|
Archive Version of Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples Founded 1986. Online 1995-2022 Go here for a brief article on Partners History. Demian, Sweet Corn Productions, demian@buddybuddy.com |
Governments Offering Benefits
Demian | |||||||||||||||
| U.S. Governments |
|
United States
All Federal workers (2009, expanded 2010)
= President Obama issued a June 2009 memo
offering benefits to same-sex partners.
Benefits: long-term care insurance,
expanded sick leave, and medical
evacuation rights.
= President Obama directed all
government agencies - except
for the military - to expand
benefits to include same-sex
partners on June 2, 2010.
Benefits: family assistance services,
hardship transfers and relocation
expenses; some agencies could permit
credit union and gym memberships,
counseling services, adoption
counseling attending agency events
or outings, vision insurance,
business travel insurance, physical
exams, homeowner�s insurance.
Note: The expansion is tempered by the
phrase �to the extent permitted by law,�
which relates to the so-called �Defense of
Marriage Act� (prohibiting Federal recognition
of same-sex marriage), and the so-called
�Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell� law
(prohibiting known homosexuals
from serving in the military).
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA)
Civil Service
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
Department of Housing (HUD)
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
House of Representatives
Office of Personnel Management (1994)
Benefits: Sick leave only, but can be
used for any health care or funeral.
U.S. Military No known benefits. Alabama No known benefits. Alaska
In 2014, Alaska gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Alaska State Employees
Note: In October 2005, the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled that the state and the
Municipality of Anchorage, must offer
benefits to same-sex partners of public
employees. Denying such benefits was
unconstitutional. In January 5, 2006,
the state asked for at least a year to
deal with the complexities. Gov. Frank
Murkowski vowed to fight the ruling by
amending the Alaska Constitution if
necessary. If granted, the year�s
delay could give him the time
to mount an opposition.
Juneau, Alaska
American Samoa No known benefits. Arizona
In 2014, Arizona gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Arizona State Employees (2008)
Benefits: Medical for state employees
Note 1: Under former Governor Janet Napolitano
(now Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security) Arizona offered employee benefits
to domestic partners in 2008. In June 2009,
the Arizona Senate passed SB 1145, which,
among other things, changes the definition of
the word �dependent� to specifically remove
domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.
Governor Jan Brewer signed the law in
September 2009. Spousal benefits for
heterosexual workers remain, while the
benefits for same-sex partners expired
in October 2010.
Note 2: In November 2009, Lambda Legal sued
(in Collins v. Brewer) based on the denial
of equal pay for equal work, an
unconstitutionally inflicted hardship on a
targeted group of Arizona families.
In July 2010, U.S. District Court Judge
John Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction to
block enforcement of the discriminatory law,
and denied Arizona�s motion to dismiss the case.
The state immediately appealed to the Ninth
Circuit. On October 20, 2010, the Columbia Law
School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic filed
an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals to recognize that discrimination
based on sexual orientation demands the most
stringent constitutional standard courts use
to review state and federal law.
Phoenix, Arizona (August 1, 2000)
Benefits: Medical, life and other insurance benefits;
offered to same-and opposite-sex couples.
Note: To qualify, employees must have lived
together for at least one year and present
evidence of financial interdependence; not
required of legally married partners. All
five unions negotiated the benefits into
their two-year contracts. Most union benefits
are routinely extended to non-union employees
to save the city extra administration costs.
Pima County, Arizona
Benefits: Medical, dental.
Note: Survived suit by county attorney�s office;
judge ruled, March 1998, to allow benefits
slotted to begin eight months earlier.
Scottsdale, Arizona (2001)
Tempe, Arizona (July 1999)
Benefits: Same-and opposite-sex couples.
Tucson, Arizona (1997)
Benefits: Same-sex only.
Note: Must sign affidavit stating they are
committed to a long-term, monogamous relationship.
Arkansas
Eureka Springs, Arkansas (registry 2007)
(city worker benefits 1020)
Benefits for city workers: medical
provided by the Arkansas Municipal League;
for both same- and opposite-sex partners
of city workers. Active from January 1, 2011.
Note 1: From Eureka Springs Mayor Dani Joy:
�I am aware as well as you that some will
construe this as a �gay issue,� but the
reality is that there are many heterosexual
couples who chose to live together in a
committed relationship - as a family -
without entering into the civil contract of
marriage. These folks face the same �family�
challenges every day, not the least of
which is providing health care for
themselves and for those who are
dependent on them. � The definition of
family is at the center of our concerns.�
Benefits for general registration: None.
For both same- and opposite-sex couples.
Available to anyone in the country.
Couple must certify that they �are in
a committed relationship, not involved
in another domestic partnership, and
intend to be domestic partners indefinitely.�
The Eureka Springs City Council unanimously
passed the domestic partner registry
ordinance on May 14, 2007.
Effective June 13, 2007.
Note 2: Signing up for the registry gets
you a certificate bearing the signature
of the Mayor and the City Clerk. The
ordinance was originally intended to
encourage employers to provide
benefits for couples, who do not want
to, or are unable to be married.
Eureka Springs Domestic Partner Registry fee $35
Eureka Springs Domestic Partner Registry Termination fee $20
California
In 2008, California gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
California State (January 2000)
Note 1: Previous to the 2001 bill, the
registry offered no benefits to the
public, but there was medical coverage
with California Public Employees
Retirement System for same-sex domestic
partners who signed the state registry;
$10 registry fee. Registry requires
couples to cohabit and accept
responsibility for each other�s
living expenses - not necessarily
requirements of legal marriage.
Implemented January 1, 2000.
Note 2: California offers extensive
benefits through their domestic
partnership registration. When it first
became law on January 1, 2000, there
were very limited benefits. It was
expanded, on January 1, 2002, to
include 12 more benefits. It was
again expanded on January 1, 2003 to
include scores of benefits and responsibilities.
[Article: Domestic Partner Registration:
The California Approach]
Note 3: On January 1, 2007, eight
laws took effect which address gay
and lesbian issues, including: tax
filings, court proceedings,
discrimination protections, funding
for domestic-violence prevention among
same-sex couples, and allowing
registered domestic partners to file
joint state income-tax returns in 2008.
Also, any business or other entity
that contracts with the state must
provide the same benefits to domestic
partners as it does to married spouses,
similar to a policy first implemented
by San Francisco in 1997, as well as
by Los Angeles, Berkeley, Oakland, and
San Mateo County.
Note 4: All the new laws were sponsored
by Equality California.
Alameda County, California
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
Alameda County, California
Benefits: Medical.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Francisco, California
Berkeley, California (1984)
Note: The first municipality to offer
benefits on December 5, 1984, by an
8-1 vote of the Berkeley City Council.
City requires contractors to provide
domestic partner benefits.
Berkeley Unified School District, California
Claremont, California
Fremont, California
Benefits: Medical. For police officers.
Note: Extends coverage through the
state�s Public Employees� Retirement
System. To be paid out of existing
funds, so does not impact the budget.
Healdsburg, California
Benefits: Medical.
Laguna Beach, California
Benefits: Medical.
Laguna Beach Unified School District, California (2001)
Benefits: Medical. For same- and
opposite sex partners. Required to
cohabit, be in a monogamous relationship,
and financially support each other - NOT
required of legally married partners.
Implemented September 12, 2001.
Los Alamos National Laboratory, California
Los Angeles, California (1999)
Note: All business contracted for more
than $5,000 with Los Angeles that offer
benefits to their opposite-sex married
workers must also offer them to same-sex
partners. Adopted November 1999.
L.A. City strengthened the ordinance
on February 12, 2003.
Los Angeles, California
Benefits: Medical. For same- and opposite-sex partners.
Los Angeles County, California (August 2003)
Benefits: Medical, dental. For same- and
opposite-sex partners. Added death
benefits for partners of retired county
employees on August 26, 2003.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan, CA Transportation Authority
Los Angeles Unified School District, California
Marin County, California
Benefits: Medical.
Modesto, California
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision, cancer or
life insurance; same-sex only.
Note: Will not cost the district anything
because employees get up to $223 a month
in their paychecks to buy their own
coverage from the California Public
Employees� Retirement System.
Oakland, California (2002)
Note: All contractors who do at
least $25,000 worth of business with
the city, and who already pay for
benefits for their employees�
spouses, are required to extend equal
benefits to domestic partners who are
registered with the city or another
government agency. Implemented summer 2002.
Oakland, California (1997)
Benefits: Dental, vision.
Note: While adopting a definition of
domestic partners in 1993, the city
was unable to wrangle a full medical
benefit package from the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) for
employees� partners until 1997.
Benefits were originally for same-
sex only, but a court ruling made it
available for all after April 1998.
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, California
Note: Requires contractors to provide
domestic partner benefits.
Petaluma, California
Benefits: Vision, dental, bereavement, sick leave.
Note: Couples required to live together at
least six consecutive months; not required of
legally married partners.
Sacramento, California
Sacramento County, California (September 2002)
Benefits: Medical, dental; required to sign
California state domestic partner registration;
same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over
age 62.
Note: Employer does not pay any part of
benefits, thereby costing workers a
monthly $200-500 for medical and nearly
$40 for dental; adopted September 11, 2002.
Sacramento Para Transit
San Bruno, California (February 2001)
Benefits: Medical, dental.
Note 1: Bereavement coverage was being
negotiated in union contracts.
Note 2: Affidavit requires partners to
be responsible for each other�s common
welfare, including basic living expenses
- defined as �the cost of basic food,
shelter and any other expense of a
domestic partner.� Neither partner may
have had another domestic partner within
the past twelve months. None of these
restrictions are required of
legally married partners.
