Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » July 2000
Overview of the Domestic Partnership case
Jack W. Martin v. City of Gainesville seeks to challenge the domestic partnership health insurance benefits extended by the City of Gainesville, Florida, to the heterosexual and same-sex partners of City employees.
The plaintiff Jack W. Martin, a city resident and taxpayer, is represented by the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, which was formed in 1989 and describes itself as a "nonprofit religious civil liberties education and legal defense organization dedicated to preserve (sic) religious freedom."
Martin is challenging the legality of the City's August 1999 decision to extend health care benefits to nonmarried heterosexual and same-sex domestic partners of City employees. In his complaint, Martin asserts that, for "religious" and "moral" reasons, only those engaged in a traditional marriage should be permitted to receive the usual medical and other employee benefits. The complaint alleges that the City's grant of benefits to heterosexual and same-sex partners of City employees "coerces him, as a taxpayer, into supporting a lifestyle with his tax money that is outside the bounds of traditional marriage but that is treated like a marriage."
Specifically, Martin alleges that the City has created a "marriage-like relationship" contrary to State law. The lawsuit also alleges that laws regulating domestic relationships are the sole province of the State of Florida and are not delegated to any other governmental agency. Further, the lawsuit alleges that a "marriage-like relationship" is created by the extension of domestic partnership benefits and that such a relationship is expressly forbidden under the State's "Defense of Marriage Act," which barred the recognition of same-sex marriages.
The Gainesville City Commission adopted the Domestic Partnership Policy in August of 1999: Under the Policy, in order to receive benefits, City employees must comply with all the criteria set forth in Section 1 and at least two of the requirements of Section 2.
Section 1.
A. Persons involved are each other's sole domestic partner and intend on remaining each other's sole partner indefinitely.
B. Persons involved have a common residence at the time of certification. In addition, these persons have lived together in this residence on a continuous basis for the last 12 months (1 year), and intend to continue this arrangement;
C. Persons involved are at least 18 years of age and are mentally able to enter into a contract;
D. Persons involved share common domestic and financial responsibilities;
E. Persons involved are not legally married with anyone else nor are domestic partners with any other person;
F. Persons involved understand that giving false information within the affidavit or falsifying information in any documentation given may lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment. In addition, the State may choose to recover cost of benefits received related to the false information given, including reimbursement of premium and benefits;
Section 2.
A. Persons involved have a joint lease, mortgage or deed of the shared residence;
B. Persons involved have joint ownership of an automobile used for transportation;
C. Persons involved have a joint ownership of checking or savings account;
D. Domestic partner is designated as a beneficiary of employee's life insurance or retirement benefits;
E. Domestic partner is primary beneficiary of employee's will;
F. Domestic partner holds power of attorney for other partner in health care matters.
The lawsuit was filed in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court in Gainesville. The ACLU is planning to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the City's Domestic Partner Policy.
