Tyma v. Montgomery County6/14/2002
we have held were not local laws.
This conclusion is consistent with the results reached by our sister courts that have addressed the issue. Indeed, all of the courts that have considered domestic partnership laws, including those that have struck down such laws, see Connors v. Boston, 714 N.E. 2d 335 (Mass. 1999); Lilly v. Minneapolis, supra, Arlington County v. White, supra, have refused to hold that the mere enactment of such laws creates "a legal equivalency between lawful spouses and same-sex domestic partners." See, e.g., Schaefer v. City and County of Denver, supra, 73 P.2d at 720 ("the ordinance does not adversely impact the integrity and importance of the institution of marriage"); Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1206 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 2000) ("We disagree with Lowe's contention that the Act has created a `new marriage-like relationship'"); Crawford v. Chicago, supra, 710 N.E.2d at 96, 98 (the DPO "does not address the panoply of statutory rights and obligations exclusive to the traditional marriage," "is purely contractual, based on the mutual agreement of the parties," and does not "purport to create a marital status or marriage as those terms are commonly defined, and addresses only health benefits extended to City employees and those residing with them"); Connors, 714 N. E. 2d at 338 n.11 ("Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, we see nothing in the executive order that creates the `equivalent' of common-law marriage for registered domestic partners, that conflicts with any criminal law of the Commonwealth, or that otherwise seeks to define the marital status between two individuals in contravention of any Massachusetts statute or the Massachusetts Constitution"); Slattery v. City of New York, 686 N. Y. S. 2d 683, 688 (Sup. Ct.), aff'd, 697 N.Y.S.2d 603 (App. Div. 1999), appeal dismissed, 727 N. E.2d 1253 ( N.Y. 2000) ("as compared to marital relationships, domestic partnerships are marked by their lack of formalization, lack of legal protections, and by the significantly fewer rights that are extended to the domestic partners"); see also Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 29 P.3d 709, 713 (Wash. 2001) (concluding from the facts that the City's giving domestic partners of its employees insurance benefits does not entitle them to receive any legal benefits the State extends to married couples and that the City's recognition of domestic partnership is limited to its employee benefits program, 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); City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 492 S.E.2d 193, 195-96 (Ga. 1997).
Finally, as they do with regard to the marriage laws and public policy arguments, the appellants contend that " he Act provides for the `equivalent of' Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act benefits, federal Family and Medical Leave Act benefits, as well as `other federal laws that apply to County employment benefits," specifically, the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 300bb-1 to -8, and that because these "equivalents" are neither federally funded nor the result of the amendment of the federal programs, the Act "is an ultra vivres legislative enactment to State funded benefits plans and implicates use of State monies without State legislative warrant." We agree with the County and the Circuit Court that these laws represent minimum standards, which the County is permitted, and in this case elected, to exceed. See Kinek v. Paramount Communications, Inc., 22 F.3d 503, 510 (2nd Cir. 1994). Similarly, the regulations implementing the FMLA state, "an employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medica
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|