The Foreign Service Journal, November 2004

Foreign Service because they were unwilling to marry their partners, thereby rendering themselves poten- tially less competitive professionally, or have gotten married simply to “fit” into the Service and advance their careers. Of course, gay and lesbian couples don’t have such a choice to “test” their relationship at the cost of the American taxpayer. Or consider another aspect of the policy. I thank AFSA for pushing to include parents in the MOH category, which is truly a progressive stance. As a single man with elderly parents, I am grateful that the MOH policy (adopted by USAID in May 2001, about six months after State imple- mented it) covers them, at least on paper — though not for any benefits that would incur costs on behalf of the government. Yet as the Guldin arti- cle, in particular, documents, many Foreign Service employees already bear significant caretaking responsi- bilities for their mothers and fathers, and more will do so as time goes on. With the skyrocketing costs of health care, long-term care and nursing care, this socio-cultural and economic real- ity is increasingly relevant to all employees. Yet as it stands, the MOH policy offers no means to cover air fare, living expenses, evacuation costs, or overseas medical insurance for par- ents. As a son of immigrants, I have a bicultural perspective, one based in Asian-American family values. My parents fed, clothed, and paid for my education; now it’s my turn. While I recognize that all three categories of MOH — aging parents, adult chil- dren, and partners (same-sex or oppo- site-sex) of employees — are barred from receiving the at-cost benefits afforded to spouses by private sector companies, State and USAID have chosen to include these three cate- gories of family within the definition of MOH. So it should follow through to make that commitment a reality. More to Do These struggles all come down to parity, equity, dignity — and employ- ee productivity. If we are to recruit and retain a productive workforce in an era in which development, defense and diplomacy are the three pillars of national security, our human resource policies must embody those values — just as we advocate those principles for the stakeholders in the countries in which we work. Let us remember that the issue of equal benefits for domestic partners and Members of Household is unrelated to morality or the use of taxpayer dol- lars for subsidizing lifestyle, as some might argue. It is related to only one issue — efficient business practice. In fact, our friends and allies such as the Canadians, Australians and British are already well ahead of us in this regard, offering at-cost benefits to officers with domestic partners and other Members of Household — a situation that sometimes put the U.S. in an awkward situation when negoti- ating reciprocal partner visa privi- leges. As Bob Guldin reported, some officials assert that the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the extension of benefits to domestic partners and other Members of Household, but that is very much open to debate. In any case, the fact that the MOH pol- icy is now incorporated into the Foreign Affairs Manual provides a regulatory basis to move forward. And already, both State and USAID have allowed GLIFAA to sponsor speakers and other events on site to celebrate Gay Pride Month for the past several years and to invite high- profile keynote speakers such as openly gay Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., chair- man of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. Two GLIFAA board members won USAID’s Equal Employment Opportunity Award in 2001. And, going the extra mile, State has acknowledged gay and lesbian part- ners of FSOs on its external Web site ( http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/ rsrcs/c1992.htm.) Yes, this is an election year, but these milestones suggest that there is political cover for proceeding regard- less of who wins this month The Bush administration has already enacted human resource polices that make good business and manage- ment sense. Enabling workers to be productive by treating them equi- tably is not an issue of special rights but of human rights; civil rights; American rights. And as more Foreign Service officers get married in Massachusetts, Canada and Europe, they will rightly move to have the federal government recog- nize their families and adjust its poli- cies accordingly. In waging the “war for talent,” State, USAID and the other foreign affairs agencies have appropriately emphasized the importance of recruiting a diverse workforce, espe- cially in the post-9/11 environment. Secretary of State Colin Powell regu- larly and proudly cites the growing number of minorities joining the Foreign Service through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and 16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 S P E A K I N G O U T u As a longtime GLIFAA member, I know first- hand how hard AFSA has worked to bring the MOH policy to life and to make it as broad and meaningful as possible.