Domestic Partnership

Today the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the state’s domestic partnership registry as constitutional, bringing a joyful end to a long legal battle by Lambda Legal on behalf of Fair Wisconsin and five intervening defendant couples.

If you are in a Washington state-registered domestic partnership, you might be getting married on June 30, 2014 — without doing a thing. Here's what you need to know.

Lambda Legal has filed a brief on behalf of Fair Wisconsin and five same-sex couples in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, asking the court to uphold the state's domestic partnership law as constitutional. Oral arguments in the state's highest court are scheduled for October 23rd.

Lambda Legal Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Clark said:

Lambda Legal Urges Wisconsin Supreme Court to Uphold Domestic Partnership Law

(Chicago, IL, Wednesday September 11, 2013) - Today Lambda Legal filed a brief on behalf of Fair Wisconsin and five same-sex couples in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, asking the court to uphold the state's domestic partnership law as constitutional.

English

Estados o jurisdicciones con el derecho al matrimonio civil

  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Carolina del Norte
  • Carolina del Sur
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Distrito de Columbia
  • Florida
  • Hawái
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minesota
  • Nevada
  • Nueva Jersey
  • Nueva York
  • Nuevo Hampshire
  • Nuevo México
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregón
  • Pensilvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Virginia Occidental
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming

 

Estados que ofrecen los beneficios y las responsabilidades del matrimonio civil, pero bajo una etiqueta de inferioridad como uniones civiles o parejas domésticas

  • California - Ley de Parejas Domésticas amplia
  • Colorado - Ley de Uniones Civiles
  • Delaware - Ley de Uniones Civiles 
  • Hawai - Ley de Uniones Civiles 
  • Illinois - Ley de Uniones Civiles
  • Nevada - Ley de Parejas Domésticas amplia
  • Nueva Jersey - Ley de Uniones Civiles
  • Oregón - Ley de Parejas Domésticas amplia
  • Washington - Ley de Parejas Domésticas amplia

 

Estados que ofrecen algunas o muchas protecciones a través de leyes estatales no-matrimoniales como parejas domésticas, beneficiarios recíprocos u otras leyes

  • Colorado - Ley de Acuerdos de Beneficiarios Designados
  • Hawai - Ley de Beneficiarios Recíprocos
  • Maine - Ley de Parejas Domésticas limitada
  • Maryland - Ley de Parejas Domésticas limitada
  • Wisconsin - Ley de Parejas Domésticas limitada

 

 

Estados que ofrecen algunos beneficios de parejas domésticas a empleados estatales (sin incluir los estados mencionados anteriormente que proveen protecciones más amplias)

  • Alaska
  • Arizona (eliminado por la legislatura estatal en el 2010, pero continuado por orden del tribunal en el caso Collins contra Brewer de Lambda Legal)
  • Montana
  • Nuevo México (se incluye porque la opinion de la fiscal general aun no ha sido confirmada por los tribunales)

 

Estados con enmiendas constitucionales que capacitan su asamblea legislativa a limitar el acceso al matrimonio civil

 

Estados con enmiendas constitucionales que limitan el acceso al matrimonio civil

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Misisipi
  • Misuri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • Carolina del Norte
  • Dakota del Norte
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregón
  • Carolina del Sur
  • Dakota del Sur
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Virginia
 

 

In a 65-35 vote Washington State's legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that will provide same-sex couples some of the rights that come with marriage. Lambda Legal provided technical assistance in the creation of this bill, which offers a domestic partnership registry with the state, hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will. The passage of this bill comes nearly a year after the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a ban on marriage for same-sex couples in the case Andersen v. King County — a lawsuit seeking the right to marry for same-sex couples brought by Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center. Though we ultimately did not prevail in court, our marriage case helped show the people of Washington the daily struggles same-sex couples face because they cannot marry and laid the groundwork for the passage of the state's domestic partnership bill.

Commander Kristi Wilson has been a police officer for 20 years, 14 of those years with the city of Redmond, Washington. She is raising two young children with her partner of eight years who is a stay-at-home mom without any affordable access to health insurance. Last January, Wilson was diagnosed with breast cancer. While she had health insurance, it terrified her to think what might have happened if her partner had received the diagnosis instead of her.

Wilson and her colleague, Lieutenant Betsy Lawrence, a law enforcement veteran of 23 years, joined forces to demand benefits for their families. They sought out Lambda Legal's help to fight for equal pay for equal work.