San Diego, California
Benefits: Medical)
San Francisco, California (city & county) (1996)
Note: All business contracted with
San Francisco that offer benefits to
their opposite-sex married workers must
also offer them to same-sex partners.
The city reported that personnel costs
to companies increase by less than
2 percent. Adopted 1996.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Jose, California (March 2004)
Benefits: Medical.
Note: Originally allowed workers who had
entered �into marriages which are valid
in the jurisdiction� where the vows were
performed to participate in the city�s
benefits program. In December 2005 a
Santa Clara County Superior Court judge
ruled that San Jose cannot offer benefits
to the same-sex partners of its employees
based only on a marriage certificate. It
can still offer them based on obtaining
the state domestic partnership registration.
San Jose School District, California
Note: Certain unionized employees; bereavement
and/or family illness leave.
San Luis Obispo, California
Benefits: Medical.
San Mateo County, California
Benefits: For municipal employees.
Note: Requires contractors to provide
domestic partner benefits.
Santa Barbara, California
Benefits: Medical, dental.
Note 1: Must cohabit, �share the common
necessities of life,� not be married
to anyone, be at least 18, be each
other�s sole domestic partner, intend
to remain so indefinitely and �are
responsible for each others common
welfare,� and have not filed a
Statement of Termination of Domestic
Partnership within the last 6 months.
Note 2: A suit failed to prevent
benefits in December 1998. It was
brought by �Citizens for Accountable
Government� which is aided by the
�American Center for Law and Justice�,
founded by Pat Robertson.
Santa Cruz, California
Benefits: Medical.
Santa Cruz County, California
Benefits: Medical.
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit System, California
Santa Cruz Operation, California
Santa Rosa, California
Benefits: Medical.
Sebastopol, California (2003)
Benefits: Medical.
Sonoma County, California (2003)
Benefits: Medical; both same-and opposite-sex.
Ventura County, California
Benefits: Medical.
West Hollywood, California (1985)
Benefits: Medical.
Note: West Hollywood may have been the first, in 1985,
to use the phrase �Domestic Partner.�
Colorado
Aspen, Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
Denver, Colorado (1997)
Benefits: Medical. Implemented January 1997.
Note: Two city residents sued, claiming the
city violated state law. The judge threw out
the case. The Appeals Court ruled in Oct. 1998:
�The power to grant group health insurance
benefits to spousal equivalents is a matter
of local concern subject only to the
limitations imposed by the city charter.�
Eagle County, Colorado (2007)
Benefits: Medical. Approved in 2006, implemented 2007.
Note: County Human Resources Director Nora Fryklund:
�We�re just trying to be fair to everyone who works here.�
Glendale, Colorado (2002)
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision.
For same-sex only. Required to be a �committed
relationship,� live together and to show three
forms of proof that they are financially
dependent upon one another - not required
of legal marriage. Implemented 2002.
Connecticut
In 2008, Connecticut gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[Please see: Connecticut Legal Marriage]
Connecticut State Employees (2000)
Benefits: Medical, retirement; does NOT include
family sick leave, state or federal FMLA,
family funeral benefits and others. For same-sex
state workers only. The domestic partner of
the employee may be eligible for the
pre-retirement death benefit if the employee
had a Domestic Partnership Affidavit on file
with the Retirement Division for at least
one year.
Requirements: �must reside together, must be
mutually dependent upon each other� -
not required of legal marriage; effective
March 10, 2000.
Note: Retirement benefits resulted from
arbitration. Extended to all classified and
unclassified employees (including employees of
higher education, judicial and legislative) not
represented by a collective bargaining agent.
Note: As of October 1, 2005, all Connecticut
businesses must allow workers to add same-sex
partners as beneficiaries to their employment
benefits. The law requires that �parties to a
civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections and responsibilities as granted
to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as
the union of one man and one woman.�
Hartford, Connecticut
Mansfield, Connecticut
Newington, Connecticut School District (July 2005)
Benefits: Medical, same-sex only; negotiated union contract
mid-December 2004, effective July 1, 2005.
Delaware
In 2013, Delaware gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Delaware State Employees
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
District of Columbia
In 2009, DC gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
District of Columbia (2001)
Benefits: Medical, family and medical leave.
For both same- and opposite-sex couples.
Note 1: Requires partners to pay the full
cost of benefits. The same law for benefits
also created a domestic partner
registration which allows familial rights
at hospitals, nursing homes and adoption
agencies. In addition, it gives a tax
break to private sector employers that
offer health insurance benefits to domestic
partners. Known as the District of Columbia
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992,
it was blocked by �social riders� the
U.S. Congress has attached to D.C. budget
bills since 1992. It was finally allowed
to be enacted in December 2001.
Note 2: On May 06, 2009, passed law which
recognizes same-sex legal marriage from
other states. Effective July 7, 2009.
Florida
In 2014, Florida gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Bay�Harbor Islands (2013)
LGBT town employees can get the same rights
and benefits as all other city employees.
The Town Council unanimously passed a
Domestic Partnership Ordinance in
mid-March 2013. Jordan W. Leonard, Bay Harbor
Islands Vice Mayor: �With a minimal fiscal
impact, this ordinance will make our town
more competitive and fairer in retaining
and recruiting the highest quality of
employees, regardless of their personal
sexual orientation.
I am proud to have sponsored such legislation.�
Broward County, Florida (1999)
Benefits: Medical, extends COBRA-like benefits.
Note: January 1999, the County Commission
offered preference points to county contract
bidders who extend spousal benefits to
unmarried employees. In September, 2000, a
Florida appeals court rejected a legal
challenge to the ordinance by the
Northstar Legal Foundation, a radical right-
wing law firm in Fairfax, Virginia.
Broward County School District, Florida
Delray Beach, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Florida Attorney General�s Office (2007)
Benefit: Sick leave. In December 2007, Bill McCollum
implemented the policy allowing for employees of the
AG to care for domestic partners. Policy implemented
at the suggestion request of Florida�s Chief
Financial Officer, Alex Sink.
Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (2008)
Benefits: Sick leave - January 2008.
Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), Florida (2007)
Benefits: Sick leave - effective October 2007.
Note: DFS employs 2,560 Floridians.
Florida�s Chief Financial Officer Alex
Sink implemented the policy at the
request of the Palm Beach County
Human Rights Council.
Gainesville, Florida
Benefits: Medical, extends COBRA-like benefits.
Health Care District of Palm Beach County, Florida (2007)
Benefits: Medical - October 2008.
Hialeah, Florida
Juno Beach (2008)
Benefits: Bereavement leave.
Note: Revised definition of �immediate
family� to include an employee�s
�significant other� for purpose of bereavement, January 2008.
Jupiter, Town of, Florida (2007)
Benefits: Medical, dental, family leave.
Note: Voted by the Jupiter Town Council on March 6, 2007.
Key West, Florida (1998)
Benefits: Medical, extends COBRA-like benefits to
municipal employees. For same-sex only. Implemented 1998.
Lake Worth, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Miramar, Florida (2001)
Miami, Florida (2009)
Benefits: Medical.
Note 1: The City of Miami Commission voted
5-0 to adopt the Domestic Partnership
Ordinance on June 11, 2009.
Note 2: Commissioner Marc Sarnoff: �Providing
employment benefits, including health care,
to the domestic partners of our City of Miami
employees is a common sense idea that has been
far too long in coming. This is nothing more
than treating people equally. I am proud to
say our City is doing the right thing.�
Note 3: Chairman Commissioner Joe Sanchez:
�This allows us to recruit and retain the best
and brightest workers for the City of Miami by
offering benefits to domestic partners. This
reaffirms our strong belief that all people
are equal in Miami, the City of diversity.�
Note 4: Adoption of the benefits were
supported by the efforts of Safeguarding American
Values for Everyone (SAVE), Dade�s Executive
Director C.J. Ortuno, former Executive Director
Heddy Pena, SAVE�s Political Committee, and
many volunteers, including those from Equality
Florida. Assistance in developing the
ordinance language came from the LGBT Advocacy
Project of the ACLU of Florida.
Miami Beach, Florida (2001)
Benefits: Sick, annual, bereavement leave.
Note 1: In November 2001, voters approved
giving medical benefits to city employees�
domestic partners, and also approved
offering survivor benefits to the domestic
partners of police officers and firefighters.
Note 2: In 2006 the City of Miami Beach
passed an ordinance, which requires
businesses with 51 or more employees,
and contracts worth more than $100,000,
to offer benefits to domestic partners
of their own employees.
Miami-Dade County, Florida (2008)
Benefits: Medical.
Note: Voted in May 2008.
Miami-Dade County School District, Florida
Monroe County, Florida (1998)
Benefits: Medical, sick, bereavement,
parental leave; implemented 1998;
extends COBRA-like benefits.
North Miami, Florida (2006)
Benefits: Medical. For both same- and
opposite-sex couples. Offered since
October 2006.
Note: On December 12, 2007, the North Miami
City Council adopted, by a 5-0 vote,
a new Procurement Ordinance which
requires contractors with 40 or more
employees, bidding on contracts worth
more than $75,000, to provide domestic
partner benefits to their own employees.
Mayor Kevin Burns took the lead
introducing the legislation.
Office of the Clerk and Comptroller, Florida (2007)
Benefits: Medical, providing employees�
domestic partners and children with the same
coverage as is provided to married employees�
families under COBRA - June 2007.
Office of the Property Appraiser, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Office of the Supervisor of Elections, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Office of the Tax Collector, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Palm Beach County Community College (2008)
Benefits: Medical - September 2008.
Palm Beach County, Florida (2006)
Benefits: Medical, sick and bereavement leave,
life insurance, long term disability, dental,
and vision voted October 18, 2005 and
effective on January 1, 2006.
