The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

the embassy refused to help the partner obtain a visa. “In spite of the fact that my partner had been fully vetted by DS (just like a spouse), he was treated like a stranger off the street when he wanted to visit me at the embassy,” the FSO wrote. “He eventually stopped coming to the embassy altogether because he felt so unwelcome.” It’s not just gay couples that have problems, either. One FSO who had his elderly mother accompany him ran into multiple obstacles (and large expenditures) involving her visa, a passport that went missing for months and health insurance requirements of the host govern- ment. The FSO attributes most of the problems to confusion and strict E.U. requirements, rather than ill will. “HR has been very helpful throughout the ordeal,” he writes, “but they are as confused as we about policy interpretation.” Another FSO, posted in Europe, reports that he has encountered discouraging bureaucratic non-coop- eration in trying to create a life for his female partner. “In every instance, from bringing my fiancee here, to obtaining an ID for her and even receiving official invitations marked ‘John Doe and guest,’ it has been a humiliating experience in most every way.” He says that six months after arriving at post “we still have no ID for my fiancee.” He adds that “the RSO is now giving me various long, tedious, prodding forms to com- plete that, if one follows the FAM, are solely for certain sensi- tive positions.” Then there are the bigger issues that current MOH guidance touches on but does not resolve, such as employment within the mission and access to medical care facilities. One major area of concern, given the increasingly parlous security situation in many parts of the world, is the fact that posts are currently forbid- den to include Members of Household in their emer- gency evacuation plans — or to assist MOHs in leav- ing the country in case of crisis. Effects on the Foreign Service The gaps between MOH policy and practice affect more than the employees and MOHs — they also undermine the functioning of the Foreign Service itself. Various FS employees describe a range of impacts. Most often, employee morale suffers. A male FSO writes, “I have developed a negative opinion of this post management and of this place solely for their indifference to the fact that my fiancee is here and that our relationship is in jeopardy because of there being no mission effort to employ her.” One FSO says that he curtailed his post because his partner “was tired of being treated like he did not exist.” Another will not bid on certain posts because his partner could not get decent health care there. Those who want to get a sense of the social discon- nection experienced by the gay partner overseas might check out the chapter “Just a Gay Spouse (JAGS)!” in the book Realities of Foreign Service Life (published by AAFSW in 2002). In a brief narrative, Nam Nguyen points out how marginal one can feel when one is a) “just a spouse,” b) not even an EFM and c) gay. Remarkably, Nguyen tells the tale with humor and panache. M E M B E R S O F H O U S E H O L D 24 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 4 In practice, the extent to which domestic partners are recognized and accommodated is left mostly to the discretion of post management. Ah, the life of the alphabet in the Foreign Service. Long ago my wife was a DS (dependent spouse). Later, I became an EFM (eligible family member). Now I find that I am a MOH (member of household). I rather prefer being a STUD (spouse trailing under duress). Introducing yourself that way at embassy cock- tail parties can elicit hilarious responses. But then some might prefer the title AD (accidental diplomat). That at least would move us up in the alpha- bet. (And it certainly applies to many of those who trail.) Dan Gamber Former member of STUDS (spouses trailing under duress successfully) Brussels Alphabet Soup