Heinsma v Vancouver :: 144 Wn2d 556
Category: Family Law and Marriage
This case questions the legality of using Taxpayers' money to extend benefits to city employees for their partners who are not their legal spouse or children.
In 1998 the City of Vancouver began offering benefits to its city employees’ domestic partners and domestic partners' children. Under this program they could receive health insurance benefits and use their sick leave to care for their domestic partners or for their domestic partners children. During 1998, the city spent at least $20,000 of taxpayer funds to cover the costs of extending benefits to this program.
Ron Heinsma is a taxpayer and resident of the city of Vancouver. He filed an action requesting the trial court to determine whether the city of Vancouver exceeded its authority under Article XI, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution by extending insurance benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. Heinsma asserts that domestic partners are not dependents within the meaning of the statute and that the citys recognition of domestic partnership is unconstitutional because the legislature has a paramount interest in defining and regulating family relationships. He also argues that domestic partners do not qualify as financial dependents.
The City asserts that it has not created a new marital status because its recognition of domestic partnership is limited to its employee benefits program only, thereby, the domestic partners do not become eligible to receive any other legal benefits that the state extends to married couples.
The trial court which concluded the city's recognition of domestic partnership is limited in scope and does not affect the legislature's ability to regulate family relationships on a statewide basis. It concluded the city has the authority to provide medical benefits to its employees and their dependents as the legislature delegated authority to the city to determine benefit eligibility.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court with one dissenting vote. They concluded Heinsma failed to show that the citys inclusion of domestic partners conflicts with the delegated authority from the legislature. We disagree with the court and find it unjustifiable to fund benefits to same sex partners who, are not and lawfully cannot be wed, and is infringing upon the definition of marriage. This is straining to be politically correct at the expense of the taxpayers.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Gundlach, Jonathon P | |
| pass | Lorence, Jordan W | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Walker, Darren C | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| fail | Cameron, William L | |
| fail | Caplan, Aaron H | |
| fail | Chambers, Tom | |
| fail | Gathe, Ted H | |
| fail | Hicks, Karolyn A | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | King, Jerry | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Nichols, John F | |
| fail | Owens, Susan | |
| fail | Pizer, Jennifer D | |
| fail | Quinn, Debra | |
| fail | Smith, Charles |