Domestic Partnership News Archive
January 14 - January 20, 2001

Thursday, January 18, 2001

Bill in Massachusetts would bar legal recognition of same-sex relationships

A story published today in Bay Windows reports that the battle over gay marriage is heating up again in Massachusetts with proposed legislation that seeks to prohibit the legal recognition of any form of same-sex unions.

Gay activists say they were not surprised by the new bill, sponsored by state Rep. John Rogers, D-Norwood, and House Minority leader Frances Marini, R-Hanson. During the last legislative session, the pair sponsored House Bill 472, a “DOMA”-style proposal that sought to amend chapter 207 of the state’s General Laws to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. DOMA refers to the Defense of Marriage Act passed a few years ago by Congress which states that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages.

After a May 1999 hearing crowded equally by supporters and opponents of House Bill 472, it was referred for study to the Joint House-Senate Judiciary Committee, where it languished until the two-year legislative session concluded last July.

But the new bill is not only seeking to deny marriage rights to gay couples, they have upped the ante by adding to their bill the clause, “Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage, or its legal equivalent, or receive the benefits exclusive to marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a matter of public policy,” effectively prohibiting passage of any legislation that would afford gay couples a parallel structure to marriage, as the civil-unions law does in Vermont.

Currently, 34 other states have similar “defense of marriage” legislation on their books, a trend which began in the mid-1990s when it was anticipated that Hawaii would become the first US. state to legalize same-sex marriage, a move that ultimately failed. With the passage of Vermont civil-union legislation, more states have jumped on the bandwagon.

Last November, Nebraska and Nevada voters approved constitutional amendments reserving marriage for heterosexual couples only, with Nebraska taking the extra step of prohibiting the legal recognition of any forms of same-sex unions. Texas lawmaker Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, recently filed a bill in that state which, like the Massachusetts proposal, seeks to bar recognition of marriage or civil unions. “We can’t protect our families under the marriage statutes unless we pass this,” Chisum told the Jan. 11 Amarillo [Texas] Globe-News.

The filing of the bill in Massachusetts coincides with the filing of domestic partnership legislation by Rep. Alice Wolf, D-Cambridge, and Sen. Robert Havern, D-Cambridge, that seeks health insurance benefits for the domestic partners of state employees. If passed, the law will also give municipalities the option of providing those benefits to city employees.

The “act relative to equal employment benefits for public sector employees” was filed after the Supreme Judicial Court’s December ruling that under current state law, municipal leaders did not have the authority to extend such benefits. The ruling was handed down after a conservative group successfully sued the city of Cambridge, where same-sex domestic partnership benefits had been available to city employees since 1992.

In the event that anti-same-sex-marrige bill does wind up on Gov. Cellucci’s desk, it is difficult to predict an outcome. According to Friedes, the Governor does not support same-sex marriage, though he has never come out in support of DoMA-like legislation.

Cellucci, has — for better or for worse — supported domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples. He raised the ire of both activists and legislators in 1998 when he refused to sign domestic partnership legislation for domestic partners of municipal employees in Boston — because the legislation was not restricted to same-sex couples.

Cellucci stated he would not sign legislation that encouraged unwed couples to have children. His last-minute refusal left lawmakers in the precarious position of passing a discriminatory law or passing no law at all, a move activists charged was anti-gay. Isaacson commented that “Cellucci has been good on [gay-supportive] rhetoric” but pointed to his role in Boston’s fight for domestic partnership benefits “a troubling reality.”

Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Vermont legislature considering amendments to 'civil union' law

A story published today by the Associated Press reports that the House Judiciary Committee of the Vermont Legislature has opened hearings into the civil union statute passed last year which gives same-sex couples who register under the statute most of the same rights and benefits of marriage under state law.

Passage of the statute was controversial and resulted in several legislators who voted for it losing their seats in the November elections. 

Because of the election results, and political changes in the House which resulted, only three members of the Judiciary Committee also served on it last year when the civil unions law was written and now a majority of six oppose the statute.

With a new majority in the House, the Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to revisit civil unions and it began that work Tuesday. There currently are no proposals on the table, but some of the parameters of the expected debate were set.

