Rep. Berman: State Dept. will establish benefits for same-sex diplomats in the ‘very near future.’
Rep. Berman: State Dept. will establish benefits for same-sex diplomats in the ‘very near future.’
Last week, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced the two-year Foreign Relations Authorization Act. One of the provisions of the legislation was to “end the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad.” However, today Berman announced that he was dropping that provision because the State Department has promised to act instead:
Berman, in a hearing on funding for the Foreign Service, said he would drop his legislative bid as “it is my expectation, based on very recent conversations, that the Secretary of State will move forward with implementing all of the benefits provided in that provision in the very near future.”
The ranking Republican member on the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), supported the benefits. But Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) was opposed, worried that the bill would force U.S. diplomats to “be advocates for the homosexual agenda.” A poll earlier this year found that 71 percent of foreign service officers support “official recognition and benefits for same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service members.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
No wonder Hillary got a standing O when she first entered the State Department as the Secretary…
May 20th, 2009 at 7:59 pmRepublicans continuing to worry about the ridiculous…
May 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pmRepublicans seem to be afraid of their own shadow lately and some of the Dems seem to be catching the “fear” disease.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pmAnyway, it’s good to see the State Dept. making progress and moving forward with granting same-sex diplomats equal benefits.
This makes me proud to be one of Berman’s constituents.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:31 pmwhat the heck is an advocate “for the homosexual agenda”?
May 20th, 2009 at 9:26 pmhomosexual diplomacy is a threat to heterosexual diplomacy. No one really knows what that means but I think it should be announced over and over again as if it really does means something…
May 20th, 2009 at 9:37 pmAccording to the Conservapedia, the following are the goals of the “homosexual agenda”:
1. Destroying Christian morals
2. Promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene[7]
3. Censoring any speech against homosexuality by branding it possible “hate-speech”[9]
4. Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals[11]
5. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation[12]
6. Ending the military’s and Boy Scout’s restrictions on homosexuality[13]
7. Corrupt Christian youth[14]
8. Promote homosexuality in schools[15]
9. Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle[17]
10. Getting more rights in prison
11. Legalization of recreational or “party” drugs
12. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality[20]
13. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples[21]
May 20th, 2009 at 9:43 pmAs a deacon in the church of,”Mind your own business,” I couldn’t be more pleased. Why do these social neo-cons always ignore the Biblical passages that very clearly tell us to not judge others?-
May 20th, 2009 at 10:03 pmAnd on American Idol the people voted for the less talented straight guy. Pathetic.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pmThe Republicans would rather heterosexuals got divorced than homosexuals got married. Idiots.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:07 pmBut Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) was opposed, worried that the bill would force U.S. diplomats to “be advocates for the homosexual agenda.”
First of all, thank you, wiley. Because I was about to say that no right-winger should be allowed to use the term “homosexual agenda” unless they are prepared to explain, in detail, precisely what they mean by the term.
I want to hear them try to articulate everything you listed without looking foolish.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:26 pmDoodlebug Shayne Says:
The Republicans would rather heterosexuals got divorced than homosexuals got married. Idiots.
If divorce were made illegal, Republicans would never marry. That’s IMHO, of course. ;)
May 20th, 2009 at 10:28 pmRepublican, conservative christians (wingnuts) don’t know how to live and let live. They’re so busy judging and trying to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Even through all of their hypocrisy. Jesus chastised the pharasees and the saducees for their hypocrisy and judgement of others. Not only is the GOP tent shrinking, church attendence is shrinking too. People are tired of BS hypocrites.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:31 pmGood. Now it’s time for Obama to end the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. We lost hundreds of translaters and good soldiers because of several homophobes in the military brass.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:41 pmhormiga brava chavez,
I am no Christian, so I really don’t understand how they think. But wouldn’t they be happier if, when the Rapture comes, there were fewer people going up to heaven with them? Then they would have more of it for themselves. Not that it isn’t crowded already. From what I’ve heard.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:42 pmWayne Ant Schneider,
ROTFL! I’m no christian either. If there’s such a thing as a rapture, I’ll be happier when the religious christian right is raptured away! Bye-Bye!
May 20th, 2009 at 10:49 pmI am a Christian and I don’t understand how the wingnuts think.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:51 pmOutstanding – no offense to you for being a christian. It just seems as if most christians have a wingnut mentality these days. It’s hard to distinguish between the two.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:09 pmOh hbc, I didn’t take offense in any way. I don’t think the gentle Jesus I believe in would recognize these wingnut types. We’re not all wingnuts, they’re just the loudest. Given that my church has a gay bishop, the wingers probably don’t even consider me a christian.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:23 pmSorry, going OT…
Military attorney: Waterboarding is ‘tip of the iceberg’
By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/20/worse-than-waterboarding/
.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:35 amOT again…
Gonzales approved ‘borderline torture’ months before ‘torture memos’ issued: report
By Jeremy Gantz
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/20/gonzales-torture-cable/
But none dare call it a WAR CRIME!