Note: Under a plan adopted by the County
Commissioners in 2005, County employees with
domestic partners have paid monthly premiums
of $441 for the family health insurance
coverage, while married employees paid
only $92 for the same insurance. When the
plan was adopted, Commissioner Karen Marcus
promised to revisit the premium differential
within a year. �After examining the cost,
the County Commissioners have concluded
that there is no reason to charge employees
with domestic partners significantly higher
premiums for the family coverage,� said
Rand Hoch, Founder of the Palm Beach County
Human Rights Council, a civil rights
organization encouraging domestic
partnership issues. On October 3, 2006, the
Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners unanimously voted to reduce
health insurance premiums charged to County
employees with domestic partners so that all
employees will pay the same premium
for family coverage.
Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Palm Beach County Sheriff�s Office, Florida (2007)
Benefits: Medical, sick leave, bereavement
leave, employee assistance plan, no life
insurance. For both same- and opposite-sex
couples - August 2007.
Palm Beach County School District, Florida
(2005; 2008 ruling equalized premium rates)
Benefits: Medical.
Note 1: In February 2008, the Palm Beach
County School Board unanimously voted to
expand the definition of �family� in the
School District's Leave of Absence policy
to include employees� domestic partners
and their children. The District has a
total of 21,000 employees.
This action came about due to
extensive lobbying by the Palm Beach
County Human Rights Council (PBCHRC),
beginning in 2005. However, the
district charged employees with domestic
partners at least $4,200 per year more
for the same coverage.
Note 2: In September 2008, medical coverage
was extended to children of employees�
domestic partners, effective January 1, 2009.
This action was due to the PBCHRC filing
discrimination charges. The Palm Beach County
Office of Equal Opportunity ruled in 2008 that
� while the School District claimed it was
not bound by county ordinance � the District
was in violation of the Palm Beach Equal
Employment Ordinance, which makes it illegal
for an employer to discriminate in the
provision of employment benefits, regardless
of an employee�s marital status.
Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (2007)
Benefits: Sick and bereavement leave;
access to the city�s Employee Assistance
Program. The City Council directed the
City Manager to provide the �no-cost�
benefits on June 28, 2007.
Effective November 2007.
Palm Beach Office of the Public Defender, Florida
Palm-Tran (Palm Beach County), Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Port of Palm Beach, Florida
Benefits: Medical.
Seacoast Utility Authority, Palm Beach Gardens (2008)
Benefits: Medical, dental, disability,
life insurance - November 2008.
Tallahassee, Florida (2009)
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision, and other
benefits coverage.
Note: The Tallahassee City Commission
unanimously voted to change its benefits policy
to include same-sex and domestic partnerships
on October 28, 2009. Employees need to provide
proof for benefits, such as joint rental leases
or a mortgage and joint-bank accounts.
Tampa, Florida (2004)
Benefits: Medical insurance for all city employees.
Note: Mayor Pam Iorio issued an Executive
Order on March 11, 2004.
Tequesta, Florida (2008)
Benefits: Expanded the definition of �immediate
family� to include domestic partners. Effective
in contracts through September 30, 2010, between
the Village of Tequesta and the Professional
Fire Fighters/Paramedics of Palm Beach County,
the Communications Workers of America, and the
Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association.
West Palm Beach, Florida (1992)
Benefits: Medical; for both same-and
opposite-sex couples; includes extending
benefits the same as COBRA; effective
January 1, 2007.
Note: The Federal COBRA law applies only
to married employees � not to employees with
domestic partners. When a City employee dies,
the surviving domestic partner will have the
same option as a surviving married spouse to
continue on the city�s health insurance plan
for up to eighteen months. A domestic partner
will pay the same premium under the city�s
new policy that a surviving spouse would
pay under COBRA.
Wilton Manors, Florida
Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia (1999)
Benefits: Medical. Instituted 1993, implemented 1999.
Pensions instituted 2006.
Note: The first ordinance, which recognized
domestic partners as �a family relationship,� state
supreme court declared �unconstitutional.� The second
1997 ordinance was declared legal. State Insurance
Commissioner John Oxendine refused to approve the
ordinance because of his personal bias. The city of
Atlanta and Atlanta city Councilmember Cathy Woolard
(the state�s first openly gay or lesbian official)
sued Oxendine to force him to approve the ordinance.
On Sept. 22, 1999, the court ordered Oxendine to lift
his statewide prohibition against insurance
companies issuing policies covering domestic partners.
Mayor Shirley Franklin extended the benefits to
include city pensions in March 2006. As of May 2006,
fewer than 100 city employees used the benefits.
Decatur, Georgia
DeKalb County, Georgia
Doraville, Georgia (August 7, 2006)
Benefits: City Council voted, and was
immediately effective, on August 7, 2006.
East Point, Georgia (2005)
Benefits: Medical benefits. For same-sex partners only.
Note: City Council vote on January 18, 2005.
Fulton County, Georgia (2004)
Benefits: Medical, visitation rights at the
county jail, bereavement leave, death benefits
such as pension. For same-sex only. voted
July 2003, called �committed partner benefits�.
Implemented January 1, 2004.
Note: In May 2006, 19 of about 6,000 county
employees signed up for benefits. Providing
committed partner benefits costs
the county about $60,000 a year.
Pine Lake, Georgia
Guam No known benefits. Hawaii
In 2013, Hawaii gained extensive
benefits through full, legal marriage
for same-sex couples.
Hawaii first had a largely symbolic, and incomplete,
domestic partner registration process.
This was greatly expanded in January 2012.
See Civil Unions: The Hawaii Approach.]
Idaho
In 2014, Idaho gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
Illinois
In 2013, Illinois gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Illinois State (2006)
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision. For same-sex only.
Became law on May 8, 2006, effective July 1, 2006.
Note: There are a total of 57,000 Illinois state
workers, including about 37,000 union workers who
are members of the American Federation of State,
County & Municipal Employees who also receive
same-sex domestic partner benefits. The governor�s
office estimated that enrollment in these programs,
including union and non-union employees, may grow by
one-half of one percent, with an estimated
$2.2 million in increased liability annually.
Champaign City, Illinois (October 2005)
Note: City Council voted 9-zero for the
resolution extending employee benefits
to same-sex domestic partners.
Chicago, Illinois
Benefits: Medical, paid bereavement leave.
For same-sex only. Must be at least 18.
Required to cohabit. Not required of
legally married partners.
Cook County, Illinois
Benefits: Medical, bereavement. For same-sex only.
Note: Must prove, by joint checking or the like,
that they have cohabited for at least a year.
Not required of legally married partners.
Indiana
In 2014, Indiana gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Bloomington, Indiana
Iowa
In 2009, Iowa gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[Please see our article: Iowa Legal Marriage]
Iowa State Employees
Benefits: Medical. For same- and opposite-sex
partners. Partners required to have financial
entanglements - not a requirement of legally
married partners. Implemented July 2003 in a
two year contract.
Note: The medical benefit, requested in past
negotiations, was won by the largest state
employee union, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
Traditionally, the union contract, which
impacts 20,548 workers, is offered to hundreds
of non-union workers, however, that decision
had not been made as of February 27, 2003.
Iowa City, Iowa (2003)
Kansas No known benefits. Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky (2003)
Benefits: Medical. For both same- and opposite-sex
partners of city employees. Required to have been
in a �committed relationship� for six months, are at
least 18, and have proof of interdependence, such as
joint bank accounts, and they �are engaged in a
committed relationship of mutual caring and support�
- all NOT required of legally married partners.
Gained through mayoral executive order.
Implemented July 1, 2003.
Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana (July 1997)
Benefits: Same-sex only; medical, family medical
leave, bereavement benefits; access to city
recreational facilities.
Note 1: Implemented as an executive order by Mayor
Marc Morial in July 1997; codified by New Orleans
City Council unanimous vote in Sept. 20, 2001.
Note 2: Mike Johnson, who represented the radical,
right-wing Alliance Defense Fund, sued the city
in 2003 on behalf of a group of New Orleans taxpayers,
arguing that the domestic partners ordinance
violates provisions in state law that uphold
traditional marriage. Civil District Court Judge
Louis DiRosa dismissed the suit in May 2005,
before it got to trial, saying the plaintiffs had
no standing to sue because the law did not cost
them any tax money. On appeal, Johnson acknowledged
that the cost increase was minimal, but said state
law allows taxpayers to sue over any government
cost increase, however little. 4th Circuit Court
of Appeal dismissed the lawsuit on December 19, 2005,
saying, �We find that plaintiffs have not
established the minimal requisite interest, and
therefore lack the requisite interest sufficient
to afford him a right of action.�
Maine
In 2012, Maine gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Falmouth, Maine
Benefits: Medical for teachers.
Portland, Maine
Maryland
In 2013, Maryland gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Maryland State
Benefits: Domestic partners are exempted
from paying state inheritance tax on
certain property that passes to them
from their deceased domestic partner.
Maryland State Employees (2009)
Benefits: Medical (Employee and Retiree Health and
Welfare Benefit Program). Implemented July 1, 2009.
Note: Employee/retiree and the employee�s/retiree�s
domestic partner must be same-sex; at least 18;
not be related by blood or marriage within four
degrees of consanguinity; not married or in a
civil union or a domestic partnership with another
individual; �been in a committed relationship of
mutual interdependence for at least 12 consecutive
months in which each individual contributes to
some extent to the other individual�s maintenance
and support with the intention of remaining in the
relationship indefinitely;� and cohabit. Legally
married couples are not required to cohabit and
are not required to be economically co-dependent.
Baltimore, Maryland
Benefits: Same-sex partners only.