Some are advocating for outright repeal of the law. Others want to open it up to accommodate other couples who are not permitted to marry and cannot currently enter a civil union, such as a sister and a brother or a niece and her aunt. Others want to drop the trappings of marriage, such as the requirement that civil unions be certified before a justice of the peace.

'We are starting testimony on civil unions without a bill on the wall simply because it was a much-discussed issue during the campaign and it was something most people in this committee and in the House in general want to see discussed,'' said Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Peg Flory, R-Pittsford. With no specific legislation before them, committee members merely took testimony on the lawsuit that preceded civil unions and on the legislative process and deliberations that led to the law.

Susan Murray and Beth Robinson, the two lawyers who won the lawsuit known as the Baker case, said they continued to view civil unions as a compromise that gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage but falls just short of granting full marriage.

But Robinson refused to take repeated suggestions by Rep. Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport, to offer a bill that would accommodate her group's original goal of full marriage. ''We don't seek from this body any bill this session,'' Robinson told him.

From the opposite point of view, attorney Thomas McCormick told the committee that it should remove sexual orientation from the law as a criteria for receiving a civil union.

'In the short run it seems to me a better course to change the focus of the law so it no longer approximates marriage and focuses on benefits rather than marital relations,'' said McCormick, who is a member of Take it to the People but said he was testifying on his own behalf.

That would appear to be an approach favored by Flory, who unsuccessfully sought to amend the civil unions law last year as it was being debated in the House. She wants to include more people than just gay and lesbian couples under the provisions of the law. She would include two elderly sisters or a nephew and an aunt, ''couples who otherwise cannot marry.''

''If the Legislature had chosen to be more inclusive, would that be at odds with the Baker decision?'' she asked Chief Assistant Attorney General William Griffin? ''In some ways, I think it would,'' Griffin said.

''If you then expand the parallel system, the civil union system, to include the opposite-gender couple, you would be giving that group an option that would not be available'' to same-sex couples, he said. ''I think the bottom line is the easier case to defend is if you created a third system for this group you describe.''

The committee is not scheduled to work on civil unions again until next week.

Sunday, January 14, 2001

Milwaukee union pushing same-sex partner benefits

A story published today in the Journal Sentinel reports that, for the first time, Milwaukee's largest union of city employees is asking that workers in registered same-sex relationships receive health, dental and funeral leave benefits.

Union leaders say they are confident the city's labor negotiators will include such domestic partner benefits in the 2001-2002 contract. They expect an initial response from the city Tuesday. City officials, meanwhile, stress that the request will be considered along with many others and could be tossed out or traded away during the negotiations, which may take months.

Even if the measure survives bargaining, it could raise some controversy among members of the Common Council who must vote on the overall package. In 1997, the council shelved a proposed ordinance that would have extended the same benefits.

The union, whose contract usually becomes the model for that of other city employee unions, is asking that benefits be extended only to couples listed on the city's domestic partner registry. The largely symbolic registry was created in 1999 for same-sex couples and offers no legal benefits.

Since its inception, only about 70 couples have registered, and no one knows how many of the registered couples work for the city, one reason the cost estimates for the proposal are questionable. Some dreaded and others hoped that the registry would be a leap toward domestic partner benefits and other gains for gays and lesbians.

If Milwaukee offers the benefits, it will increase its chances of attracting employees in an already competitive labor market, some say. Many other cities - from Chicago to New York to Berkeley, Calif. - offer the benefits. Some include unmarried heterosexual couples.

The costs are relatively low for those cities, activists say.

Madison, for example, offers the benefits for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Of the $11.8 million Madison spends on employee health insurance, about $42,000 goes toward domestic partner benefits.

Assuming an enrollment rate of 0.25% of Milwaukee's more than 7,000 city employees, the city would pay about
$80,000 for the benefits - a drop in the bucket considering the city spends $40 million on health benefits for its active workers, according to figures compiled by the Domestic Partnership Task Force of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center.

Chicago's domestic partner benefits program, which is also limited to same-sex couples, has about a 0.10% enrollment rate, the report states.

Frank Forbes, the city's chief labor negotiator, said last week that the union's domestic partner benefit request was not the major economic item being negotiated. The union has about 2,300 members in jobs ranging from tax assessment to custodial work.