El Paso Gay Partner Benefits Fracas Continues
El Paso's city council saw voters repeal health coverage for same-sex and unmarried partners of city workers, and a court uphold that ballot initiative.
But the council voted on June 14 to extend those benefits once again, prompting an anti-gay local cleric -- the same one who had organized the ballot initiative -- to vow that he would seek the recall of two council members.
Anti-gay activists last month 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. But the way the ordinance is worded also meant a loss of benefits for others, including members of the El Paso City Council, drawing condemnation from municipal employees, including the police.
The ordinance was sparked by fewer than 20 city employees having benefits for their domestic partners, some of them same-sex, others opposite-sex. But the ordinance meant that over 200 people would see their benefits rescinded. Among them were a few retirees.
"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, the pastor chiefly responsible for 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."
On June 14, the city council took action to re-institute the benefits, the El Paso Times reported on June 14.
The measure to restore benefits was introduced to the city council by El Paso Mayor John Cook, who cast a tie-breaking vote when the city council split down the middle, with 4 votes in favor and 4 against, the article said.
Two outgoing members of the city council, Beto O'Rourke and Rachel Quintana, sided with those who wanted to see the benefits restored. Incoming councilor Michiel Noe said that he would have voted no.
"Although I think everyone should have benefits, I would have respected the will of the voters," Noe told the El Paso Times. "Now, if the courts had decided that was illegal, then I would have voted according to what the ruling said. But they said that the vote was legal, so again I would respect the will of the voters."
Tom Brown vowed a recall effort aimed at the two remaining councilors who voted in favor of restoring the benefits, Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega. Byrd, however, was unfazed: She said that she would seek a separate voter initiative that would, if passed, mandate health coverage for the families of gay city employees, or unmarried partners of heterosexual city workers.
The article said that most of the members of the public who appeared before the city council to argue against re-implementing the benefits chose to address the personal lives of the handful of gay employees rather than the much greater economic impact that depriving so many others in the process would have.
"Homosexual acts are a grave depravity," said one Roman Catholic cleric, Rev. Michael Rodriguez, who went on to say, "One of the great things about our Catholic faith is that we have a final authority on Earth."
One resident took a more secular view, demanding, "What kind of government would force me to pay taxes for what I believe are immoral acts?"
But others offered praise to the city council and encouraged the restoration of the benefits in question.
"I commend you for standing up for the rights of those who have been discriminated against for centuries," said resident Antonio Williams.
Local ordinances offering protections and benefits to GLBTs have come under attack in other parts of the country recently. In Montana, state lawmakers sought to restrict the ability of local governments to extend anti-discrimination measures to GLBTs, but the measure failed to gain traction.
In Tennessee, however, a similar state law sparked by an ordinance approved by the Nashville city government won approval from the legislature and was hastily signed by Gov. Bill Haslam on the night of May 24. That law is now under challenge by a lawsuit.