Lambda Legal threatened the city with legal action in a strongly written demand letter, and after a late night session, the city council took an initial vote to extend family benefits to city employees with same-sex partners, and is expected to approve the plan. Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli says, "Other cities should follow Redmond's lead by recognizing that their dedicated lesbian and gay employees deserve equal pay for equal work."

This victory comes just two months after the neighboring city of Bellevue voted to extend similar benefits to its city employees in response to Lambda Legal's lawsuit on behalf of two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher.

Since 2003, the antigay Alliance Defense Fund has been trying to eliminate benefits for same-sex partners of city employees in New Orleans. They've yet to succeed, and Lambda Legal has been fighting them every step of the way.

Lambda Legal recently went back to court to argue that same-sex couples deserve access to benefits without extremist groups such as the ADF standing in their way.

This case is another instance of a politically motivated lawsuit by organizations motivated by bias. Lambda Legal is taking a stand against antigay forces around the country, defending ground we've already gained in the fight for equality.

Background:

In 1997, the city of New Orleans extended insurance benefits to same-sex partners of city employees. In 1999, the City Council created a domestic partner registry that allows couples to make public commitment to care for and support each other. Both policies came under attack in a lawsuit brought by the Alliance Defense Fund. At the city's request, Lambda Legal joined the lawsuit to uphold these policies.

The city of New Orleans took it upon itself to do the right thing for its gay and lesbian employees and their families by giving them access to the same health insurance plans that its heterosexual employees and their families receive. The city is well within its rights to do so.

History

Who is the Alliance Defense Fund?

  • A Christian legal firm established in 1993 by more than 30 Christian ministries, including Focus on the Family, to combat the efforts of the ACLU.
  • Number of full-time employees: Up to 500
  • Total Revenue of ADF and its partner organizations: More that $127 million
    • August 2003 Lambda Legal joins city of New Orleans in defending domestic partnership benefits for same-sex partners of city employees.
    • January 2005 Louisiana appeals court hears oral arguments in the case.
    • December 2005 Louisiana appeals court holds that taxpayers did not have standing to challenge the New Orleans domestic partnership benefits and upholds ruling safeguarding health insurance benefits for same-sex partners of city employees.
    • May 2006 Louisiana Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Louisiana Appeals Court, holding that taxpayers could challenge the New Orleans domestic partnership benefits. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
    • September 2007 Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the merits denied.
    • November 2007 Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment heard. The court took the matter under advisement.

    In a victory for registered domestic partners in California, the state supreme court has rejected a challenge that would have forced surviving partners to pay increased property taxes when one partner dies and the other inherits the couple's home. The court's decision is final, and no further appeals are possible.

    While we are pleased with the court's decision, this case represents another instance of domestic partnerships falling short of marriage. There is no ready-made safety net for LGBT people when it comes to many big life issues. Read about life planning options to find out what you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones.

    Case History:

    The case began in March 2005 when Sutter and Orange Counties challenged the Board of Equalization rule that protects domestic partners from increased property taxes when one partner dies and the other inherits the couple's home. California law has long provided this protection for surviving heterosexual spouses. Represented by NCLR, Lambda Legal and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Equality California and three same-sex couples intervened in the litigation to defend the rule. Orange County later left the litigation, but Tehama and Madera Counties joined it. In 2006, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor rejected the challenge and upheld the rule, and the assessors appealed. Last October, the Third District of the California Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Judge Sapunor's ruling. In this latest ruling, the California Supreme Court denied further review, permitting the Court of Appeal's decision to stand.

    On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions for same-sex couples. The ruling came after a state supreme court decision in 1999, which ruled that denying same-sex couples the benefits of marriage was unconstitutional discrimination. The civil union law intends to grant many of the same state benefits, civil rights and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples. In 2005, Connecticut became the second state to legalize civil unions. New Jersey became the third in 2006.

    Lambda Legal believes that civil unions are discriminatory and that they cause real harm to same-sex couples. They also keep all LGBT people relegated to second-class status by law. We have several fact sheets and publications that highlight our work and expertise as it relates to relationship law and civil unions.

    Read more about our fight for relationship recognition and the part that civil unions play in the struggle.

    Legal Literature

    Pages

    Subscribe to RSS - Domestic Partnership