Baltimore County School System, Maryland
College Park, Maryland
Greenbelt, Maryland
Howard County, Maryland
Hyattsville, Maryland
Montgomery County, Maryland (March 2000)
Benefits: Medical, leave, survivor benefits; same-sex
partners only; for active and retired County employees;
effective March 3, 2000.
Note: Survived a court challenge by Pat Robertson�s
Virginia-based �American Center for Law and Justice.� That
lawsuit unsuccessfully claimed that the county lacked
authority to �redefine marriage and dependent� and cited
the state�s �sodomy� law. An appeal was filed and lost
in a unanimous ruling on June 14, 2002.
Mount Ranier, Maryland
Prince George�s County School Systems, Maryland
Takoma Park, Maryland
Massachusetts
In 2004, Massachusetts gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[Please see our article: Massachusetts Offers Legal Marriage]
Massachusetts State Employees (2001)
Benefits: Sick and bereavement leave, paid time off for
court appearances or counseling for victims of domestic
violence; effective for state social workers in 2001,
effective for other workers when their contracts are
negotiated following October 25, 2001 during the
following two years.
Note: For some years before the 2001 benefits to state workers,
management had sick and bereavement leave benefits.
Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan (1991)
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
Ann Arbor public school district, Michigan (2000)
Benefits: Medical, dental. For same-sex
only. Implemented 2000.
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
Detroit, Michigan
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision. For
same-sex and any under 65-year-old
blood relative qualifying as
employee�s IRS dependent.
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
East Lansing, Michigan
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
Ingham County, Michigan (2003)
Benefits: Same-sex only.
Effective Jan. 1, 2003.
Note: Board of Commissioners voted on
December 10, 2002 to extend same-sex
benefits to some county employees.
It was part of a package of changes in
benefits and pay increases for
non-union employees.
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan (June 1, 2000)
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
Washtenaw County, Michigan (March 1, 2001)
Benefits: Medical, dental, optical;
possibly only for same-sex couples.
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
Wayne County, Michigan
Note: All Michigan governmental benefit
plans for same-sex couples were briefly
voided by the 2005 state anti-marriage
constitutional amendment.
See �Benefits Denied� below: Michigan
Minnesota In 2013, Minnesota gained extensive benefits through full, legal marriage for same-sex couples. Minneapolis, Minnesota (2002) Note: All business contracted for more than $100,000 with Minneapolis will be required to provide same-and opposite-sex domestic partner benefits to their employees within a year. Adopted by the City Council on Dec. 13, 2002. The ordinance contains many exceptions, including development contracts, faith-based organizations, and businesses with 21 or fewer employees. Ironically, the city itself cannot provide employee benefits because state law forbids it. Minneapolis Public Library, Minnesota Minneapolis School District, Minnesota Minnesota Senate (senators and staff) (2002) Benefits: Same-sex only; senate approved January 29, 2002. Note: House Republican leaders object to benefits, refusing to extend them to House employees. St. Paul, Minnesota Mississippi No known benefits. Missouri No known benefits. Montana
Missoula County, Montana (April 2003)
Benefits: Implemented April 2003.
Nebraska No known benefits. Nevada
In 2014, Nevada gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
New Hampshire
In 2009, New Hampshire gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[See our article: New Hampshire Offers Legal Marriage]
Concord School District, New Hampshire (2002)
Benefits: Medical. For same-sex only. Implemented September 1, 2002.
Echo Consulting Services, New Hampshire
New Hampshire School Administrative Unit 34
Benefits: Covers school districts in
Deering, Hillsborough, Windsor, Washington.
Effective: September 20, 2005
Note: Employees may add domestic
partner insurance coverage at
their own expense.
Northwood, New Hampshire (June 2005)
Benefits: Medical, dental insurance
plan �rider�; costs partner, not
the town; affidavit required.
Effective July 1, 2005.
Note: Benefit was sparked by an
employee�s inquiry about obtaining
partner benefits. In January 2005,
Selectmen decided by majority vote
not to implement a health rider
for 2005, but revisit it later.
However, a group of citizens
circulated a petition to address
the issue at the March town meeting.
Voters approved implementation of the
rider. For Northwood to implement the
rider plan, the town needs 75 percent
participation by employees who have
live-in partners. As of June 17, 2005,
the town had three employees who were
not married - two of them need to
participate in order to implement the
program. Only one of those employees
had a live-in partner, and that couple
may be getting married soon. The town
recently offered vision health care,
but was unable to get the numbers
needed to participate in that plan.
Timberland, New Hampshire
West Lebanon, New Hampshire
Benefits: Medical.
New Jersey
In 2013, New Jersey gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
New Jersey State
�Domestic Partnership Act�
Benefits: Provides hospital visitation
and decision-making rights, an
inheritance tax exemption, and a state
income tax deduction for dependents.
Partners of state employees get medical
and pension coverage. Private employers
are not obligated to provide medical,
but all insurance companies must make
such coverage available to employers
who wish to make it part of their
employee benefits. The Act also outlaws
discrimination against domestic partners.
Applies to same-sex couples and
opposite-sex couples 62 and older.
Effective June 2004.
Note: Required to cohabit, show proof of
joint financial status or property ownership
or designation of the partner as the
beneficiary in a retirement plan or will;
these items are not required
of legal marriage.
[See: New Jersey: Domestic Partnership Act]
Bergen County, New Jersey
Berkeley Township, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical for all active and retired employees.
Note: Required to register as New Jersey domestic partners;
must share a residence and are �jointly responsible for each
other�s common welfare� through financial arrangements or
joint ownership of real and personal property. Township
Council unanimously voted for benefits on February 14, 2006.
Brick, (Ocean County), New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical, pension. Voted for benefits on February 7, 2006.
Camden County, New Jersey (January 2006)
Benefits: Medical and pension. Camden County Board of Chosen
Freeholders voted on January 19, 2006.
Gloucester County, New Jersey
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave; for CWA Local 1085.
Haddon Township, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Pension benefits. Township commissioners voted for Medical
benefits on April 26, 2006.
Hudson County, New Jersey
Jackson Township, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical, pension. The Jackson Township Committee voted
4-0 to grant the domestic partner benefits on February 6, 2006.
Note: The state pension system for most municipal employees
already permits them to leave their pension benefits to whomever
they choose, the Jackson resolution, in effect, extended
the same option to employees of their Police Department.
Jersey City, New Jersey (September 2005)
Benefits: Medical benefits offered to city employees who register
as domestic partners with the state. As of October 12, 2005,
pension benefits were included.
Mainland Regional High School Board of Education, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical
Note: Must register as New Jersey Domestic Partners.
[Articles: New Jersey: Domestic Partnership Act and
Registration for Domestic Partnership]
Maplewood, New Jersey (2004)
Mercer County, New Jersey (November 2005)
Benefits: Medical and pension benefits for same-sex partners
registered under the state�s Domestic Partnership Act. The Mercer
freeholders voted 6-0 to pass the resolution to provide the benefits.
Mercer County, New Jersey
Monmouth County, New Jersey
Morris County, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical, pension; for registered domestic partners of
county employees. Passed by unanimous vote of the all-Republican
freeholder board on February 28, 2006.
Mount Holly, New Jersey
Benefits: Pension benefits.
Mount Laurel, New Jersey
Benefits: Pension benefits.
Ocean County, New Jersey (January 2006)
Benefits: Extended pension benefits. For
same-sex couples 18+ or opposite-sex
couples 62+.
Note: Bowing to political pressure, the
freeholders in a special meeting on
January 25, 2006, adopted a resolution
authorizing county employees in the
Police and Fire Retirement System to
leave benefits to a domestic partner.
The vote came only after state Sen.
Andrew R. Ciesla (R-Ocean) announced on
January 13, 2006, he intended to author
legislation that would require equal
treatment of beneficiaries of the state
pension systems. The pressure was a
result of widespread publicity regarding
a Police and Fire Retirement System
employee, Lt. Laurel Hester - a dying
former investigator for the Ocean
County Prosecutor�s Office. She wished to
leave her spouse, Stacie Andree, the
ability to keep their home, which would
have been impossible without being able
to name her partner as beneficiary, which
state law permits. Since October 2005, the
freeholders had steadfastly refused to
extend the pension system to non-spouse
partners. The change followed several bitter
meetings, including one held in early
January at which Steven Goldstein, chairman
of Garden State Equality, a gay and lesbian
activist group, vowed to solicit funds
nationally to unseat the all-Republican freeholder board.]
Passaic County, New Jersey (January 18, 2006)
Benefits: Medical, dental; Freeholders voted 7-0 for
the benefits, effective immediately, January 18, 2006;
couples must register as domestic partners with a
municipal Vital Statistics Office; employees already
could leave pension benefits to anyone, regardless
of sexual orientation.
Pine Hill Board of Education, New Jersey
Benefits: Medical and pension.
Plainfield, New Jersey (2006)
Benefits: Medical, pensions. The City Council voted unanimously
on March 20, 2006, for a measure for medical coverage, and
a measure for pensions. There was no opposition.
Princeton Borough, New Jersey (2004)
South Orange, New Jersey (2004)
Stone Harbor, New Jersey
Benefits: Pension benefits.
Stratford, New Jersey
Benefits: Pension benefits.
Union County, New Jersey (2005)
Westville (borough), New Jersey (January 2006)
Benefits: Medical, pension benefits.
New Mexico
In 2013, New Mexico gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
New Mexico State Employees
Benefits: Domestic partnership benefits to state employees.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
New York
In 2011, New York gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[Please see our article: New York Offers Legal Marriage]
Note: New York State recognizes legal same-sex marriages
from other states. (2004)
New York State Employees
Benefits: Medical; for state workers.
