By Christianne Walker
© Seattle Gay Standard, August 2001

The Washington Supreme Court's 8-to-1 decision upholding Vancouver's domestic partnership benefits policy for city employees is a significant protection for gay and lesbian relationships, although it is more of a victory for local autonomy in devising benefits plans for city employees.

In 1998, Vancouver began offering health benefits to domestic partners of city employees, whether of the same or opposite sex, and their children. To date, at least 29 partnerships have been registered.

In 1999, taxpayer Roni Heinsma, backed by conservative legal group Northstar Legal Center in Virginia, filed suit against the policy in Clark County Superior Court. The suit claimed the city's benefits plan violates state law governing health care for municipal employees by interpreting the term "dependents" to include domestic partners.

The suit claimed the plain meaning of a dependent included some sort of financial reliance, and because the city's plan did not require proof that a domestic partner receives financial support from their partner employed by the city, they could not be considered a dependent. The suit also claimed the domestic partner benefits plan violates state marriage law by granting benefits associated with married people to unmarried people.

In June 2000, Clark County Superior Court Judge John Nichols ruled in favor of the city's policy, and on Aug. 23, 2001, the state Supreme Court upheld that ruling. The courts agreed with the Vancouver's arguments that, as a home rule city, it may design its employee benefits plan as it wishes and that the inclusion of domestic partners as dependents does not violate state law.

In writing for the majority, Justice Susan Owens said the city, under state law, "has authority to provide medical benefits to its employees and their dependents. Since the legislature did not define the term 'dependents,' we conclude that the legislature delegated authority to the city to determine who should be eligible for benefits."

The high court also rejected Heinsma's claim that the city's policy violated state marriage laws and ruled the policy does not endanger legal benefits to married couples. As evidence, the court noted that the granting of benefits for domestic partners does not automatically grant them other legal rights reserved for married persons.

"Like the trial court," the opinion reads, "we conclude that the city's recognition of domestic partnership is limited in scope and does not affect the legislature's ability to regulate familial relationships on a statewide basis."

A sharply worded dissent by Justice Richard Sanders chided the majority opinion for "strain[ing] to arrive at a politically correct result." He disagreed with an open definition of "dependent" based on the absence of a definition in state law, and argued the city should consider whether a employee supports his or her partner before deciding whether that partner can be considered a dependent eligible for benefits.

The majority opinion did not directly address the issue of whether the law must treat all relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, equally. Rather, it was more an affirmation of local autonomy in constructing regulations and policies, such as benefit plans for its employees, in the absence of any conflicting state laws.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund jointly submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the city of Vancouver, as did the Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys.

Around Washington, the cities of Olympia, Seattle and Tumwater provide their employees domestic partner benefits, as do King County and the state of Washington. However, a 1998 state law prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and refuses to recognize same-sex unions performed out of state.