The Foreign Service Journal, March 2008

M A R C H 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 L ast November I left the Foreign Service, frustrated by the State Department’s con- tinued failure to revise Member of Household policy to reflect the needs of today’s diplomacy and to support the families who accompany us in our duties abroad. Certainly I never felt ostracism from any of my colleagues, Foreign or Civil Service, over the fact that I am gay. I very much miss being part of the State Department team, and I miss serving my country in mean- ingful and tangible ways. My partner felt the same sense of mission that I did, even moving to a more portable career — in no small part to support me in my chosen profession. But let’s be clear. MOH policy is strikingly out of date with today’s workplace dangers, realities and needs. And by not taking action, Sec- retary of State Condoleezza Rice and her senior management team are putting lives at risk. They’re im- pairing the effectiveness of our diplomatic platforms. They sanction workplace inequalities, in spite of the equal service requirements we all share. And they stand against the principles of equality, fairness and respect for diversity on which Ameri- ca was founded — principles Ameri- ca’s diplomats are charged with pro- moting abroad. A Catch-22 The creation of “Members of Household” as an official category was announced in a Dec. 26, 2000, cable from Secretary of State Made- leine Albright in one of her final acts. The designation embraces a wide range of individuals: aging parents, adult children and unmarried part- ners, both straight and gay. All MOHs are allowed to accompany their loved ones to any overseas posting where spouses and children are able to reside with Foreign Service employees. Current policy essentially gives ambassadors leeway, within heavily drawn limitations, to make modest accommodations for Members of Household in our overseas diploma- tic communities. Variations abound from post to post; in all cases, though, MOH treatment is vastly inferior to that accorded “Eligible Family Mem- bers.” If this administration took its management duties seriously, it would have instituted a thorough re- view of MOH policy at some point within its seven years in office. Some long-overdue revisions should be ap- plied to all MOH categories. For instance, common sense would surely dictate that all Foreign Service community members be required to take the Security Overseas Seminar, so they can learn how to avoid ter- rorist threats and intelligence traps. Yet incredibly, Members of House- hold are not even allowed to enroll for that training, no matter how many spaces are open in the classroom. While all MOHs deserve greater consideration, my particular focus has been on the unequal treatment accorded gay and lesbian employees and their partners. After all, parents who are more than 50-percent financially dependent on a Foreign Service employee can be added to travel orders. Adult, non-dependent children might be expected to carry their own weight in a grown-up’s world. And while some (including me) believe it unwise for personnel policies to force marriage on a young, untempered relationship, straight couples at least have the option of marriage, by which they can obtain the spousal benefits that MOHs are barred from receiving. In contrast, gay and lesbian em- ployees are caught in an impossibly unfair Catch-22. Though they can- not marry, their partners are, like spouses, core family members. The Member of Household Policy: Failing Our Families B Y M ICHAEL G UEST S PEAKING O UT If this administration took its management duties seriously, it would have instituted a thorough review of MOH policy at some point within its seven years in office.