The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

In some cases, the lack of rights and benefits for MOHs pushes employees out of the Foreign Service altogether. One FSO who has enjoyed his career and would like to continue it is instead taking retirement to help meet his partner’s needs. He writes, “I will abandon this career and direct my energies elsewhere — hopefully to one of the many corporate employers that truly value their employees and the diversity they bring their organizations.” Despite this evidence of dissatisfaction, however, no Foreign Service employees have filed grievances with AFSA over any aspect of MOH policy. Further Steps? There’s little doubt that gay and lesbian FSOs — especially those who remember the 1980s and before — see the current situation as a marked improvement over the old days. But as benefits and rules begin to be liberalized in other Western democracies, some U.S. employees are asking AFSA and the Foreign Service to take the process further. In the words of FSO Patrick Linehan, “The MOH policy is great as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It got us onto the bus — but we’re still rid- ing in the back.” MOHs are especially annoyed that, when it comes to travel benefits, they are treated worse than pets. Linehan notes that, “The department would pay toward the shipment of my dog, because — as stated in an admin memo a few years ago — ‘pets are impor- tant for morale,’ but they wouldn’t give me a dime for my husband’s ticket.” Nor is the persistent unhappiness of gay employees and partners (with the possible effects on retention), the only incentive for the department to consider fur- ther accommodations for MOHs. For one thing, says Director Ray Leki, FSI Transition Center, the policy affects straight couples too. “Many people enter the Foreign Service just out of grad school, and they’re not married yet and not sure they want to be. If you say they have to get married before they go overseas, you’re doing these people a disservice.” Beyond that, Karl Olson, an FSO in the European Affairs Bureau, points out that, “it is inappropriate for individual FS personnel to be negotiating private deals with the host government to allow their family members to remain legally with them in the host country. That prospect has many negative implica- tions for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. ... The essential element of the MOH policy is that the embassy, rather than the individual employee, is the party requesting a visa.” Olson makes an interesting point: If individual FS employees are negotiating with foreign governments for personal favors relating to their closest loved ones because the embassy refuses to assist them, it creates a situation in which the host government or its employees may ask the FS employee for favors in return. Change in the Air Is further improvement in the status of MOHs likely in the near future? GLIFAA has proposed a number of changes that would essentially close the gap between MOHs and EFMs. Those include: • Access to training, including language and secu- rity classes • Access to post health units, and health insurance at group rates • Inclusion in travel orders (though not travel expenses) • Preferential status for employment at post com- parable to that enjoyed by EFMs • Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary • Improved visa rights, both abroad and in the United States (for foreign nationals). The department has not yet responded to GLIFAA’s proposal, but the preliminary indications are that there may be openness to at least some of these ideas. One point in favor is what AFSA President Louise Crane calls “the generational factor” — that is, chang- ing attitudes as new employees join the Foreign Service. Crane points out that one-third of the Foreign Service has been hired since 1998. “I’ve met every class since August ’01, and the vast majority support equal treatment for same-sex partners.” Former AFSA President John Naland agrees: “You talk to new hires and they can’t believe how it was before.” AFSA attorney Zlatana Badrich adds that lots of people come into the Foreign Service from the pri- M E M B E R S O F H O U S E H O L D J U N E 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 25