember. As the article points out, DOMA may be used to prevent further moves, but Obama has stated his desire to be rid of DOMA, and it has been challenged in court.

Obama's June memorandum omitted health insurance and pension benefits for same-sex partners.

What? How could that be? You mean – he discriminated against them? How is this not hatred and bigotry, according the definition of many who support marriage neutering on the grounds of "equality"?