| | | | | | |  |
H.R. 2517: | Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 | 111th Congress 2009-2010 |
To provide certain benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. OverviewSponsor: | | Text: | Summary
|
Full Text | Status: |  | Introduced | May 20, 2009 | | Referred to Committee | View Committee Assignments | | Reported by Committee | Nov 18, 2009 |  | House Vote | ... | | Senate Vote | ... | | Signed by President | ... |
This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by
the House as a whole. Although it has been
placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered
and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership.
Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
[Last Updated: Nov 20, 2009 6:31AM] | Last Action: | Nov 18, 2009:
House Oversight and Government Reform: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 12. | Related: | See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms
that have been applied to this bill.
Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. |
|
Question & Answer 
Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed.
See 2 more questions posed on this topic or submit your own question on the Q&A page.
Jul 29, 2009 4:48 PM - Wouldn't the Defense of Marriage Act have to be repealed or amended before this bill can be passed? -
Read AnswersAnswered by a visitor on Aug 14, 2009 5:50 PM -
No. The bill would extend benefits only to same-sex unmarried partners of federal employees. Since DOMA precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages, even partners who are legally married to a federal employee in their home state would qualify, because they would be considered "unmarried". Sep 15, 2009 10:56 AM - As currently written, HR2517fails to address the tax inequity for non-married partners who share health benefits. ( Employee holding health insurance must pay tax on the value of health insurance used by the non-married partner.) What is being done to co-ordinate HR2517 with The Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act (S 1153/HR 2625), which would fix this problem ? -
Answer it! |
Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see
About GovTrack.us. H.R. 2517--111th Congress: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009.
(2009).
In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
Retrieved Nov 20, 2009, from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
"H.R. 2517--111th Congress: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009."
GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
2009.
Nov 20, 2009
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
|title=H.R. 2517
|accessdate=Nov 20, 2009
|author=111th Congress (2009)
|date=May 20, 2009
|work=Legislation
|publisher=GovTrack.us
|quote=Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009
}} | | | |
| |
