In connection with an upcoming story on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down much of the Defense of Marriage Act, Federal Times is interested in hearing from gay and lesbian feds (and their partners) on what they think of the ruling and of the Office of Personnel Mangement’s If you want to weigh in, please email Staff Writer Sean Reilly at sreilly@federaltimes.com or call him at 703-750-8684.
13 Comments
It’s wrong and it’s going to cost a lot of money . . . that group of people have shorter relationships than other, and that will mean more money paid out to more “divorced” people than anyone thought possible.
While federal agencies are going to have to pare spending, this will increase benefit costs, especially health care costs.
This is idiocy all around.
Amazing the level of bigotry and ignorance in the comments up to this point.
To those whining (erroneously) about LGBT couples costing the government more – I want my money back.
I’ve paid 50-300% more in taxes than you have for the past 35 years and haven’t seen a dime of it. I HAVE BEEN SUBSIDIZING YOU!!! Now shut up and go read something other than each other’s ignorant, Fux Mooz skreed-inspired B.S.
To Mary Smith in particular, the “shorter relationships” smear is a lie and you know it. Excuse me? Kim Kardashian spent longer working out her recent divorce than she did in her marriage by over a year. Straight people have been getting married in Las Vegas drive-thru chapels for decades, and you have the nerve to belittle and malign the relationships we have fought for decades to legitimize. Thanks. Thanks a lot, bigot.
“that group of people” – care to display your obvious bigotry a bit more?
“more money paid out to more “divorced” people” – sorry as a divorced man not sure what money benefits I missed out on getting – alimony sure was not to me! Perhaps you should spend your efforts in banning all divorces as that would save money in your view.
“have shorter relationships than other” – care to try to prove that statement?
I hope neither of you are actual Federal Employees since you seem to have very narrow and bigoted views on equality.
I am still trying to understand why some people need to bring their bedroom into my living room…and now my workplace. The costs will be staggering. Did we learn nothing from history and the fall of Rome? A decadent lifestyle destroyed their civilization, and we are on the same path.
The orignal intent of offering spousal benefits was to promote family structure and the rearing of children. Homosexual couples are not true family structures designed around raising kids. This will throw out all kinds of confusion about what a family is and why people get financial benefits from society in general. The Supreme Court has died as a body of discerning judges – and the nation rushes toward bankruptcy.
Finally equal opportunity. Gays are minorities and not any different than woman and colored people. They deserve all of the same rights. This is a huge with for liberalism and good in this country. Now all we have to do is eliminate the state’s rights to choose on this issue… there should be one federal law legalizing gay marriage…. states shouldn’t be able to have a say on such important issues.
Mary/Grumpy,
How is this going to cost more? If they were heterosexual, they’d be divorcing and creating the increased benefit costs, too. It would be no more expensive.
Mary, what are the statistics and source for your claim that gays have shorter relationships? The divorce rate for heterosexuals is close to 50% (60% on second marriages) so to claim that heteros have longer relationships is pretty bold. I think you both are using bogus financial claims to distract from your bigotry. You wouldn’t have any complaints if all the gays were straight and collecting expensive benefits.
Mary Smith and Grumpy, your ignorance is astonishing. I am a federal retiree who spent 34 years watching straight co-workers marry and then immediately be able to add their new spouses to their health insurance, not to mention a plethora of other benefits. And, guess what. Many of these same people divorced and remarried and were allowed to do the same with their new spouses. Hey, as many times as they wished. My beloved partner and I are celebrating the fact that after 16 years together, I can finally add her to my health insurance and you are whining about it? If she were a he, you wouldn’t blink an eye. Kathy is correct. You are using this “cost” argument as a ridiculous excuse for your bigotry. How utterly pathetic.
I am one of those federal employees for whom the DOMA decision will greatly impact my life and my family. Despite what Mary Smith said in her July 1 comment about “that group of people have shorter relationships than other,” my wife and I will celebrate 23 years together in August and I know many other gay and lesbian couples who have relationships which have existed much longer than ours. We “officially married” in 2008 prior to Prop 8’s passage. Many years ago, my wife lost her private sector job when the company was sold and later did not return to the workforce when we thereafter adopted two children with special needs so she could stay home and help them. This meant for the past ten years I had to pay approximately $7,500 out-of-pocket each year for her health insurance because she is middle-age with a couple of pre-existing conditions like high blood pressure. We live pay check to pay check and certainly could have used the $75,000 plus it cost our family over this time period to pay the health insurance premiums the total of which excludes paying her higher co-pays, higher prescription costs, etc., to save for our children’s college education for which we now have no savings. This means I was paid less than my colleagues for doing the same amount of work because my wife could not be on our federal family health care plan until now. In addition, my wife will now be able to be a surviving spouse for my retirement benefits which could make the difference between poverty and a decent life for my wife and minor children if I should die. This is a matter of civil and equal rights. If people like Grumpy believe that federal agencies need to “pare spending,” then he should volunteer to give up his federal health insurance instead of being only willing to sacrifice mine for the alleged common good. Marriage success for heterosexual couples is never guaranteed and the divorce rate in the USA is high, yet some heterosexual people believe what they get is a right of employment but it somehow becomes a special right for my family and me. The criteria is legal marriage whether one is married a day or 23 years or 60 plus years. I love equality and it is a shame that some people don’t. You are welcome to keep me out of your church but marriage is a civil right and I, a lesbian employee in the federal government, deserve employment benefits equal to any claimed by any heterosexual federal employee. Thankfully, there are more fair-minded heterosexual people out there than Ms. Smith or Grumpy and we lesbians and gay men appreciate their support of equality.
The age old question is “why would one want to get married in the first place?” Just because they can? Or is it financial? Or tax credits for the adopted/test tube kids? Either way, the majority of all marriages will continue to fail and DOMA will only add those #’s. As a married person, I will always ask…WHY???
Why is it that when a person expresses their opinion that is contrary to a gay/lesbian person they are called a bigot but yet they express theirs without being called the same. What same sex couples do is their business but that does not mean everyone else has to agree or approve of that life style. We are all God’s people and he loves us and everyone has to live with their life choices. The real verdict comes after death and God decides whether you go to heaven or to eternal damnation in hell. By then it is too late to see the truth. Don’t get me wrong, not all straight people go to heaven because sin is sin no matter what it may be.
Homosexual conduct IS and WILL ALWAYS BE absolutely wrong. It is too bad that for the first time ever, we have a president who condones and encourages conduct that the Bible unambiguously and expressly declares to be vile and perverted. We have become a shameful nation – unfit to be the moral authority for any other country.