Albany, New York
Albany County, New York
Brooklyn Public Library, New York
Note: Requires city registration plus a �Financial
Responsibility Form� indicating couples either have
wills in each other�s favor, share a bank account,
are on one lease, are on a joint credit card, or
have Durable Powers of Attorney.
Clarkstown School District, Rockland County, New York
Benefits: Medical. For same- and opposite-sex couples.
Required to cohabit and to be �be mutually
interdependent financially� - not required of
legally married partners.
Eastchester School District, New York (2003)
Greenburgh, New York (2002)
Ithaca, New York
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
Nassau County, New York (June 2004)
New Rochelle, New York (May 19, 2005)
Benefits: Required to register with the Westchester County
Clerk and affirm they have been together at least three
months - cohabit time not required of legally married couples.
Note: On December 2005, four residents sued the city in
federal court to end health benefits for unmarried
domestic partners of city employees, using the same attorney,
Raymond Belair, who fought same-sex partner benefits
in Eastchester. The Town Board rescinded that benefit in
January 2005 before the suit came to trial.
[See Eastchester under Benefits Denied below]
New York State Attorney�s Office
Benefits: Non-union staff only; includes attorneys.
New York, New York (1993)
Benefits: Domestic partner benefits for all municipal
workers. First implemented 1993. Expanded in June 1998,
gives all the registered domestic partners full equality
with married couples.
Note: City registration not enough to qualify for
benefits; also must sign affidavit and prove financial
interdependence w/lease or mortgage in both names,
joint banking/credit card, etc.; none are requirements
of legal marriage. Benefits survived two court challenges
by Pat Robertson-founded �American Center for Law & Justice.�
Rochester, New York
Rockland County, New York (2003)
Southern Westchester, New York (2003)
Note: 23 public school districts participate
in an insurance cooperative.
Syracuse Public School Teachers, New York (2007)
Benefits: Medical, prescription, dental, personal and
bereavement leave. For same-sex domestic partners of
Syracuse Teachers Association members.
School Board approved, October 10, 2007.
Enacted, January 1, 2008.
Note: The union already covered vision benefits
for same-sex partners.
Suffolk County, New York (2004)
Westchester County, New York
North Carolina
Carrboro, North Carolina
Note: Benefits survived hostile law suit in 1999.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Benefits: Medical, sick leave.
Note: Benefits survived hostile law suit in 1999.
Durham, North Carolina (2002)
Benefits: Medical, dental. For same-sex only.
Required to cohabit - not required of legal
marriage. City council approved on October 12, 2002.
Durham County, North Carolina (2003)
Benefits: Medical. For same-sex only. Approved on September 2, 2003.
Orange County, North Carolina
North Dakota No known benefits. Northern Mariana Islands No known benefits. Ohio
Athens, Ohio (2011)
Benefits: ?
City Council established the domestic partner registry.
Cincinnati, Ohio (2012)
Benefits: ?
Established by the City Council.
Cleveland, Ohio (2008)
For both same-and opposite-sex, 18 or older,
neither may be married, or in existing domestic
partnership with someone else. $55 fee.
Couples do not have to live in Cleveland.
City Council voted 13-7 for the law on
December 08, 2008. Mayor Frank Jackson
approved and registration became available
on May 7, 2009.
Benefits:?
While non-binding, it could prompt employers,
hospitals and other organizations to offer
rights and obligations typically available
only to those with a legal marriage. Or not.
Note 1: On October 1, 2010, in a unanimous
decision, the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Eighth Appellate District, upheld a lower
court�s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an
anti-gay group, Alliance Defense Fund, that
attempted to strip away the newly enacted
domestic partnership registry for
same-sex couples and their families.
Note 2: Efforts by local pastors to
eliminate the registry failed to gather
enough signatures to place the
issue on the ballot.
Cleveland Heights, Ohio (2002)
Benefits: Medical. For same-sex only.
Voted into law April 15, 2002.
Columbus, Ohio (2012)
Benefits: ?
Established by the City Council.
Cuyahoga County, Ohio (2012)
Medical benefits for the same-sex
partner of a County employees.
Same-sex only.
Both county employees and their
partners must submit sworn affidavits,
stating they have:
� Shared a home for at least six months
(cohabitation not required of married couples)
� Would marry if such a union were not
illegal in Ohio
� That they take responsibility for each
other�s welfare, and
� They intend to continue their �exclusive,
committed, and intimate relationship for
life.�
Same-sex couples must provide three
forms of evidence, including:
� Joint ownership of real estate or
joint tenancy or a residential lease
� Joint ownership of a vehicle
� Joint ownership of a bank account
� Joint loans
� A will, life insurance or retirement
plan designating the domestic partner
as primary beneficiary
� A certificate or marriage or civil
union from another jurisdiction.
Employees need to notify the county human
resources department within 15 days of
breaking up, for termination of benefits.
Voted into law February 14, 2012, and
likely became active in April.
Six Democrats voted for the measure.
Three Republicans and one Democrat voted against.
Dayton, Ohio (2012)
Benefits: ?
Established by the City Commission.
Oberlin, Ohio (2012)
Benefits: ?
Toledo, Ohio (2007)
Benefits: ?
Yellow Springs, Ohio (2012)
Benefits: ?
Oklahoma
In 2014, Oklahoma gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
Oregon
In 2014, Oregon gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Oregon State
On April 27, 2009, House Bill 2839 passed
which expands the legal ramifications
of a domestic partnership to include:
� Taxation and health insurance benefits
and entitlements;
� Taking in a domestic partner�s surname;
� Clarification of �domestic partnership�
and �civil unions� from other states,
so that Oregon will recognize them
as �domestic partnerships.�
Oregon State Employees (1998)
Benefits: Medical, dental, life insurance.
Note: All state, county and city employers
in Oregon are constitutionally required to provide
benefits, due to court ruling in December 1998.
Corvallis, Oregon
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Eugene, Oregon
Benefits: Medical.
Gresham, Oregon (1999)
Benefits: For same-sex only. Implemented March 1, 1999.
Multnomah County, Oregon
Benefits: Medical coverage for non-union)
Portland, Oregon (February 2002)
Benefits: Police and firefighters are
eligible to collect pension benefits,
should their partners be killed in the
line of duty; adopted February 13, 2002.
Pennsylvania
In 2014, Pennsylvania gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Lower Merton School District, Ardmore, Pennsylvania
Benefits: Medical. For same-sex only.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (May 7, 1998)
Benefits: Same-sex only; medical, family
leave; choice of any individual, regardless
of relationship as beneficiary for
pension benefits.
Note: 1996 executive benefits order for
administrative and executive employees
was held up by a city counsel member�s
objections. The 1998 Philadelphia law
extending benefits to city workers�
same-sex partners was struck down on
August 28, 2002 by a Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court panel. The law, called
the �Life Partnership� ordinance, had
amended the definition of the term
�marital status� to include �life partner.�
Seven city taxpayers sued, charging that
the city did not have the power �to create
a new marital status.� The court ruled that
the law ran counter to what the state
legislature intended the definition of
marriage to be, even though the law and
benefits do not change the definition of
marriage in the slightest. On October 8,
2003, the State Supreme Court agreed to
decide whether Philadelphia may grant
benefits to same-sex partners of city
employees. As of 2003, about 350
couples have registered as domestic
partners since the laws took effect.
the state Supreme Court found for the
city, on December 6, 2004, ruling that
the laws gave same-sex couples �very
limited rights that do not even begin
to mirror the extensive fabric of
rights� married couples enjoy.
Puerto Rico No known benefits. Rhode Island
In 2013, Rhode Island gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Rhode Island State Employees (2001)
Note: In January 2006, more than 200
domestic partners of state employees
received letters telling them - for
the first time - that their medical
benefits are considered taxable income
by the IRS. The state admits they
blundered not ordering tax deductions
from paychecks. The Carcieri
administration said it wouldn�t be
fair for taxpayers pay the back taxes,
so it is offering no-interest loans
and extended payment plans. The
no-interest loans may also be considered
taxable income by the IRS.
Providence, Rhode Island (December 2001)
Benefits: Police officers added to the
domestic partnership benefits plans in
December 2000. Firefighters, teachers,
laborers already covered;
possibly only for same-sex couples.
South Carolina No known benefits. South Dakota No known benefits. Tennessee No known benefits. Texas
Austin, Texas (September 2006)
For city employees. Both same-and
opposite-sex couples. Required to reside in Texas.
Benefits: medical, vision, dental, life insurance,
FLEXTRA, HealthPLUS (Wellness Program), Employee
Assistance Program (EAP), Prepaid Legal Services.
Coverage for unmarried children under 25.
Registration form:
Austin Independent School District, Texas
Offered medical benefits for domestic
partner employees in August 2013.
Bexar County, Texas
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
Dallas, Texas
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
Dallas County, Texas
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
El Paso, Texas
At least one partner must be employed by the city.
For both opposite- and same-sex couples.
El Paso County, Texas
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
Fort Worth
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
Houston, Texas
For city employees. Both opposite- and same-sex couples.
San Antonio, Texas
At least one partner must be employed
by the city. Domestic partner benefits,
including insurance, is offered for
same-or-opposite sex domestic partner.
� Also included is a domestic partner�s child.
Requirements include: a affidavit, 6 month
cohabitation period, 2 additional pieces of
proof of domestic partnership, such as
joint mortgage or rental contract, joint
bank account, joint credit card, etc.
Most of these are not required
of opposite-sex couples.
Note: Sexual orientation is included in the
city�s employment anti-discrimination policy.
Travis County, Texas
No residency requirement.
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
Benefits via registration with Travis County
[See: Registration for Domestic Partnership]
Utah
In 2013, Utah gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Salt Lake City, Utah (March 2006)
Benefts: Medical; effective March 2006.
