The Foreign Service Journal, May 2009

12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 9 M ost readers are well aware of the glaring inequities that Foreign Service employees with same-sex partners face through- out their careers. Several AFSAmem- bers have written eloquent Speaking Out columns in recent years highlight- ing the many privileges and benefits currently denied them. I am thinking particularly of USAID FSO Ajit Joshi (November 2004) and Ambassador Michael Guest (March 2008), who re- signed from the Foreign Service in protest of the State Department’s re- fusal to address such concerns. State did take a few baby steps to- ward improving conditions under the previous administration, granting the same-sex partners of FS personnel ac- cess to the Security Overseas Seminar and the Rosetta Stone online language library, as well as (on a space-available basis) the Foreign Service Institute’s distance-learning language courses, FAST language instruction and secu- rity-related workshops. But even those paltry achievements came about largely due to a February 2008 letter from four members of Congress —Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D- Wis., Howard Berman, D-Calif., Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. and Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, R-Fla. — urging those and other “common-sense policy changes,” such as inclusion in travel orders; broader access to training; emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary; access to post health units; and visa support, both for part- ners joining Foreign Service personnel overseas and for non-U.S. citizen part- ners accompanying them on domestic assignments. The representatives specifically mentioned that they believed that none of those proposals were contrary to the letter or spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation passed during the 1990s to prevent the federal gov- ernment from conferring any recogni- tion on same-sex marriages. The April 2008 response from As- sistant Secretary of State for Legisla- tive Affairs Jeffrey Bergner asserted that the State Department treats “same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried partners of U.S. government employ- ees stationed abroad in an equivalent manner.” Um, we knew that, and that wasn’t the point. The representatives’ follow-up letter called this an “unsatis- factory response” and asked once again for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s leadership on this issue, but never got a meaningful reply. All these issues have important eco- nomic, quality-of-life and career impli- cations for a significant segment of the Foreign Service corps — and should concern everyone. Inaction is not only unfair, but foolish, leaving the federal government more and more out of tune with private-sector practices. Fifty-six percent of Fortune 500 com- panies already provide domestic part- ner benefits to their employees, according to data the Human Rights Campaign has compiled. The Practical Impact of Inequality Consider my own experience. Daniel, my foreign partner of six years, has stayed with me through an unac- companied tour followed by three overseas transfers. We’ve had to pay his way to each post ourselves, and he was almost denied boarding on one oc- casion for not possessing a round-trip ticket. He is ineligible for home leave, R&R, elder care, emergency visitation, evacuation, etc. Each time we move, Daniel has to cancel his local health insurance cov- erage, then find an appropriate local provider at our next posting (fully self- funded, of course). This arrangement is extremely expensive, often provides Hope for Gay and Lesbian Foreign Service Employees B Y S TEVEN G IEGERICH S PEAKING O UT These issues have important implications for the entire Foreign Service — not just those directly affected by discrimination.