Mar 10, 2006  |  By: ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG  | COMMENTS     

Gay rights advocates are keeping busy in Virginia, where several gay-related measures wend their way through the legislature, while on the local level, lawmakers in Alexandria appear ready to consider domestic partner benefits for city employees.

Issues facing gay Virginians include the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment, the Family Life Education bill and Alexandria’s newly revealed D.P. plan.

"We’re growing in our efforts and abilities to work on multiple issues at once," said Dyana Mason, executive director of the gay rights group Equality Virginia. "Ultimately, we will prevail, but there are a lot of obstacles in the way. We need to educate people and elect more fair-minded representatives."

The marriage amendment’s enabling legislation has made it to the desk of Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. The legislation authorizes the state to put the question of restricting marriage to a man and a woman before voters in November.

Despite his stated opposition to the wide scope of the amendment, the governor only made grammatical changes to the bill, according to spokesperson Kevin Hall.

The amendment’s "possible ramifications for legal relationships for people gay or straight, asexual, Libertarian or vegetarian" is disturbing to the governor, Hall said.

The House and the Senate are required to approve the enabling legislation for a second time before it goes back to the governor, where he has three options: veto the enabling legislation, sign it or refuse to sign the legislation and allow it to go to voters without his active role, said Hall.

When asked which option Kaine might choose, Hall said, "Those are his three options. My job is to keep all of his options open."

The ballot initiative reads: "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

D.P. plan emerges in Alexandria

The Alexandria City Council is set to consider a domestic partner benefits plan for city employees after the city attorney said the council has the authority to do so, according to Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks.

A memo from City Manager James K. Hartmann to the City Council explains that the city attorney believes that local governments can offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. The city attorney based the opinion on a state law passed last year that allows private companies to offer domestic partner health benefits.

Paul Smedberg, a gay member of the Alexandria City Council, said that he and Councilmember Joyce Woodson had raised the issue and found support from other members of the Council. The issue will be more formally discussed during hearings in March and April as part of city budget talks, he said.

"Because it is a policy choice issue it would have to be a formal memo or resolution to make it part of the policy," Smedberg said.

Providing domestic partnership benefits is "clearly a fairness issue," he said.

"We had a resolution that spoke out against the efforts [to ban] gay marriage," he said. "That was passed 7-0. I can’t imagine something like this wouldn’t be a similar vote."

Gay Alexandria resident Simon Kalay, who brought the issue to the council’s attention, also speculated that most councilmembers would support the move.

"My guess is this will freak out the homophobes in Richmond," he said. "If [Alexandria] initiates this they may be taken to court."

The City Council will make a decision on domestic partnership benefits by the end of April, possibly paving the way for employees to enroll in May, Jinks said.

The city manager’s memo states that the cost of domestic partner coverage is equal to the cost of other city employees’ coverage.

"The conclusion is that the issue of providing domestic partner health coverage by the City has very little budget impact," Hartmann wrote. "This is a policy choice issue."

A similar move to offer D.P. benefits to local government employees was tried in the late 1990s in Arlington County. Beginning in 1997, Arlington County offered its employees domestic partner benefits until 2000, when the Virginia Supreme Court ordered it to stop, ruling the ...