Note: Mayor Rocky Anderson�s executive
order, on Sept. 21, 2005, changed the
city�s contract with the Public Employees
Health Program (PEHP) to offer medical
insurance benefits to a domestic partner
of a Salt Lake City employee. PEHP�s
governing body, The Utah State
Retirement Board, petitioned the court
for an opinion as to whether it would be
legal to offer such benefits. The Salt
Lake City Council then adopted an
ordinance on February 7, 2006, that
provided a different package; one that
permitted city workers to enroll an
�adult designee� rather than a �domestic
partner� in the city health insurance
plan. Anderson vetoed that measure, but
the council unanimously overrode it on
February 23, and the �adult designee�
ordinance now stands. Earlier, three Salt
Lake City residents, and an Arizona-based
Christian group, the Alliance Defense
Fund, filed a lawsuit opposing Anderson�s
order regarding domestic partners. They
alleged that the benefits violate state
law and the 2005 anti-gay, anti-marriage
state constitutional amendment. That
lawsuit became moot once the city council
enacted the program for adult designees,
which supersedes Anderson�s plan for
domestic partners. During the 2006 state
legislative session, Rep. LaVar
Christensen (R-Draper) sponsored HB327
that would have limited how the city
offered such benefits, but that bill died.
On May 12, 2006, Third District Judge
Stephen Roth issued a five-page opinion
stating that it is not illegal for Salt
Lake City to offer medical benefits to
�adult designees� of city workers who live
in the same household but are not married
to the employee. When employers offer such
benefits it does not violate state law or
the Utah Constitution. An �adult designee�
could be a sister or brother, a parent, a
romantic partner or friend. The ordinance
also applies to the designee�s children.
Roth declared that providing employment
benefits does not create, in the words of
the state�s anti-marriage statute, �any
legal status, rights, benefits or duties
that are substantially equivalent to�
marriage. Nor do such job perks give
�legal effect� to a non-marital union,
as barred by the constitutional amendment.
Vermont
In 2009, Arizona gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
[Please see our article: Vermont Legal Marriage]
Vermont State Employees
Benefits: All state workers; implemented in 1994)
Burlington, Vermont (2000)
Middlebury, Vermont
Benefits: Medical, family leave.
Virgin Islands No known benefits. Virginia
In 2014, Virginia gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
Washington
In 2012, Washington gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Washington State (April 21, 2007 - expanded June 12, 2008)
Benefits: Covers many of the spousal rights
that are offered to legally married
opposite-sex couples. For same-sex partners,
as well as opposite-sex couples in which at
least one partner is past 62.
[See our article: Domestic Partnership: The Washington Approach]
Washington State Employees (October 23, 2000)
Benefits: Medical; all state workers.
Note: State school teachers� benefits
are bargained locally and are not
affected by this benefit plan;
affidavit requirements may include
both partners being over 18, and
sharing a residence and finances for
at least six months. Not required of
legally married partners.
Anacortes, Washington (2004)
Benefits: Medical. Voted December 2004.
Bellevue, Washington (June 2007)
Benefits: Medical, dental, vision, life
insurance, mental-health counseling and
family leave.
For same- and opposite-sex and elderly
couples.
Note: The City Council voted 7-0 for
the benefits on June 4, 2007.
Implementation possible by August 2007,
depending on the speed of the
human-resources department and
negotiations with with employee unions.
The action was triggered by a lawsuit;
one of the plaintiffs was a firefighter
who was not given paid leave to attend
the funeral of his partner�s father.
Bellingham, Washington (2006)
Benefits: Medical ($40/month).
Note: Approved by the Bellingham City
Council on February 6, 2006. Benefit
coverage managed through the
Association of Washington Cities�
trust fund, which began granting
domestic partner benefits in 2003.
Burien, Washington (2002)
Benefits: Medical. For same- and
opposite-sex couples. Implemented
January 1, 2002.
Note: Offers reimbursements equal
to premiums paid for spouse and
children of married workers.
Des Moines, Washington (2006)
Benefits: Medical; For same- and
opposite-sex couples. Required
to cohabit one year, show they
have a substantive relationship
and share expenses - not required
of married couples.
Note: Instituted by City Counsel
vote on December 14, 2006.
Edmonds, Washington (2007)
Benefits: Medical; for same-sex
or senior couples only.
Note: City Council voted 6-0,
November 27, 2007. Couples must
be registered with the state as
domestic partners.
Edmonds School District, Washington
King County, Washington (2003)
Benefits: ?
Note: All employers contracting
with the county for more than $25,000,
who offer benefits to legally married
partners, must extend the same
benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
Adopted December 15, 2003.
Newcastle, Washington (May 2007)
Benefits: Medical.
Affidavit required. Benefits were
approved on June 5 - by a 7-0 vote -
effective June 13, 2007.
Olympia, Washington (1994)
Benefits: Same-sex only.
Note: All contractors who do
at least $50,000 worth of business with
the city, and who already offer
benefits for their employees� married
spouses, are required to extend equal
benefits to domestic partners.
Implemented 2004.
Peirce County, Washington (2007)
Benefits: For both same- and opposite-sex
couples county employees. Passed as the
Domestic Partnership Ordinance by the
County Council in December 2007.
Seattle, Washington (June 1, 2000)
Benefits: Medical, dental for city employees.
Note: All employers contracting with
Seattle for more than $30,000, who
offer benefits to legally married
partners, must extend the same
benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
Employers may add more specifications
for domestic partnerships to qualify
than Seattle�s domestic partners
registry requires. Adopted November 1999;
implemented June 1, 2000
Seattle City Light Co., Washington
Seattle Public Library, Washington
Benefits: Medical, dental.
Seattle - Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Washington
Skagit 911 Emergency Services, Skagit, Washington
Benefits: Medical.
Snohomish County, Washington (January 1, 2002)
Benefits: Medical.
Snohomish County Public Utility District, Washington
Snohomish Health District, Washington
Benefits: Medical; same-sex only.
Spokane, Washington
Tacoma, Washington
Tumwater, Washington (February 6, 2001)
Benefits: Medical.
Note 1: Offers reimbursements equal
to premiums paid for spouse and
children of married workers.
Note 2: All employers contracting with
Tumwater for more than $50,000,
who offer benefits to legally
married partners, must extend the
same benefits to same-and
opposite-sex domestic partners.
Vancouver, Washington (1998)
Benefits: Medical, sick leave.
Note: Survived legal challenge in
Washington Supreme Court August
23, 2001; argued by the Northstar
Legal Center, a radical, right-wing
law firm in Fairfax, Virginia.
West Virginia
In 2014, West Virginia gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
Wisconsin
In 2014, Wisconsin gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Wisconsin State (June 29, 2009)
Benefits: certain dependent or survivor
benefits for employee benefits, health
and mental health and after-death
decision making, probate matters,
property matters, motor vehicle titles,
hospital visitation rights, end of
life decision making, to take Family
Medical Leave (FMLA) to care for a
sick or injured partner, or
non-biological or non-adopted child.
It also allows state government workers,
some state unions, as well as University
of Wisconsin faculty and staff, to
include domestic partners as part of
group health insurance and retirement
survivor benefits.
Note 2: The anti-gay Wisconsin Family
Action filed a lawsuit against the
state, in 2009, arguing that the
domestic partnership law is a
violation of the 2006 anti-gay
constitutional amendment which bars
marriage equality and recognition of
any legal status that is �substantially
similar� to marriage. After the State
Attorney General announced that his
office would not defend the state
against the claim, Governor Doyle
appointed special counsel to
represent the state. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court rejected the case.
Note 3: On August 18, 2010, the
�Wisconsin Family Action� and the
�Alliance Defense Fund� filed a new
challenge to the domestic partnership registry.
[See: Domestic Partnership: The Wisconsin Approach]
Dane County, Wisconsin (2000)
Benefits: Medical. For same- and opposite-sex
couples on the insistence of county workers�
unions. Benefits approved June 12, 2000.
Note: Required to have a joint lease or a will
designating a partner as a beneficiary - not
required of legally married partners.
Dane Regional Planning Commission, Wisconsin
Benefits: Bereavement and/or family illness leave.
Madison, Wisconsin
Benefits: Medical to both same-and opposite-sex partners.
Note: Madison participates in the Group
Insurance Board covering state and local
government workers, which does not recognize
domestic partners. Therefore, reimbursements
are made to partnered employees, equivalent
to that which is provided to a legal spouse.
Madison Metropolitan School District, Wisconsin
Benefits: Medical.
Shorewood Hills (Village), Wisconsin
Benefits: Use of village pool.
Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC)
Benefits: Medical.
Wyoming
In 2014, Wyoming gained extensive benefits through full,
legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Previously no known benefits.
|
| Canadian Governments |
All federal employees have benefits.
In May 1998, Nova Scotia became the first
Canadian province to recognize same-sex
couples as equal to opposite-sex.
This was prompted by the Ontario Court of
Appeal decision that the federal
government�s definition of spouse in the
Income Tax Act is unconstitutional
because it excluded gay men and lesbians.
Canada now offers legal marriage to same-sex couples.
[Please see our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage]
Barrie, Ontario
British Columbia, Province of
(pension)
[Recognizes gay and lesbian parents
for child support, custody, access]
British Columbia Transit
British Columbia Hydro
Brampton Hydro-Electric Commission
Burnaby, District of
Burnaby Public Library
Carleton Board of Education, Ottawa, Ontario
Coquitlam, District of
Delta, Corporation of
Delta Municipality Police
Department of National Defense Ottawa, Ontario
As of December 1996; same-sex couples are
recognized by the Canadian military and that
same-sex spouses are entitled to the military
members benefits, providing that the couple
declare common-law status, and declare that
they are living together in a long term relationship.
