Our guest blogger is Ben Harris, intern for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation that extends health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.  Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the bill, called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which if passed into law would extend health insurance and a number of other workplace benefits to federal employees and their same-sex partners.

Because of discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay federal employees do not have full access to benefits currently afforded to straight federal employees and their spouses. Without access to health insurance through their partners, many gay individuals must either purchase costly insurance plans in the private market or forgo health insurance, a considerable financial risk should be they become seriously ill. Yesterday, the Senate committee advanced a bill that would significantly alleviate that risk and bolster economic security for gay couples in the federal workforce.

Passing this bill out of committee is long overdue. Not only does this mean equal treatment for gay employees in the federal workforce, it also ensures that we attract the best and brightest workers into public service. When it was introduced back in November, Senator Collins remarked :

COLLINS: This change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare.

She’s right. Eighty-six percent of Fortune 100 companies offer equal health care benefits to employees with same-sex partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And research shows that when you treat gay workers equally on the job, what results is a happier, healthier, and more productive workforce.

Some, like Governor Rick Snyder (R) of Michigan, who recently vetoed a bill to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees, oppose equality in the workplace because they say it costs too much. They’re wrong . The take-up rate for domestic partner benefits is extremely low and it is likely that the boon from attracting a more talented and productive workforce outweighs any costs of providing equal benefits to gay couples.

What’s more, passing laws that extend workplace benefits to gay employees is politically popular. A whopping 8 in 10 Americans believe gay employees should be given equal benefits on the job. Even Mitt Romney agrees. Just last week, after restating his opposition to marriage equality, he voiced his support : “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate.”

Conservatives and corporations should take a cue from the American people: workplace equality is critical to fostering a more efficient and effective government.

As the White House considers issuing an executive order prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors, the Williams Institute are out with a new report showing that 11 to 16 million additional employees would gain protections as a result of the measure.

The study, first obtained and published by Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner, argues that while many businesses and states have extended equal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, a good number of “federal contractors do not currently have those policies, and they employ millions of workers.” Therefore, if President Obama amends Executive Order 11246 — which establishes requirements for non-discriminatory practices — or issues a separate executive order, he would effectively shield the LGBT community from discrimination and establish a precedent for passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA.

The Williams Institute, along with the Center for American Progress, have laid out the case in a confidential memo to retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). In that document, the groups review the legal and political challenges the White House may encounter if it pursues the issue:

– WHAT THE ORDER SHOULD SAY: An executive order may require federal contractors to (1) adopt nondiscrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity; (2) actively recruit and retain LGBT employees and educate all employees to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination; and (3) extend benefits to domestic partners.

– AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Requiring numerical placement goals for sexual orientation and gender identity would communicate a strong commitment to diversity…However, doing so may be logistically, legally and politically problematic. An executive order could instead classify sexual orientation and gender identity with national origin and religion for purposes of affirmative action. Alternatively, the executive order could omit any reference to any form of affirmative action based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

– HEALTH BENEFITS: Such an order could require parity in benefits for both employees with a same-sex domestic partner and those with a different-sex domestic partner, or just those with a same-sex partner… Requiring private businesses to offer health insurance to employees and their same-sex partners when the federal government does not do so may prompt some resistance from the private sector. However, such a response would be in contrast with the positive assessments given by the employers that already have equalized their health insurance plans, and the government entities with such policies already in place.

– IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL: It is well within the president’s legal authority to issue either an amended or a new executive order to require that federal contractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity… However, the lack of Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of nondiscrimination executive orders, as well as the lack of recent case law affirming the constitutionality of such orders, adds a modicum of uncertainty to the legal analysis. If a contractor were to challenge the proposed executive order, courts would most likely use two tests to determine whether the president had authority to issue it: (1) the “economy and efficiency” test; and (2) the conflicts test.

The Labor and the Justice Departments have reportedly approved the order and it is now awaiting White House approval. Last week, news broke that DynCorp International LLC — a military contractor that works closely with the federal government — has adopted an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy in response to a Change.org petition asking the company to embrace more inclusive standards.

“A Maryland woman says she was denied the right to visit her same-sex partner at Washington Adventist Hospital,” the Associated Press is reporting, and has filed a complain with the Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The woman, Linda Cole, claims that the hospital “refused to recognize her as family” and did not let her see her partner Kat Wilderotter until Wilderotter’s sister Kristen intervened:

Wilderotter says when Cole followed her ambulance to the emergency room, she was stopped at the front desk and not allowed to be at her side – until Wilderotter’s sister arrived.

“So Kristen goes up and says, ‘Hi. I’m Kristen. My sister Kat has been admitted and I’d like to see her.’ And the woman at the front desk said, ‘We have family here now’ and let Kristen back. And Kristen brought Linda back. And as they were about to cross through the doors, Kristen took Linda’s hand and said ‘I know what just happened here,’” said Wilderotter.

Watch the local report:

The hospital is attributing the incident to a “misunderstanding between the staff and Ms. Cole.” “I am very sorry that Ms. Cole felt anything less than fully valued when she came to our hospital because as a matter of both policy and practice, we treat all people who come through our doors the same regardless of their faith, tradition, ethnicity or their sexual orientation,” the hospital president said.

Last year, the Obama administration finalized a policy requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds to allow patients to designate their own visitors as well as who can make emergency medical decisions, including same-sex partners.