(Part 2)
IN MY last article, I discussed some of the socio-economic implications of marriage (starting off with Social Security and Taxes) and why gay couples insist that the federal government should also accord to them the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples now enjoy.
Gay couples contend that the Constitution of America guarantees equal rights and protection for ALL.
Here is the continuation of the summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status, as outlined by the Human Rights Campaign:
Family and medical leave
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses. As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member. Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.
Immigration law
Currently, US immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. Approximately 75 percent of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of US citizens and permanent residents.
However, those excluded from the definition, under current immigration law of family, are not eligible to immigrate as family. Such ineligible person include (but are not limited to) same-sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples.
Each year, current law forces thousands of lesbian and gay couples to separate or live in constant fear of deportation. In some cases, partners of lesbian and gays face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), hefty fines and deportation and US citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to migrate with their partner to a nation whose immigration laws recognize their relationship.
This creates a tremendous hardship, not only for those involved, but for their friends and family, and leads to a drain of talent and productivity for our country.
Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of immigration.
Employee benefits for federal workers
According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges.
Most significantly, under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Although married couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses incurred by a domestic partner are not reimbursable.
As of August 2003, nine states and the District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the domestic partners of their public employees, while the nation’s largest employer – the federal government – does not.
Continued health coverage (COBRA)
Federal law requires employers to give their former employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA).
The Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide domestic partners the continued coverage guaranteed to married couples. Under 29 USC. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” defined as the employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s original benefits plan covered other beneficiaries.
Because of the narrow definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed continued coverage for their domestic partners.
The Supreme Court has heard arguments about this last week and will make a ruling about DOMA soon.
Do you think the Highest Court of the land should decide in favor of married gay and lesbian couples, in accordance with the equal protection provisions of the Constitution?
* * *
Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFC’s “Balitang America.” Views and opinions expressed by the author in this column are are solely those of the author and not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com, https://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos
