By Christianne Walker
© Seattle Gay Standard, November 2001

Last week's ruling in Vasquez v. Hawthorne by the Washington State Supreme Court was not a broad constitutional victory for LGBT rights, yet it was significant because it ruled that same-sex couples have the same protection before the law as opposite-sex couples when it comes to equitable principles.

The decision hinged on the meretricious relationship doctrine, which traditionally has been used by unmarried heterosexual couples to divide assets they accumulated together in the event of a breakup.

When Frank Vasquez's partner of nearly 30 years, Robert Schwerzler, died in 1995, neither men had a will, jeopardizing Vasquez's claims on the house, business and financial assets they shared. Schwerzler's siblings contested Vasquez's claims on the estate and refused to acknowledge that the two men lived as a couple. The Pierce County Superior Court ruled that that Vasquez was entitled to the property and assets under the meretricious relationship doctrine, but the Washington Court of Appeals overturned that decision, saying that the doctrine cannot apply in this case because both partners were men.

The Washington Supreme Court rejected the appeals court's limited definition of the meretricious relationship doctrine. Writing for the court, Justice Charles Johnson stated, "Equitable claims are not dependent on the 'legality' of the relationship between the parties, nor are they limited by the gender or sexual orientation of the parties. For example, the use of the term 'marital-like' in prior meretricious relationship cases is a mere analogy because defining these relationships as related to marriage would create a de facto common-law marriage, which this court has refused to do."

In other words, the court was not attempting to call the men's relationship a common-law marriage or give it the legal status of marriage, because state and federal law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The court simply, soundly rejected the application of meretricious relationships to opposite-sex or heterosexual partners only. It ruled that Vasquez is entitled to make his claim to his and his partner's jointed acquired assets under the meretricious relationship doctrine. The case now goes back to the trial court to determine the nature of Vasquez and Schwerzler's relationship and Vasquez's claim for equitable relief.

This decision represents a modest yet significant step forward for same-sex couples. Notes state Representative Ed Murray, "This decision, taken with the recent Heinsma decision and the fact that Washington is one of just a handful of states granting domestic partner benefits, shows that the courts and the state have made great strides in guaranteeing equal treatment for our families." As other LGBT rights supporters have done in the wake of this case, he also cautions, "Until there is full equality, the take-away is that same-sex partners need to draw up wills and other formal contracts to protect their rights."