Domestic Partnership News Archive
January 21 - January 27, 2001

Saturday, January 27, 2001

Civil union bill for unmarried couples introduced in Hawaii Legislature

A story published today in the Honlulu Advertiser reports that House Judiciary Chairman Eric Hamakawa and Rep. Ed Case yesterday introduced a bill to allow "civil unions" granting same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples all the legal rights of married couples under Hawaii state law.

It isn't clear how much support there is in the House for the measure, and some legislators don't want to go near the controversial proposal this year.

The story says that Hamakawa, D-3rd (S. Hilo, Puna), said he would have to discuss the issue with fellow Democrats and colleagues on the Judiciary Committee before he could say even whether the bill would be granted a hearing.

Case, D-23rd (Manoa), said the House had become more conservative on social issues in recent years, and speculated that the bill would have an easier time passing the state Senate. Legislators were uncertain yesterday whether any senators would introduce a similar measure.

One legislator who would rather avoid the whole issue is Senate President Robert Bunda, D-22nd (Wahiawa, Waialua, Sunset Beach). Bunda said civil unions aren't a priority for the Senate, and recalled that the same-sex marriage debate split Democrats.

"We discussed and debated that issue long and hard, and it kind of divided the majority," he said. "I don't want to see that kind of division in the Senate. Let's not bring out issues that do that."

Case believes that the Legislature committed itself, however, in 1997 to provide same-sex couples with some of the benefits that married couples enjoy. Although legislators passed a reciprocal beneficiaries law that extended dozens of legal benefits to registered same-sex couples, Case said lawmakers should do more.

The original debate was triggered by three same-sex couples who sued to get the state to permit them legally to marry. The issue preoccupied the Legislature for years in the 1990s, and before it was over the controversy had angered thousands of voters and helped oust some Democrats from office in the 1996 elections. In 1997 lawmakers approved two bills in a compromise meant finally to resolve the contentious same-sex marriage issue.

One measure was a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the state Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The voters approved that amendment in the 1998 elections, assuring that same-sex marriages would not be legally recognized in Hawai'i.

The second bill granted to same-sex couples about 50 of the rights and benefits of married couples, including family health insurance coverage, joint real property ownership, inheritance rights and survivorship benefits. Gov. Ben Cayetano allowed the reciprocal beneficiaries bill to become law without his signature, but a group of major Hawai'i employers sued a week later to challenge the law.

The story says that employers worried that the law could increase their health insurance costs dramatically by forcing them to buy coverage for employees' reciprocal beneficiaries. The case was settled later that year when the state and several Hawai'i companies agreed private companies would not be required to provide health coverage to reciprocal beneficiaries under the new law.

Most of the other benefits granted to same-sex couples are still in effect, and about 400 couples have registered under the law. Reciprocal beneficiary couples do not, however, enjoy hundreds of the rights and benefits of married couples under state law.  For example, members of same-sex couples cannot file joint tax returns, and don't have the same survivor's rights to their partners' pensions.

The bill introduced by Case and Hamakawa would repeal and replace the 1997 reciprocal beneficiaries law with a new legal relationship, "civil unions." This would be a legal contract between partners of the same or opposite sex, and would grant them all of the legal rights and obligations now enjoyed by married couples.

That would also include alimony and similar responsibilities.

Bunda said that while the Democratic Party's Central Committee had passed a resolution pushing for civil unions, there doesn't seem to be a united movement for it. He said party officials didn't bring up the issue when they met with him this week.

Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Washington state's high court to decide survivor rights of same-sex couples

A story published today in the Seattle Times reports that the Washington state Supreme Court will soon decide whether same-sex partners in marriage-like relationships have the same property rights afforded unmarried heterosexual couples under state law.

Robert Schwerzler and Frank Vasquez lived and worked together for nearly 30 years, running a burlap-bag recycling business out of the Puyallup home they shared. When Schwerzler died in 1995 at the age of 78, the entire estate - a modest three-bedroom rambler, two cars, furniture and an annuity - was in his name.  He has no will.

The Washington state Supreme Court will soon decide who owns that property, a case that could determine whether same-sex partners in marriage-like relationships have the same property rights afforded unmarried heterosexual couples.

Vasquez insists he and Schwerzler were life partners in a marriage-like relationship and as such he deserves a share of the estate, valued at $230,000, under state common law.

But Schwerzler's surviving brother and two sisters say that as blood relatives the estate rightfully belongs to them.

Terry Barnett, Vasquez's attorney, says that even though the couple was extremely private about their relationship, "everything they did, they did together,'' he said. "They were a couple."

In 1997, a trial judge gave ownership of all the joint property to Vasquez, who claimed to have been in a "meretricious" or marital-like relationship with Schwerzler.

This state does not recognize common-law marriage, and community-property law applies only to people who are legally man and wife.

But over the years, the courts in Washington have developed what is called "meretricious relationship" common law so that property can be divided fairly between people who have lived together a long time but never married.

Barnett argues that the law is gender-neutral and has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but rather with building property during a relationship that has the characteristics of a marriage.

A state appeals court reversed that decision last February.

The appeals court unanimously decided Vasquez may not share in his deceased partner's possessions and business because the state's meretricious-relationship law applies only to people who can legally marry if they so choose. State law does not allow same-sex couples to marry.

"We find no precedent for applying marital concepts, either rights or protections to same-sex relationships," wrote Judge Carroll Bridgewater."... (A)ll of the reported cases concerning `meretricious relationships' have been between men and women ,and community-property law clearly applies only to opposite-sex relationships."

The court said it was up to the Legislature to decide if same-sex relationships should receive that kind of legal recognition.

The state Supreme Court agreed to take the case last fall and will hear oral arguments on Feb. 13.

Until the case is decided, Vasquez has been allowed to remain in the home he shared with Schwerzler.

The story says that Vasquez cannot read or write because of a childhood head injury and receives disability, Barnett says.

Over the years, he sometimes expressed concern in the presence of a friend about what would happen if he were ever left alone, Barnett says.

But that friend testified in an affidavit that Schwerzler always comforted Vasquez by saying "Frank had nothing to worry about.  Bob had seen to it that Frank would never want for anything and would be set for life. "

Monday, January 22, 2001

Lawsuit and bill both seek to stop same-sex partner benefits for Washington state workers

A story published today in the Advocate reports that a Republican state senator, a state employee, and a retired teacher have sued the state of Washington, saying the Public Employees Benefits Board does not have the authority to offer insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

The board voted in May to extend the benefits, which went into effect January 1.

“In my mind, homosexuality is a dangerous and destructive habit for the people who engage in it,” said Sen. Dan Swecker, one of the three who filed the suit. “While it’s not my job to condemn or judge them, I think the state has to be careful about what it decides to endorse and subsidize.”

Swecker also introduced legislation this week with the same goal as the lawsuit.

The lawsuit contends that the board does not have the authority to extend benefits to unmarried partners. The suit goes on to recognize the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

“In order to award the benefit, [the Public Employees Benefits Board] has to define the relationship,” said Jordan Lorence, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “That is something only the legislature can do.” The plaintiffs’ expenses are being paid by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a group whose Web site declares that it “will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, sanctity of life, and family values.”

Assistant attorney general Alan Copsey, who will represent the board, said the lawsuit, which is scheduled for a March 30 hearing, has “absolutely no basis in fact.” Washington governor Gary Locke, who is a Democrat and is named in the suit, is preparing a response, according to aide Ahndrea Blue. “The governor is a strong supporter of health benefits for all domestic partners,” Blue said. “He wants it for everyone.”