Search

The article analyzes the legislative changes to the U.S. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) proposed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for 2014. According to the author, the plan to add a self-plus-one category to premiums that will cover couples or single parents with one child will likely result in these employees joining the same premium pool as older couples. He claims that expanding coverage to include domestic partners makes the benefits more competitive.

Focuses on the passage of a gay-inclusive domestic-partnership law in France. Utilization of imagination to deal with the marriage question; Creation of a new status under the law; Possible acceptance of gay marriage in the future.

The article reports on the extension of benefits to unmarried domestic partners of heterosexual and gay U.S. federal employees by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as part of the rule changes by President Barack Obama. On July 14, 2010, unmarried employees are eligible to up to 13 days of paid sick leave to care for their partners or their partners' relatives or make funeral arrangements, which can be extended to 30 days for those with chronic diseases. Obama included domestic partners and their relatives to the definition of family member.

This section offers news briefs of interest to gays. The California Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from county assessors, which challenge the state's domestic partnership law regarding property tax breaks among spouses. Pope Benedict XVI reiterated his opposition against same-sex marriage and civil unions. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's proposal to grant domestic partner benefits to state government employees and retirees drew a large public support.

Advises employers to extend health insurance benefits to domestic partners of employees, in response to a legislation granting legal status to same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples in New Jersey which takes effect on July 11, 2004. Provisions of the legislation; Reasons behind the compliance and non-compliance of companies; Other benefits offered by companies, according to a survey conducted by the Employers Association of New Jersey. INSET: MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.

Discusses why newly married gay couples will receive less benefits than heterosexual couples. Reasons, including a U.S. federal law defining a spouse as a person of the opposite sex; Ineligibility of married gays for Social Security survival benefits and family medical-leave benefits; Why health insurance will be more costly for gays; Decision of some Massachusetts employers, in light of same-sex marriage becoming legal in the state, to no longer offer domestic-partner plans that extend benefits to unmarried same-sex couples; Outlook for the battle for equality.

Addresses the issues concerning a city ordinance in San Francisco, California that requires any business or agency doing business with the city to domestic partners the same benefits it offers to spouses. Provisions of the city ordinance; Requirement that amounted to government coercion of a church to compromise its own beliefs about the sacredness of marriage; Views of Archbishop John Quinn regarding the ordinance.

The article discusses auto mechanic Stacie Andree and New Jersey police veteran Laurel Hester, whose love story inspired the motion picture "Freeheld," starring Julianne Moore and Ellen Page. Topics include Hester's death from lung cancer, the extension of pension benefits to domestic partners resulting from Hester's appeal to county authorities in New Jersey, and Page's decision to come out as a lesbian after filming the movie.

The article reports that human resources departments in the U.S. are reviewing company policies concerning employees' spouses following the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

The article focuses on a statement issued on June 2, 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama requesting Congress to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which would make same-sex domestic partners of gay and lesbian federal employees and their children eligible for the same benefits that married heterosexual employees' families are receiving. It notes the exclusion of health insurance and survivor annuities from the act. It also mentions that about 34,000 gay and lesbian employees in domestic partnerships are working for the government.

The article discusses a court case where public employers in Michigan, including colleges and universities, are prohibited from providing domestic-partner health-insurance benefits. The court was asked to interpret an amendment to the state constitution that says that one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. An amicus brief argues that the amendment did not prohibit state universities from providing benefits to the children and domestic partners of gay faculty and staff.

The article features the Stand on the Side of Love ceremony held in New Hampshire on January 1, 2008 where 11 couples celebrated the sanctimony of civil unions which took effect just 12 hours before the ceremony. New Hampshire is only the fourth state to pass the law and the first to do so without a court-ordered mandate. The law affords the same rights, obligations and responsibilities as marriage within the state but cannot provide full federal protection.

The article focuses on identifying state rights before entering a same-sex marriage in the U.S. There are states that grant civil unions or domestic partnerships. A civil union differs from domestic partnership for it requires a ceremony to be valid. Domestic partnership is offered in Maine, California and Oregon. Civil unions are granted in New Jersey, Vermont and Connecticut. It notes that same-sex couples remain excluded from federal protections like collecting on a deceased partner's Social Security.

Looks at a series of victories and setbacks for domestic partner benefits and same-sex marriage in the U.S. in 2005. Approval of civil anions for same-sex couples in Connecticut; Number of states which started interpreting their passed prohibitions against same-sex marriage; Increase in the number of companies adopting domestic partner benefits.

Reports on the possibility that the religious group Salvation Army will withdraw its social services from New York City following the passage of a legislation in May 2004 that would require all business and non-profit organizations that have contract with the city to provide health insurance benefits to domestic partners of gay employees. Opposition of city Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the enforcement of the legislation; Information on a similar conflict around the issue of insurance coverage for contraception.

The article looks at the implications of the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 for the gay community. So far more than 300 of the 28,000-plus same-sex couples already registered as domestic partners have dissolved their partnerships because of the new law. San Francisco residents Randy Cupp and Jeff Tarvin, together four years, are passing on the opportunity. The couple, who are both HIV-positive, are worried they could lose state benefits such as Medi-Cal, a health care program, because of their combined income and assets, even though both are on disability. Julia Weiner, a Chino resident who has been with her partner, Germaine Leger, for nearly three years, wonders whether the new law will have sufficient teeth in the courts, especially in regard to what the federal government will recognize. For couples who are currently registered as domestic partners in the state, the approximately 20 legal rights and responsibilities they have under state law will be automatically expanded when the new law takes effect. Under the existing law, people who chose to no longer be together would simply send notification to the secretary of state, and that was the end of it. The new law is also expected to make things like prenuptial agreements more common.

