Domestic Partnership News Archive
August 01 - August 06, 2001

Sunday, August 5, 2001

British ministers vote to give pensions to their domestic partners

A story published today by the Sunday Express reports that unmarried British ministers who voted to give their partners the same pension rights as husbands and wives came under fire last night for failing to provide the same security for ordinary workers.

Last month 38 members of the Government voted for the move and now campaigners are demanding the law must be changed to give the same entitlement to doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and local government workers.

But Liberal Democrat health spokesman Evan Harris, who proposed the MPs' amendment, called for everyone with public sector pensions to benefit.

He said: "People simply won't understand why well-paid Government ministers and their partners will now be able to receive these benefits in their public sector pension schemes while at the same time denying these same benefits to low-paid public sector workers.

"This is straightforward discrimination against couples who are financially interdependent but unmarried and it is for the Government to legislate to end this discrimination."

Yesterday a spokesman for the GMB union, said: "There is a clear case of hypocrisy here. Ministers cannot award themselves rights while at the same time denying them to nurses, doctors, teachers and other workers. Tony Blair must move to end this anomaly without delay."

A TUC spokeswoman said: "We want fairness and consistency in pension rights. The Government has accepted the principle of equality, but we want to see them putting that principle in place."

Saturday, August 4, 2001

British unions call for pensions for unmarried partners

A story published today by the Times (London) reports that British unions from the public sector are calling for unmarried partners to have the same entitlement as spouses to a widow's pension in the wake of the row over the Ministry of Defense's decision to deny a pension to the girlfriend of a soldier who was killed in action.

British lawmakers (MPs) have just voted to amend the rules of their own pension scheme to provide unmarried partners with a pension on the death of their loved one, but more than half of all public sector schemes discriminate against non-spouses.

Anna Homsi's partner, Brad Tinnion, a 28-year-old trooper in the SAS, was killed while rescuing six British soldiers held hostage in Sierra Leone a year ago. The MoD grudgingly agreed this week to reach a settlement with his partner, Ms Homsi, who has been denied a 18,000 GBP yearly pension, even though she is the mother of his eight-month-old daughter.

Glyn Jenkins, head of pensions at Unison, the public sector union, said that Ms Homsi's plight highlighted the issue facing many public servants and their partners.

 Any changes to the rules of a public sector pension scheme need to be approved by Parliament, but before that stage the scheme members need to agree that it is necessary. Changes in benefits are likely to mean higher contributions from members. As Mr. Jenkins points out, many public sector employees already pay up to 6 percent of their salaries into pension schemes.

In contrast to the public sector, just 12 percent of private schemes, refuse to pay pensions to unmarried partners, says the National Association of Pension Funds.

Thursday, August 2, 2001

Milwaukee City Council approves union contract extending health benefits to unmarried couples

A story published today by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that with four aldermen switching votes, the Common Council reversed itself Thursday and approved a contract with the city's largest union that extends health benefits to all unmarried couples, not just same-sex ones.

The 10-7 vote came after a contentious debate over public policy, private morality and financial reality.

Supporters of the new two-year agreement with District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said the cost of extending the benefits - an estimated $220,000 a year, if applied to all city workers - was small when compared with the potential $1.5 million a year loss if an arbitrator gave the union higher pay increases than those in the deal.

But the actual costs could be higher, since it is hard to predict how many city workers will sign up for the benefits. And critics argue that it will be difficult to monitor when unmarried relationships begin and end, raising the risk of fraud.

The city added unmarried opposite-sex couples to the package to make it an easier sell with skittish aldermen, some of whom cited fears of a lawsuit by opposite-sex couples when voting against the initial deal.

Thursday's council debate included scripture quotations and aldermen saying the vote had left them seeking guidance from above. But in the end, most looked to the financial bottom line.

In addition to Ald. Jeff Pawlinski, Aldermen Terrance Herron and Rosa Cameron also supported the new deal after opposing the same-sex-only version. Ald. Michael Murphy switched in the opposite direction, saying he could justify a vote for same-sex-only benefits, since homosexuals cannot get married, but not for opposite-sex couples, who can.

With the vote, Milwaukee joins a small group of government entities - including Madison; Dane County; the Madison School District; and Bloomington, Ind. - that offer what are termed "domestic partner" benefits to all unmarried couples.

