State Department enacts same-sex domestic partners benefits for those serving abroad

He's a great talker, but I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with his ability to follow through on his promises.

I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with his ability to follow through on his promises.

I don't think it's a question of his ability to follow through, but his willingness.  It's been quite clearly established that he has the ability to end the military discharges, for instance (even Harry Reid says so).  President Fierce just simply refuses to do it.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Does that mean that if there is a DOMA law within the state of residence they can't claim this benefit.

For example:  I live in Texas where there is an amendment to the state constitution that says the state will not recognize any form of same sex relationships.  Does that mean that I couldn't apply?  

Just wondering.

Later,

Marlin

It means that you don't qualify if you couldn't legally get married if you were straight.

Do married heteros have to have a "common" residence?

Do married heteros have to prove they "share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations"

Don't many straight married couples keep their financial responsibilities separate?

These are the same kind of "rules" they make domestic partners submit to in CA.  But, they make no such "rules" for heteros to get their marriage benefits.

Forgive me if I seem unimpressed and ungrateful.  It's only because I'm unimpressed and see no reason to be grateful.

The Blend has obtained the cable sent to employees by the Secretary of State ....

The Blend is really good at obtaining news-worthy documents.  

10. Minimize considered.

The phrase is boilerplate having to do with the government's communications bandwidth. It's inclusion in a document can be nothing more than lip service, which is additionally ironic for the underlying executive memorandum in this instance (and yes, an obvious but very impolite remark occurs to me).

In fact, I have to tell you that for a government agency, the Department is moving at light speed. Within a day of the announcement, I was able to do part of the computer update for me and my partner, who is also a Foreign Service Officer, to register as a "tandem," Department lingo for when both partners are employees of the Department. Days later, I completed the second step, and by tomorrow, the process should be done. Most of my colleagues with partners, tandem or not, have already registered their partners and have begun the process of getting in the affidavits and getting clearances for their partners (this is required of straight spouses as well and opens the door for employment at post).

I also want to assure you that as an insider to the negotiations for the benefits given to State Department employees, I can tell you that Secretary Clinton gave absolutely every benefit that it was within her power to give without Congressional approval. She is certainly our "fierce advocate," and I am very proud to work for her.

I should have been more careful.  The Secretary was the author of the cable, but I used it to critique the progress in the Oval Office and in the Congress.  My initial remark, that the cable was a "news-worthy" document, was intended to connote an encouraging event.  

I was not condemning when I said the cable's wording was ironic.   The goal is for same-sex partners to have benefits with full parity to straight married couples.  So far, the accomplishment appears to be minimal.  However, I (now) recognize that my comment implied that the accomplishment was nothing more than lip service -- and that is obviously inaccurate.   Yet, I am persuaded it is not much more.

Digger, I hope that you soon receive full parity and all other due rewards, and I hope that your Department makes all of us proud.