.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:38 am.
jstrick Asks:
Here…
http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html
.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:43 am.
You’re Going Straight to Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsBZCq4hp14
.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:47 amI’d bet that the majority of Christians don’t buy into the lieral, physical rapture idea. It was a silly idea proposed by some Puritans in the 1700s, and should be regarded as such.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:41 am*literal
May 21st, 2009 at 8:43 amfor all of you who support equal rights for homosexual partners. if you are so concerned about discrimination, why are you asking for something that heterosexual couples dont even have. i mean i dont agree with the whole concept of “gay rights” but ok you’re fighting for gay marriages. why the hail are u fighting for equal rights for gay partners also. sounds to me like you dont want equality, you want to above everybody else. because there are already companies and organizations that provide this type of benefit, what happens now like in states where gay marriage is legal. they dont repeal the other part of the benefits for domestic partners im sure. meaning whether you’re married or not you get this benefit. everybody wins, except for heterosexuals who are living together and are uninsured and/or cant get their “lovers” benefits.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:52 amWe’re not…
May 21st, 2009 at 9:00 amderrickbanes, try to understand the issues before you comment. Nobody is asking for anything that hetros don’t get. Take the time, and do some reading up on what gays are asking for before you come here and make a fool of yourself.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am#27 – derrickbanes Says:
———————————————————-
“everybody wins, except for heterosexuals who are living together and are uninsured and/or cant get their “lovers” benefits.”
May 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Looks like someone isn’t reading the rules, only spouting unfounded ‘talking points’.
Domestic Partnership is available for heterosexuals who don’t want to get married. There’s not many who do this, as they have the option to get married. Also, I believe that opposite sex “domestic partners” cannot file a joint federal tax return as can married couples.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:11 amOne day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:16 amShould have know was a Pelosi Californian!!! Left coast losers trying to push their Gay agenda. ha ha ha You people are so sick. I know you can justify anything, or lawyers would not have a job. Gay’s, Owl’s, Moose, and damn the people Right? Is it true California had a electrical shortage because you people were to busy hugging tree to build a power source???? ha ha ha ha ha ha WOW !!
May 21st, 2009 at 9:17 amThat’s quite the coherent post there, chief.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:19 amHey Max, We want call it war crimes when this is done to you and your family either. Have you been in a REAL war? Seen a friends head hanging off a bridge and his body mutilated???
May 21st, 2009 at 9:22 amBut we can’t repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell????
It will be a Grand Day when we can all finally enter the 21st Century!!!!
May 21st, 2009 at 9:33 amWar crime. War is used as a justification, and we have signed treaties that make not doing it law and we did it, a crime.
You can argue it was a good crime, if you’re sick, or that the law should be changed but it’s too late.
And unless 50 states recognize gay marriage it can’t be solved with this state does _____ and this does _____.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:55 am.
Dear Dink,
Whereas some people prefer to plat “Follow the Leader”…
… America was founded on “Following the Rule of Law”.
If you have a problem with that concept, then I suppose you’re sorry for the way the USA has enforced the Rule of Law and prosecuted others according to Law. Over the History of the USA, these laws have developed to not only include those that TORTURE Americans, but also Americans who TORTURE others. It is inclusive, NOT exclusive. But you disagree, that is your right. Yet, your ability to disagree in the face of history does, in no way make you correct, just exceptional. And I mean that in the truest sense of that word. Of course it’s not TORTURE when the USA does it, YES? …
… WRONG! For if you are to be correct, then soldiers who will and have been prosecuted for engaging in acts of TORTURE were unjustly prosecuted by the USA. Are you really willing to stand in that light?
And if you propose that the use of TORTURE was justified, then John McCain was justly TORTURED and is no more the war hero than the detainees we hold today. YES?
.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am.
Dear Dink,
Your ad homonim attack at #32…
… LOLOLOLOLOLololololol. You loose!
You equate people with owls, moose and what next?
What does that make you?
The only threat I pose to heterosexual marriage…
… Is to those who’s husband is in the closet.
Yet, you prove that you have no real concept of what defines a marriage, in law, versus Domestic Partnerships. Care to explain why when one gay couple gets married in Massachusetts isn’t recognized in Idaho? Yet a heterosexual couple is, in all 50?
.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am.
Dear derrickbanes,
Whereas you are straight and CAN get married, reduce your taxes, inherit property and be at the deathbed of your spouse, I and gay and can not do any of the following WITHOUT a fight and extra lawyer fees and court orders.
WE ARE NOT EQUAL…
.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am