The contract covers 2001 and 2002, though the provision extending health and dental coverage and funeral leave to unmarried couples won't kick in until 2002. The contract includes pay increases of 2.5% this year and 3% next year, lower than those in recent contracts in several suburbs.

In addition to Pawlinski, Herron and Cameron, those voting for the contract were Aldermen Mike D'Amato, Paul Henningsen, Marlene Johnson-Odom, Fred Gordon, Don Richards, Angel Sanchez and Marvin Pratt.

Opposed were Murphy and Aldermen Jim Bohl, Bob Donovan, Annette Scherbert, Sue Breier, Tom Nardelli and Willie Hines.

Mayor John O. Norquist, whose labor negotiator accepted the union's request for the same-sex benefits without advance council approval, could sign the contract as early as today. The union ratified the deal on Monday.

"If they had turned it down again, we would have been going into arbitration with almost no chance of winning," Norquist said Thursday.

"I don't think people will abuse this," he added. "It's something that is increasingly common in (private) employee benefits packages and public sector packages as well."

New York Surrogate Court judge approves adoption by lesbian partner

A story released today by Staten Island Advance reports that Surrogate Court Judge John Fusco yesterday allowed a local woman to adopt the twins of her lesbian partner.  His ruling marks the third time an adoption has been approved to a same-sex couple in Richmond County, and the first for a lesbian couple.

"Everybody that comes into the Surrogate Court are bonded together either by some type of relationship, blood, love or whatever," Surrogate Fusco said in his decision.   "There is nothing in my adoption files that is of any significance [to prevent the adoption].  We understand it is a really good reason, absolutely, as with married couples, the same thing.  Here is  the magical wand."

The judge waved his pen before the couple and their children. The ruling reflects a growing acceptance on Staten Island of co-parent adoption for same-sex couples, and is one that gay and lesbian rights advocates hope will galvanize homosexual couples to pursue adoption.

The lesbian couple, are one of thousands of same-sex parents raising children in New York since a state court decided in 1995 that a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, does not have to be married to adopt a child.

Because no state recognizes marriage between homosexuals, the ruling is particularly important to same-sex couples trying to adopt in New York.

The opinion states that family courts must still decide whether the adoption is in the child's best interest.

But the couple's adoption of the twins carries other potential benefits to the children, says Sal Iacullo, co-founder of Center Kids, a Midland Beach-based support group for gay and lesbian couples considering adoption.

For instance, in the event that the domestic partners decide to separate, the twins would retain their filial ties to both parents. Had adoption been denied, one partner would have no right to visit the twins, even if it were demonstrated in court that denying visitation would be harmful to them, Iacullo said.

Only three states, Florida, Mississippi and Utah, have statutes prohibiting lesbian and gay adoptions, according to data provided by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a Manhattan-based gay and lesbian rights organization. There are 22 states, including New York, that have granted second-parent adoptions, said David Buckel, a Lambda senior staff attorney.

In each state, the final decisions are made by a family or surrogate court judge who considers the child's "best interest" -- a subjective term that is interpreted differently among judges, according to the National Adoption Center in Philadelphia.

"That term gives judges a lot of latitude," said Gloria Hochman, the center's director of communications.  "There are some judges, in some places, who feel that [same-sex couple adoption] is not appropriate and they bring their feelings to the case, and we know some have done that."

New Jersey Court allows same-sex partner to hyphenate last name

A story released today by the Associated Press reports that a New Jersey woman will be allowed to hyphenate her last name to include that of her longtime partner, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

A lower court judge had ruled that a name change would create the false impression that Jill Bacharach and her partner were married.

Thursday's ruling ordered that same judge to sign the paper that will change the woman's surname to Bacharach-Bordman.

Name change applications are commonly rejected if attorneys prove a person is seeking to avoid prosecution or debt, or to perpetuate a fraud.

Bacharach testified that she wanted to show she was committed to someone and that the two were a family.

Those who filed briefs opposing recognition of the name change said it would provide a "form of legitimacy'' to same-sex relationships that was contrary to the state's policy.

Judge Donald G. Collester, however, disagreed.

"The legitimacy of such relationships is well-established,'' he wrote, citing the state's law against discrimination and court decisions giving parental rights to same-sex partners.

Wednesday, August 1, 2001

German domestic partners allowed to exchange vows