discriminatory benefits

Married Gay Congressional Staffers Dodge Financial Disclosure Rules Their Married Hetero Colleagues Must Follow

For the first time in the history of the United States Congress, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, otherwise known as the ethics panel, was going to have elected officials and senior staffers in same-sex marriages, who received marriage certificates in states where it is legal, disclose their spousal financial information the same way heterosexual married staffers do. That was until both sides of the gay marriage camp started complaining.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also know as the ethics panel, had released draft rules a week ago that made extensive revisions to the old instruction manual for filling out financial disclosure forms. The draft rules included a paragraph declaring that “In 2009, there were a total of four states which issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. (New Hampshire and the District of Columbia began issuing such licenses effective in 2010.) If you and your spouse were issued a marriage license by any of these states and were subsequently legally married in that state, you must disclose all required spousal information on your Financial Disclosure Statement.”

After Roll Call inquired about the language change, the instructions were pulled from the websites of the ethics committee and the Clerk of the House.

On Thursday the committee and the Clerk of the House posted new instructions on their websites that drop any reference to gay marriage.

Gay marriage haters hated the new rules because they viewed it as Congress’ backdoor attempt to recognize same-sex marriages. And gay marriage lovers also hated the new rules, because they required the gays to make federal disclosures when the federal government doesn’t even recognize them as married, and that’s whack, yo. So, what, Jared Polis & Co. don’t have to share the stock portfolios of their paramours?

No disclosure without representation!, as the anarchists would say.

[Roll Call]

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #congress #finances #marriage stories and more


  • Mike L.

    Yeah it’s fd up that they would try and get that info WHEN the fed’s don’t even recognize them. Can’t have it both ways dumbasses, it’s pretty insulting that they would think they can.

    No disclosure w/o representation is right.

  • Steve

    I agree! If Congress wants married gay staffers to comply with disclosure rules, Congress can repeal DOMA. Under then, f+ck this idea of imposing burdens but providing no benefits.

  • Jerr Bear

    Queerty, It’s hardly anarchical to demand recognition in exchange for disclosure. The truth is, they probably have a good idea already of whose households are making what kinds of cash. Not having to report those things is a sort of inverse benefit, if anything.

  • PADude

    Heh. Maybe they should, and then sue since they don’t receive the same benefits but are required to issue the same disclosure. Let’s see if it can push back Federal discrimination another step and whack another nail in the DOMA coffin.

  • RWG

    This whole issue is going to get so complicated, so difficult to manage, that eventually those opposed to marriage equality will have no choice but to accept it. DOMA violates so many provisions of the Constitution, and settled case law, that we will win. Separate is never equal.The number of lawsuits will continue to grow. In the end, they’ll just throw their hands up in the air and say ‘alright, we can’t make this work anymore’ and grant us equality.

  • Chapeau

    Seems to me it is time to begin calling for a Universal Gay EQuality Civil Rights Bill – Ending discrimination across the board for LGBT citizens.

Comments are closed.