And yet another reason why I have the coolest boss ever.
The secretary of state is on a mission: putting women’s rights at the forefront of a rapidly emerging new world order.
In other news, Spanish is going super bien. Sigo disfrutando el idioma. I got a 2+ on my last two evaluations and am hoping and praying for that coveted 3 at the end of April, when Spanish training ends and ConGen begins. Eva is also continuing to enjoy her Spanish class. She, however, is trying to show me up by studying twice as hard as I am. That's what you get when you marry an overachiever, I guess. I'll stick with being a Type A- (ambitious, but a bit floja - lazy, for you non-Spanish speakers!).
In closing, I leave you with my favorite Spanish song of the week (err, month).
The New York Times published an article re: digital diplomacy, aka "21st century statecraft" today featuring two State Dept reps. A telling quote from the article:
A series of events last year helped [their] work gain traction by showing that connection technologies have become inextricably entwined with the challenges of foreign policy. In April 2009, there was the so-called Twitter revolution in Moldova. In July 2009, there was China’s regional-information blockade, including a total shutdown of the Internet, following the Uighur uprisings (“full” Internet usage was restored to Xinjiang 10 months later). And then, of course, Iran, beginning in June 2009, when the organizing power of cellphones and social media — and their ability to capture and disseminate images like the death of a young Iranian woman, Neda Agha-Soltan — arrested the world’s attention.IMHO, utilizing social networking and web 2.0 to open communication/expand the marketplace of ideas is a powerful way to support values that the American government espouses. As the SCOTUS has recognized, open debate, through which there is an exchange or competition of ideas, is the best way for society to progress and for people to discern the truth. I'm glad the State Dept is so eager to include digital diplomacy in its toolbox.
Eva and I are legally married under CA law (we were one of those lucky couples that married after the California Supreme Court decision and before the passage of Proposition 8). We are fortunate enough to reside in San Francisco, where it's very seldom that we face any type of homophobia, and certainly never in the workplace. All my prior employers in the public and private sector have thus far afforded the same benefits to opposite and same sex spouses/domestic partners of their employees.
Sadly, this is not true of the federal government. One major source of concern for us when contemplating joining the FS was the disparate treatment of same-sex couples. Before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama extended specified benefits to domestic partners in 2009, same-sex partners/spouses had to be listed as Members of Household (MOH), one class below that of an Eligible Family Member (EFM). This meant that same-sex spouses & partners of Foreign Service Officers were ineligible for diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation (note: pets were authorized to be evacuated in emergencies with the FSO, even if same-sex partners were not), transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.
President Obama justly issued an Executive Memorandum (not an Executive Order, meaning it could expire with his office) to recognize same-sex partners as EFMs and extend the aforementioned benefits to them. However, due to statutory restrictions placed by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex partners and spouses of FSOs remained precluded from qualification for a range of other benefits, including federally-provided health insurance and pension benefits.
Digger over at Life After Jerusalem recently posted an update re: the 2009 Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102). If passed, this would allow Eva to receive the same benefits that spouses of my future heterosexual colleagues would receive. I've cut and pasted the Washington Post article below:
Senate vote on same-sex benefits 'within weeks'
The Senate could vote on a bill extending fringe benefits to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees "within weeks" and well before July 4, according to aides to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).
The Nutmeg State senator is lead sponsor of the measure, which would cost an estimated $310 million through 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
That's a notable, but not terribly hefty price tag by Washington standards, and Lieberman is fine with the anticipated cost.
“This legislation would cost about two-hundredths of a percent of the federal government’s overall costs for the civilian workforce," Lieberman said Tuesday. "That is a very small price to pay for the improvements we would see in recruitment, retention, and morale. OPM has committed to provide an offset for the legislation before it is enacted, making it that much more reasonable.”
Indeed those offsets -- first requested by Lieberman and Senate Republicans in December -- aren't ready yet and won't be until Lieberman is ready to introduce the bill to the full Senate, according to an OPM spokesman.
Lieberman's bill may win some Republican votes, but a House version passed last year with no GOP support. The House bill also covers eligible federal retirees, giving it a heftier price tag that the GOP considers unacceptable.
"At a time when unemployment is at 9.9 percent, it’s absurd that Democrats would push a costly new benefit for federal employees when so many Americans in the private sector are out of work," said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which first approved the benefits bill. "This legislation is a good example of how this Congress and administration have neglected efforts to rein-in spending and create jobs in favor of an agenda to satisfy their political base."
