Ruling Strips El Paso Domestic Partners of Benefits

Anti-gay activists in El Paso, Texas, praised a federal judge's finding that the City Council must put into effect an ordinance passed by voters that denies domestic partner benefits for city workers, the El Paso Times reported on May 25.

The way the ordinance is worded has also meant a loss of benefits for others, including members of the El Paso City Council, the article said. The ordinance was sparked by fewer than 20 city employees having domestic partners (some of them same-sex, others opposite-sex). But the ordinance means that over 200 people will see their benefits rescinded. Among them are a few retirees, the article said, although most retirees were spared.

"The city of El Paso endorses traditional family values by making health benefits available only to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children," the ordinance passed by El Paso voters last Nov. 2 read.

U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo had put implementation of the ordinance on hold earlier this year during a court challenge, according to a Jan. 19 El Paso Times article, while the City Council deliberated putting a new ordinance before voters that would specifically address whether GLBT couples would be targeted for loss of benefits.

"Shall the City Charter be amended to provide health benefits to the gay, lesbian, transgender, and unmarried heterosexual partners of City employees?" the proposed ordinance was to have read.

But Montalvo resolved that challenge when he ruled on the case, which had questioned whether the ordinance was constitutional. The judge acknowledged that the ordinance passed by voters might have had implications that the voters had not considered.

"This is an example of how direct democracy can have unexpected consequences," the judge said. In his ruling, Montalvo noted that the ordinance "distinguishes between (city employees and their families) and everybody else," such as elected officials and retired people, who are not employed by the city.

State law, however, says that retirees will receive benefits, except in cases where they have alternative means of obtaining them.

The ruling stipulated that the ordinance would take effect on Aug. 1. Anti-gay activists expressed their pleasure with the outcome.

"We're very happy the voters' will was upheld," said Tom Brown, a pastor who was involved in placing the ordinance before voters. "We've always maintained that the traditional family ordinance was constitutional. Now it's a federal judge who agrees with it."

But the fact that so many more people will lose their benefits than the 19 individuals who had gotten them via domestic partnerships still troubled city officials.

"He said that if we were to amend the ordinance now just to exclude domestic partners, he would find that that was targeting a small class of people and he would have to overturn it," Mayor John Cook told the El Paso Times. "It doesn't even give us an option to go back into the ordinance now and say this ordinance is only to deny benefits to domestic partners."

"There's still an option in regard to contract employees, but the civilian employees are out in the cold," said El Paso Municipal Police Officers' Association President Sgt. Ron Martin said. "The possibility is still there for (the City Council) to do the right thing. They still can change things for the better."

Anti-gay activists in El Paso, Texas, praised a federal judge's finding that the City Council must put into effect an ordinance passed by voters that denies domestic partner benefits for city workers, the El Paso Times reported on May 25.

The way the ordinance is worded has also meant a loss of benefits for others, including members of the El Paso City Council, the article said. The ordinance was sparked by fewer than 20 city employees having domestic partners (some of them same-sex, others opposite-sex). But the ordinance means that over 200 people will see their benefits rescinded. Among them are a few retirees, the article said, although most retirees were spared.

"The city of El Paso endorses traditional family values by making health benefits available only to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children," the ordinance passed by El Paso voters last Nov. 2 read.

U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo had put implementation of the ordinance on hold earlier this year during a court challenge, according to a Jan. 19 El Paso Times article, while the City Council deliberated putting a new ordinance before voters that would specifically address whether GLBT couples would be targeted for loss of benefits.

"Shall the City Charter be amended to provide health benefits to the gay, lesbian, transgender, and unmarried heterosexual partners of City employees?" the proposed ordinance was to have read.

But Montalvo resolved that challenge when he ruled on the case, which had questioned whether the ordinance was constitutional. The judge acknowledged that the ordinance passed by voters might have had implications that the voters had not considered.

"This is an example of how direct democracy can have unexpected consequences," the judge said. In his ruling, Montalvo noted that the ordinance "distinguishes between (city employees and their families) and everybody else," such as elected officials and retired people, who are not employed by the city.

State law, however, says that retirees will receive benefits, except in cases where they have alternative means of obtaining them.

The ruling stipulated that the ordinance would take effect on Aug. 1. Anti-gay activists expressed their pleasure with the outcome.

"We're very happy the voters' will was upheld," said Tom Brown, a pastor who was involved in placing the ordinance before voters. "We've always maintained that the traditional family ordinance was constitutional. Now it's a federal judge who agrees with it."

But the fact that so many more people will lose their benefits than the 19 individuals who had gotten them via domestic partnerships still troubled city officials.

"He said that if we were to amend the ordinance now just to exclude domestic partners, he would find that that was targeting a small class of people and he would have to overturn it," Mayor John Cook told the El Paso Times. "It doesn't even give us an option to go back into the ordinance now and say this ordinance is only to deny benefits to domestic partners."

"There's still an option in regard to contract employees, but the civilian employees are out in the cold," said El Paso Municipal Police Officers' Association President Sgt. Ron Martin said. "The possibility is still there for (the City Council) to do the right thing. They still can change things for the better."