Showing posts with label domestic partnership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic partnership. Show all posts
El Paso has inclusive definition of domestic partners; Mayor and council members face recall
I've got a special connection to El Paso, given that my partner and I have a residence across the New Mexico border in Las Cruces. El Paso is our local airport. It's also a city hard hit by the Mexican drug wars across the border in Juarez, something we were following as a local story for years before the national press picked up on it.Well El Paso has been in the news for another reason. The
Maps of relationship non-recognition laws often obscure non-recognition of different-sex unmarried couples.
In the process of planning one of my law school classes, I was perusing the websites with maps of the United States showing the status of relationship recognition or non-recognition across the country. There are so many different types of laws that it's a challenge to accurately portray each state with all its nuances. HRC and NGLTF each have useful, easy-to-print one-page non-recognition maps.
New government report tells us how many employees can include same AND different-sex domestic partners on their health benefits
This week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report on benefits offered employees in the public and private sphere in March 2011. For the first time, the data include the percentage of employees eligible for health benefits that cover domestic partners. The report includes separate statistics for how many employees can cover same-sex partners and and how many can cover different-sex
New York employers ending domestic partner benefits
And so it begins. New York allows same-sex couples to marry, and some employers are now eliminating domestic partner benefits. So the New York Times reported yesterday. This is exactly what Katherine Franke feared in her Times op-ed, published the morning that turned out to be the day (night,really) marriage equality came to New York. And these are large employers, whose policies affect
NY Times op-ed weighs in for a "beyond marriage" approach
Columbia Law prof Katherine Franke got a prime placement today in the New York Times for a tempered view of what comes with marriage equality for same-sex couples. The piece is well-timed as everyone watches the cliffhanger in the New York Senate. Among Katherine's excellent points -- that the availability of marriage has made domestic partner benefits disappear and that neither same-sex nor
Wisconsin trial court upholds domestic partner registry
Almost two years ago, Wisconsin instituted a domestic partner registry, which was immediately challenged as a violation of the state's super-DOMA. I wrote at the time that the state would have an easier time defending the registry if it had made the criteria more inclusive and less mirroring of marriage.Well, yesterday a state trial court upheld the constitutionality of the registry in a 53 page
Marquette University to offer domestic partner benefits...to those who register with the state in a registry that is the subject of court challenge.
Going on two years ago, Wisconsin adopted a domestic partner registry in spite of the fact that it has a "super-DOMA" constitutional amendment. Almost immediately, the registry was challenged as unconstitutional, as I wrote about here. Well, the past week has seen two items of related news. The same Wisconsin governor who has been forcefully criticized for his union-busting efforts recently fired
Ninth Circuit hears case on Arizona domestic partner benefits...but only for same-sex couples who say they would marry
In 2008, by administrative regulation, Arizona made available to state employees health benefits for their domestic partners, defined by at least a year of living together and a set of criteria demonstrating financial interdependence. Same-sex and different-sex partners were eligible. In August 2009, the Arizona legislature rescinded these benefits through a statute limiting state employee
New Mexico update -- Republican governor may repeal domestic partner benefits
One day after New Mexico Attorney General Gary King released an opinion that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere would be recognized in New Mexico, the new Republican governor, Susana Martinez, said she is reviewing whether to eliminate domestic partner benefits for state employees. Both same-sex and different-sex couples receive those benefits, as a result of an executive order signed by
Illinois legislature passes civil unions: different-sex couples also eligible
In yesterday's post on the DADT repeal recommendations, I noted that the report opposed creating a "same-sex relationship" status for gay servicemembers, in large part because it would appear unjust and unequal to differentiate between same-sex and different-sex committed couples. Well the Illinois Senate has just approved civil unions there, and the governor will sign the bill, and when it
Kudos to American University for expanding domestic partnership benefits to include different-sex couples
It's no surprise to readers of this blog (or my book) that I dislike domestic partner benefits extended only to same-sex couples. The first employer-provided DP benefits were for same- and different-sex partners, and the theory behind them was that "marriage" was too narrow a category for what counted as family and that a couple should not have to marry for one to be able to protect the economic
Oregon Tax Court ruling points the way towards compulsory marriage
Last month the Oregon Tax Court ruled on the constitutionality of an administrative rule allowing same-sex but not different-sex partners to exempt from state tax the imputed value of their domestic partner health insurance benefits.The challenge was filed by Yvonne Haldeman, a taxpayer with an unmarried different-sex partner who, in 2007, tried to subtract $5313 from her gross income because
Final OPM regs value broad range of relationships and should be model for other reforms
I posted last fall about proposed regulations from the Office of Personnel Management concerning for whom a federal employee may use sick or bereavement leave. Yesterday, OPM issued the finals regs, in the process responding to comments received on the proposed regs.The lesson from the definition of family in these regs is not just how family is defined, but the chronological process getting us
Excluding different sex domestic partners bodes ill for federal law reform
Domestic partners of federal employees are now eligible for long term care insurance. The Obama administration determined that it could make this change, without going to Congress, as part of the review of federal employee benefits the President announced last June. The program will be limited, however, to same-sex partners. The final regulations state that "opposite-sex domestic partners were
Contemplating gay and lesbian families in New Mexico in 2010
I'll be heading home to DC tomorrow from our annual end-of-year sojourn to our second home in Las Cruces, NM. There's lots to keep an eye on in New Mexico in the coming weeks.On January 1, 2010, New Mexico's new parentage laws go into effect. Read Sections 7-703 & 704 of the new statute. It says that "a person who...consents to assisted reproduction...with the intent to be the parent of a
DC City Council committee passes marriage equality bill and preserves domestic partnerships
Here's Rick Rosendall's excellent coverage of the 4-1 vote in the DC City Council Commitee on Public Safety and the Judiciary approving the marriage equality legislation. As indicated in my previous post, the bill deletes the provision "sunseting" domestic partnerships.The language on domestic partnerships in the final Committee Report is even stronger than that in the draft. (changed language in
D.C. City Council committee recommends retaining domestic partnerships
The DC City Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary today marks up the bill authorizing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. I'm happy to report that Committee Chair Phil Mendelson is recommending preservation of domestic partnership. The draft of the Committee Report on the subject says as follows:Domestic partnerships have been and remain available to opposite-sex
It's looking good for removing the domestic partner "sunset" provision from the DC marriage equality bill
If I were a betting woman, I'd say there will be no mention of ending domestic partnership in the marriage equality bill that goes through the DC City Council.The first panel of witnesses at yesterday's hearing on marriage equality in DC included Bob Summersgill and Rick Rosendall, the two people most responsible for strengthening the domestic partnership laws in DC during this decade. Both
Several witnesses will urge DC to retain domestic partnerships
Hearings on the bill to grant marriage equality in the District of Columbia begin today. So many people signed up to testify that the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, chaired by Councilmember Phil Mendelson, has already announced that it will hear the first 100 today and the remaining ones next Monday.I am number 49 on the list and so I will be testifying today. Naturally, I support
District of Columbia publishes list of registered relationships from elsewhere that will be recognized as domestic partnerships
Last year's expansion of the District of Columbia's domestic partnership laws included a provision requiring DC to recognize as domestic partnerships those relationships registered elsewhere that are "substantially similar" to domestic partnerships in DC. The law required the Mayor to certify which relationships from elsewhere fall into this category. Well, the Mayor took his time, but today the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)