Massachusetts City Council Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

On March 8, Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council adopted amendments to the city's Domestic Partnership Ordinance allowing polyamorous domestic partnership.  The ordinance now provides that

"Domestic partnership" means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that: 1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; ... 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

CNA reporting on the amendment points out that Cambridge becomes the second town, after Somerville, to legally recognize such domestic partnerships.

Church Lacks Standing In Recall Petition Counterclaim

In City of El Paso, Texas v. Tom Brown Ministries, (TX App., Dec. 7, 2016), a Texas state appeals court dismissed on standing grounds a counterclaim by a church that had been involved in recall efforts against the mayor of El Paso who supported re-establishing domestic partnership benefits for city employees. In this phase of the long-running case, at issue was the Church's counterclaim against the city and the Mayor in his official capacity contending that they violated the Church's constitutional right to circulate recall petitions when they brought suit claiming that the Church's recall activities violated election laws. The court concluded in part:

[T]he City never took any unconstitutional actions against Appellees and never applied any unconstitutional policies against them. Rather, it was Cook [the Mayor], in his individual capacity, who sought redress for private injuries arising from Appellees’ alleged violations of the Election Code in circulating the recall petitions, and it was this Court that directed the City to decertify the recall petitions and to cancel the recall election.... The City never engaged in any past unconstitutional conduct toward Appellees, and there is no basis for any fear the City will unlawfully enforce the Election Code against Appellees in the future.

9th Circuit Court Employees Entitled To Health Benefits For Same-Sex Domestic Partners

In In re Fonberg,(9th Cir. Jud. Council, Nov. 25, 2013), the Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council held unconstitutional the U.S.Office of Personnel Management’s denial of health benefits to the same-sex domestic partner of a law clerk formerly employed by the Oregon federal district court.  The Executive Committee held that this discrimination against domestic partners, vis-a-vis married opposite-sex and married same-sex couples, violated the equal protection and due process rights of the law clerk. The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]