Edmonton, Sask.
Halifax, N.S.
Hamilton Public Library, Ontario
Kanata, Ontario
Kingston, Ontario
Kitchener-Waterloo, Regional Municipality of, Ontario
Langley
Library of Parliament
London, Ontario
London Board of Education, Ontario
Manitoba, Province of
Manitoba Hydro
Metro Toronto Council, Ontario
Montréal, P.Q.
New Brunswick, Province of
Dependent life, voluntary accidental death and
dismemberment, medical, dental, but not to long
term disability or pension; applies to community
colleges, public libraries and hospitals, but
not schools.
Note: Required to have cohabited continuously
in a �conjugal� relationship for at least one
year and to have been publicly represented as
employee�s spouse.
New Westminster, B.C.
North Vancouver, B.C.
North Vancouver Public Library Board, B.C.
North West Territories
North York Board of Education
Northwest Territories Power Corporation
Nova Scotia, Province of
Medical, dental, spousal leave; all civil
service and teacher pension plans.
Ontario, Province of
All government workers.
Ontario�s 260 provincial court judges
Benefits included for �Either of
two persons of the opposite sex,
or the same sex, who live in a
conjugal relationship outside of marriage.�
Ontario Hydro
Ottawa, Ontario
Ottawa Board of Education, Ontario
Ottawa-Carleton, Regional Municipality of, Ontario
Port Moody
Prince Rupert, B.C.
Quebec, Province of
May be the first Province to offer
benefits; December 18, 1982
Regina, Sask.
Richmond, Ontario
Richmond Public Library, Ontario
Saskatchewan, Province of
School District 36 (Surrey), Coquitlam, B.C.
Medical, dental.
School District 43, Coquitlam, B.C.
School District 44, North Vancouver, B.C.
Toronto, Ontario
Toronto Board of Education, Ontario
Toronto Hydro, Ontario
Toronto Public Library, Ontario
Treasury Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Bereavement, family-related
responsibilities and relocation
of spouse leave; foreign service,
isolated post and relocation directive.
Vancouver, B.C.
Vancouver Parks & Recreation, B.C.
Vancouver Public Library, B.C.
Vancouver Regional District, Greater, B.C.
Victoria, B.C.
Winnipeg, Ontario
Worker�s Compensation Board of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, N.S.
Yellowknife Education District No.1 of the
Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NWT
Required to have cohabited
for at least two years.
Yukon Territory
|
| Global Governmental Legal Registration |
Belgium � �Statutory Cohabitation Contracts� Belgium has full, legal marriage: Belgium Offers Legal Marriage Colombia � Common Law Marriage Czech Republic � Registered Partnership Bill France � �Civil Solidarity Pact� Germany � �Life Partnerships� Great Britain � �Civil Partnerships� New Zealand � �Civil Union Act� Scandinavia � �Registered Partnerships� Includes: Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The Netherlands also has full, legal marriage: Netherlands Offers Legal Marriage Switzerland � �Registered Partnership� Tasmania � �Relationships Act� |
| Benefits Offered, Then Denied |
Anchorage and the State of Alaska
Note: Following a voter-passed constitutional
amendment blocking state recognition of
marriage for same-sex partners, city
employee benefits were denied in Anchorage.
Nine same-sex couples sued in 1999, demanding
medical insurance and pension benefits.
Superior Court judge Stephanie Joannides
ruled, on November 16, 2001, that the city of
Anchorage and the state of Alaska do not have
to extend benefits to gay or lesbian partners
of employees and retirees. Judge Joannides
ruled that same-sex couples fall into the
same legal category as unmarried male-female
couples, and that neither is entitled to city
or state benefits under current law. The
Alaska Supreme Court ruled October 28, 2005,
that it was unconstitutional to bar benefits
to the same-sex partners of public employees.
In overturning a lower court�s ruling, the
court found that �the public employers�
spousal limitations violate the Alaska
Constitution�s equal protection clause.�
Governor Frank Murkowski, vowed to push for
an amendment to the state constitution to
stop the change in law. State Sen. Fred
Dyson (R- Eagle River) said he will
introduce legislation to amend
the constitution.
Arlington County, Virginia (1997)
Benefits Denied: Medical, vision.
Note: Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Kendrick
declared the benefits, available since 1997,
illegal on March 4, 1999, but stayed the
order expecting the County to appeal the
ruling to the State Supreme Court. The
Virginia Supreme Court unanimously struck
down Arlington County employees� domestic
partner benefits, on April 21, as
exceeding the county�s authority to
define �dependents.�
Austin (Travis County), Texas (1993)
Note: In 1993, the Austin City Council
approved domestic partnership benefits
for city employees. In 1994, radical
right wing groups launched a successful
campaign (Prop. 22) which rescinded
benefits for both same-and
opposite-sex partners of municipal
employees. A suit was filed on behalf
of three couples who had registered
- results unknown.
Brookline, Massachusetts
[see Massachusetts below]
Boston, Massachusetts (1998)
Benefits Denied: Medical.
Note: Benefits were vetoed by Governor
Paul Cellucci, August 4, 1998, but were
established the same day by Mayor Thomas
Menino�s executive order - effective
while Menino remains in office. Boston
may proceed without state approval; four
other Massachusetts cities already have
enacted similar measures. Ten Boston
taxpayers - with financial support from the
�Catholic Action League� and Pat Robertson�s
�Virginia-based American Center for Law and
Justice� - launched a court attack,
Dec. 2, 1998, against the executive order.
On Dec. 11, 1998, the court ruled the city
was illegally exceeding its authority by
expanding the state�s definition of
�dependents.� The case was appealed,
then lost on July 8, 1999.
[see �Massachusetts� below]
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Benefits Denied: 71 employees had been
receiving benefits worth $2,790 each,
which made up only 0.0086 percent of
the city�s $23 million annual health
care benefits cost.
Note: The suit, brought by Pat
Robertson�s Virginia-based �American
Center for Law and Justice� resulted
in a loss of benefits to Cambridge
employees on November 2, 2000. The
ACLJ suit asked the Middlesex Superior
Court to strike down, not only
Cambridge�s employee benefits, but
also its domestic partners registry,
which gives couples rights to hospital
visitation and to review the school
records of a partner�s biological
child. The registry remained intact,
as well as city workers� partnership
family, sick and bereavement leave.
[see �Massachusetts� below]
Colorado Springs, Colorado (September 2002)
Benefit Denied: Medical, family-leave,
implemented September 2002 - removed
April 22, 2003 after the City Council
voted to discontinue benefits in 2004.
Note: All five newly-elected council
members, as well as the new mayor,
Lionel Rivera, had pledged in their
recent campaigns to rescind the benefits.
One other older member, Rivera, was one
of the four votes initially against the
benefits. He said that there was no legal
requirement for the city to offer
same-sex benefits because �gay marriage�
was illegal in Colorado. Rivera also
cited falling city revenue as a reason
for its removal. However, Councilman
Richard Skorman, the single vote
against removing benefits, offered his
councilman�s salary of $6,200 to pay
for this year�s costs, about $6,700
for seven employees. David Sellon II,
a lobbyist for gay employees in Colorado
Springs, offered to pay next year�s
costs, and the Rev. Nori Rost said her
local congregation could cover the
following year. Affidavit required
cohabitation for at least a year, and
the remarkable demand that �neither
party is in the relationship for the
purpose of obtaining benefits.� -
never a requirement for legal marriage;
Colorado Spring already gave benefits
to opposite-sex partners who had become
common-law partners. Two female couples
sued for their benefits. On January 4,
2006, Fourth Judicial District Judge
Richard Hall ruled that the city had
no legal obligation to offer benefits
to people who are not considered
married under state law. Hall also
wrote that while the suing couples
claimed the City Council acted with
malice in canceling the benefits, the
court had no latitude to judge its
motives. One of the plaintiffs Barbara
Henson, explained one of her co-workers
was allowed to take time off after her
dog died, but Henson could not do so
when Henson�s partner, Kaylynn LaGamma
was hospitalized. The couples filed an
appeal on February 17, 2006. The appeal
was dropped, on September 6, 2006,
after Kaylynn LaGamma said she did not
have the energy to go on with the suit
after her partner, former city dispatcher
Barbara Henson, died in May 2006. A
second couple had dropped out earlier.
Columbus, Ohio (1998)
Benefits Denied: Medical, dental, vision,
prescriptions, sick/family leave.
Note 1: benefits would have required an
undesirable affidavit which demanded that
the couple share a permanent residence and
be financially interdependent - items not
required of legally married partners.
Note 2: The City Council voted unanimously
on December 14, 1998 to extend spousal
benefits to both same and opposite-sex
domestic partners; the Council withdrew
the benefits on February 8, 1999 in the
face of a highly divisive referendum
scheduled for May 1999.
Eastchester (in Westchester County), NY (1999-January 2005)
Note: Dropped out of a new labor contract.
The Civil Service Employees Association and
the police union agreed to give up the
benefits. In September 2000, the board,
then led by Supervisor James Cavanaugh,
unilaterally added the benefits for its
employees. Current Town Supervisor
Anthony Colavita, then a board member,
approved the measure, but campaigned
against it during his successful run
against Cavanaugh in the 2003 Republican
primary. He claimed that politics had
nothing to do with the loss of the
benefits in the new contracts: �They were
on the table for bargaining like anything
else. I was not condemning or condoning it.
It was a matter of practicality.� He also
said that: �It was not political. However,
only one employee used the benefits - out
of 163 employees in a town of 31,000 people
- at a cost of $6,120 a year. The rest of
the employees cost the town $3 million.
Hennepin County, Minnesota (January 1991)
Note: Benefits invalidated by 1994 court order.