Discusses several issues about domestic partner benefits in the U.S. Report on the number of employers who offer domestic partner benefits; Rules in civil union rights in different states; List of states that extend benefits to same-sex partners; Effects of giving out same-sex partner benefits to employers and single employees; Absence of a national law regarding domestic partners.

The article compares the employee benefits received by domestic and married partners in the United States, in reference to the employees of Ezzon Corp. Ezzon Corp. employs Jay and Pat. Jay has been married to Lisa for two years; Pat has lived with Chris for six years. When Jay first joined Ezzon, he became eligible to elect family health care coverage for himself and Lisa. Although Ezzon offers domestic partner health care benefits. Pat must pay the insurance premiums on an after-tax basis. At Ezzon, family health care coverage IS worth $5,000 per year for 2001; a married employee pays $2,000 in premiums. Thus, $2,000 is deducted from Jay's salary on a pretax basis over the course of 2001, saving him taxes on that income. However, Pat must pay the $2,000 on an after-tax basis. The only way for Pat to avoid the income inclusions is if Chris can qualify as Pat's dependent, which is very difficult.

Presents a sermon by W. Mark Koenig on the inclusive and unfailing love of God. Association of the sermon to a domestic partner benefits legislative effort in Lakewood City, Cleveland; Bible references; Description of how God called Jonah and how Jonah responded to God's call; Association of Jonah's case to the benefits legislation; Claim that God created a world of freedom.

Reports on news developments relating to gay rights issues in the United States for the week ending October 26, 1999. Includes stand taken by Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush on gay rights; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's domestic-partnership legislation as a focal point in the 1999 mayoral elections; White House gay and lesbian liaison Richard Socarides' departure from his post.

Presents information on the passage of the bill by the California Senate on August 28th, 1997, on spousal benefits to unmarried domestic partners, both heterosexual and same-gender by health insurance providers. Details on the bill; Proposer of the bill; Requirements for the bill before it goes back to the Assembly.

Reports on the status of the proposed bill which aims to provide public gay employees with the same spousal benefits received by heterosexual couples in Wisconsin. Lack of support for the bill from state governmental officials; Provisions of the bill.

Reports that the domestic partner benefits in California vetoed by mayor Dianne Feinstein is still not dead. Redrafting of the legislation; Possibility for gay and unmarried non-gay city employees and their partners to be granted benefits.

Looks at the debate on domestic partnership legislation in the U.S. Congress in 1992. Signing of a domestic partnership law by the District of Columbia; Sending of the measure to Congress; Debates between conservative and liberal legislators; President George Bush's opposition to gay marriages; Lobbying efforts by gay Republicans.

Reports on the election triumphs of three gay and lesbian politicians and the approval of a gay-oriented proposition in San Francisco, California in November 1990. Election victories by county supervisor Roberta Achtenberg, county board member Carole Migden and education board member Tom Ammiano; Approval of Proposition K, the domestic partnership ordinance.

The article reports on the opposition of the governors of Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi to the directive of the U.S. Department of Defense regarding same-sex couples having the same benefits as straight military spouses.

The article reports on the opposition of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) against marriage equality, particularly on Proposition 8 in California and Maine's Question 1. It notes that NOM had disagreed over the legalization of gay marriage in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, of which NOM president Brian Brown was worried over the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court had challenged the Defense of Marriage Act concerning domestic partner benefits.

The article reports on the legislation sponsored by Representative Mark Pafford and Senator Eleanor Sobel which grants domestic partnership rights in Florida.

The article reports that Wisconsin Representative Tammy Baldwin is seeking her proposed Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act to be passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The article focuses on the decision of Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California (EQCA), to leave the organization, effective March 31, 2011. His contributions to the state of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) politics in California include conceiving the Equal Benefits Law, passage of the domestic partner registration bill and passage of two marriage equality bills in 2005 and 2007. Statements from Governor-elect Jerry Brown and Attorney General-elect Kamala Harris on Kors' resignation are provided.

The article reports on a cost estimate from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on May 11, 2010, stating that the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman will raise mandatory spending by 310 million dollars and discretionary spending by 394 million by 2020.

The article reports on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 that would extend to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees similar benefits presently given to spouses of workers in the U.S. The author says that the Senate bill would allow current employees who enroll their partners in benefits to receive benefits once they retire but, does not extend benefits to current annuitants. She adds that the House bill version debated on the efficacy of the new bill and suggested a complete review of the program's cost and impact.

The article reports that the Senate Bill 1102 was approved by the Senate on December 16, 2009. It notes that the bill aims to extend benefits to domestic partners of gay and lesbian federal employees, including health care, visions and dental coverage, and payment for work injuries. It states that the bill was passed into legislation with 8-1 votes, in which the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee supported the bill while Republican Robert F. Bennett is the sole dissenter.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to approve a legislation that would give federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees. Under the measure, same-sex domestic partners of federal employees will be given access to health-insurance, long-term care insurance and retirement benefits, similar to what spouses of married employees receive. An affidavit affirming that the employee and partner are in a committed, long-term relationship is required to qualify for the benefits.

The article reports on the changes to the overseas comparability pay and the domestic partner benefits regulations in the U.S. It is stated that the overseas comparability pay implemented by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a 7.7-percent increase in basic pay. It notes that the term domestic partners was added to the "Foreign Affairs Manual" entry on domestic partners. It also provides the web site link for more information on the changes.