Houston, Texas
Note: In November 2001, voters passed - by
51.5 percent - a proposition that prevents
the city from providing medical benefits to
same-sex partners of employees.
Massachusetts - Round-up
Benefits Denied: About 100 Boston employees
had enrolled their (mostly opposite-sex)
partners, who lost their benefits.
Note: The Massachusetts Supreme court ruled,
July 8, 1999, that Boston overstepped the limits
of state law when it extended domestic partner
health benefits to its unmarried employees.
The Boston suit was financed with support
from the �Catholic Action League� and Pat
Robertson�s Virginia-based �American Center
for Law and Justice.� State law involved in
this case - untouched for about 40 years -
explicitly restrict health benefits local
governments can offer their employees. This
ruling applied to domestic partner benefits for
government workers offered throughout the state.
In the wake of the ruling, Brookline, Massachusetts
rescinded their domestic partner benefits.
Springfield, Massachusetts still offered benefits,
however, the ACLJ made Springfield its next target.
The state of Michigan (October 2005)
On December 3, 2004, Gov. Jennifer Granholm
revoked benefits slated to begin for state
workers on October 1, 2005. The stated
basis for the unilateral breaking of the
negotiated contracts was the November 2005
voter-approved amendment to the state
constitution that bans same-sex marriage and
�similar unions.� The amendment also signaled
the end of health care, and other benefits,
for the same-sex partners of public employees
in Michigan. In response to a question about
benefits for Kalamazoo city employees, Attorney
General Mike Cox issued an opinion, on March 16,
2005, that benefits were abolished by the
anti-marriage amendment. In the absence of a
contrary opinion from a court, the attorney
general�s interpretation of a law is generally
binding on state agencies. An anonymous official
in the Attorney General�s Office opined that the
same legal theories would apply to public schools
and universities which offer same-sex benefits.
On September 27, 2005, Ingham County Circuit
Court Judge Joyce Dragonchuk ruled that public
employers are not prohibited from offering
domestic partner benefits to employees. Judge
Dragonchuk: �Health care benefits are not among
the statutory rights or benefits of marriage. An
individual does not receive health care benefits
for his or her spouse as a matter of legal right
upon getting married. � Health care benefits for
a spouse are benefits of employment, not benefits
of marriage.� The request for a declaratory
judgment was filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan on behalf of 21 same-sex couples
who were in danger of losing their health care
benefits. Attorney General Cox appealed the ruling
on September 30, 2005. On May 7, 2008, Michigan�s
Supreme Court ruled that the state�s ban on
same-sex marriage makes it illegal for public
universities and other entities of state government
to provide domestic partner benefits to the
same-sex partner of an employee. After the lower
court ruled that the marriage ban applies to
benefits, some universities switched their benefits
programs so that they were available not to domestic
partners but to �other eligible individuals,� a
category that could include same-sex partners, but
would also include others who live with but are not
legally related to their employees.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (January 1991)
Benefits Denied: Cash payments until insurance could
be arranged; excluded unmarried opposite-sex couples.
Note: Benefits declared invalid by court,
was appealed and lost January 30, 1995.
Minnesota (December 21, 2001)
Note: House Republicans opposed the new contracts
extending benefits to same-sex partners of state
employees. They created state law to forbid
domestic partner benefits being offered to
state or local municipality workers.
New York City
Benefits Denied: Medical, pension, retirement,
disability and life insurance, leave policies,
tuition reimbursement, legal assistance,
dependent care insurance, moving expenses,
membership discounts, and travel benefits. If
a contractor can�t purchase domestic partner
insurance from its carrier, it must compensate
the employee.
Note 1: The Equal Benefits Law, was approved
by the City Council on October 26, 2004. The
2,600 businesses and non-profit organizations
that do more than $100,000 worth of contracts
with NYC were to certify that they provide the
same health and leave benefits to domestic
partners of employees that they do to the
married spouses of their workers.
Note 2: The City Council overrode Mayor
Bloomberg�s veto, and was challenged by
Bloomberg in a last ditch legal effort -
a temporary restraining order - to stop the
law�s implementation. Manhattan Supreme Court
Justice Faviola Soto refused to grant the stay
on October 18, 2004, and ordered both sides
back to court on November 8, 2004. Bloomberg
refused to enforce the law, but was ordered to
do so after the Council sued in Supreme Court.
The council argued that the mayor�s refusal to
carry out the law had upset the separation of
powers. An appeals court overturned that ruling,
saying the city statute conflicted with
competitive bidding requirements in state law
and was invalid. In a 4-3 decision in early
February 2006, the Court of Appeals upheld the
appeals court, saying state and federal laws
took precedence over the city law. Writing for
the majority, Judge Robert Smith dismissed the
City Council�s arguments over the separation of
powers. While noting Bloomberg�s duty to carry
out enacted city laws, Smith also noted that
the mayor had the duty to follow existing state
and federal statutes. In his dissent, Judge
Albert Rosenblatt said that an official who
believes that a law is unconstitutional has to
let the courts decide and must follow the law
while the issue is being argued. Rosenblatt
said Bloomberg had acted without proper authority.
Northampton (Hampshire County), Massachusetts
Noite: Measure approved by the City Council
in May of 1995, was then repealed by voter
referendum in November 1995.
Palm Beach County School District, Florida (2005)
Benefits Denied: Medical.
Note: On October 5, 2005, the School District
approved a one-year pilot project to sell
domestic partnership health insurance to
a group including the District�s 750
employees who were not represented by
unions. This group included highly paid
employees such as administrators and
principals. However, while the School
District subsidize family coverage for married
employees, it refused to do the same for
employees with domestic partners. The School
District also refused to offer employees the
opportunity to purchase health insurance
coverage for the children of their domestic
partners. In any event, not a single eligible
employee elected to purchase the coverage.
Sedgwick County, Kansas (October 1, 2001)
Benefits Denied: Medical; for same-and
opposite-sex couples.
Note: Was to be implemented October 1, 2001,
however, on October 3, 2001, the County
commissioners overturned County Manager
William Buchanan�s decision to allow benefits.
The public response has been outrage in the
commissioners� actions, including emphatic
support from several clergy, requesting
that the benefits be put back in place.
Springfield, Massachusetts
Note: Benefits removed because legal marriage
was now available in Massachusetts.
[See: Massachusetts Offers Legal Marriage]
Mayor Charles Ryan rescinded, on May 27 2004,
all prior executive orders allowing unmarried
domestic partners access to group health
insurance. There is a 90-day grace period to
become legally married and retain the
insurance coverage. Previously, Pat
Robertson�s Virginia-based American Center
for Law and Justice had targeted Springfield
in another of its mean-spirited attempts to
destroy worker benefits.]
|
Additions and corrections are welcome. Please tell us:
• Company Name |
| Governments that offer Full Legal Marriage | ||
|
Nations . Netherlands (2001) Belgium (2003) Canada (2005) Spain (2005) South Africa (2005) Norway (2009) Sweden (2009) Iceland (2010) Argentina (2010) Portugal (2010) Denmark (2012) France (2013) New Zealand (2013) Brazil (2013) Uruguay (2013) New Zealand (2013) United Kingdom (England, Wales) (2013) Luxembourg (2014) Finland (2014) Scotland (2014) Ireland (2015) Greenland (2015) United States (2015) Colombia (2016) Germany (2017) Malta (2017) Australia (2017) Austria (2019) Taiwan (2019) Ecuador (2019) Costa Rica (2020) Chile (2022) Estonia (2023) Nepal (2023) Greece (2024) Thailand (2025) |
US States . U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2015 Ruling: All States must allow legal, same-sex marriage. . These states had legal marriage before the ruling: . Massachusetts (2004) California (2008) Connecticut (2008) Iowa (2009) Vermont (2009) New Hampshire (2009) District of Columbia (2009) New York (2011) Maine (2012) Washington (2012) Maryland (2013) Rhode Island (2013) Delaware (2013) Minnesota (2013) Illinois (2013) Utah (2013) New Jersey (2013) Hawaii (2013) New Mexico (2013) Michigan (2014) - stayed pending legal challenge Oregon (2014) Wisconsin (2014) Arkansas (2014) - stayed pending legal challenge Pennsylvania (2014) Indiana (2014) Nevada (2014) Virginia (2014) Oklahoma (2014) Idaho (2014) West Virginia (2014) Alaska (2014) Arizona (2014) Wyoming (2014) Kansas (2014) - stayed pending legal challenge Florida (2014) Colorado (2014) North Carolina (2014) South Carolina (2014) Montana (2014) Alabama (2015) |
Native American Tribes . Coquille Tribe, Oregon (2009) Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Connecticut (2010) Suquamish Tribe, Washington (2011) Port Gamble S�Klallam Tribe, Washington (2011) Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan (2013) Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan (2013) Santa Ysabel Tribe, California (2013) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, WA (2013) Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (2013) Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Minnesota (2013) Grand Portage Band of Chippewa, Minnesota (2013) Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Washington (2014) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Arizona (2014) Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming (2014) Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Montana (2014) San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona (2014) Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribes, OR & NV (2014) Fort McDowell Yavapai Community, Arizona (2014) Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, WI (2014) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (2014) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (2014) Pascua Yaqui Tribe (2014) Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians (2014) Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes, Alaska (2015) Oneida Nation, Wisconsin (2015) Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (2015) Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (2015) Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (2015) Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (2015) Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe (2016) Oglala Sioux Tribe (2016) Tulalip Tribe, Washington (2016) Menominee Nation (2016) Cherokee Nation (2016) |
|
© 2024, Demian None of the pages on this Web site may be reproduced by any form of reproduction without permission from Partners, with the exception of copies for personal, student, and non-commercial use. Please do not copy this article to any Web site. Links to this page are welcome. |