Domestic Partnership Benefits
During the 1990s, LGBTQ+ rights activists in Montgomery County advocated for the County Council to extend domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of county employees. Led by the Montgomery County Gay and Lesbian Interests Consortium (GLIC) and GLOBE, the county government's LBGTQ+ organization, the effort to pass domestic partnership legislation was a long and at times frustrating process.
After several rounds of proposals, the Montgomery County Council passed the Employee Benefits Equity Act in late 1999, and the bill went into effect in March of 2000.
During the late 1980s, municipalities across the United States, first in California and New York, began offering health and employment benefits to the same-sex partners of public sector employees.
In Montgomery County, domestic partner protections comprised the topic of a public forum hosted by the Lesbian and Gay Democrats of Montgomery County in December 1990. About fifty people attended the forum, including a group of community members who opposed the idea on religious grounds. Others expressed concerns about the financial impact of extending benefits to domestic partners.
At left: Flyer for the public forum, held on December 6, 1990. (Montgomery County Archives: Gail Ewing Papers,)
"Sit down and talk about, in the best of all possible worlds, what [any proposed legislation] would look like. Give us suggestions as to what is out there. Let's see if we can't build [support for this] in tight budget times. If you don't go for what you want first, you won't get it." (County Councilmember Gail Ewing, in The Washington Blade, 12/14/90, p. 9)
At left: Councilwoman Gail Ewing (Montgomery History)
After the hearing in 1990, LGBTQ+ rights groups continued to mobilize support for domestic partner benefits in Montgomery County, but the county government did not act on the issue until 1997. In the summer of 1993, Takoma Park had become the first jurisdiction in Maryland to extend health benefits to domestic partners.
GLIC president Nick D'Ascoli (The Washington Blade, 10/31/97)
On March 5, 1997, the Montgomery County Gay and Lesbian Interests Consortium (GLIC) met to discuss plans for introducing domestic partner legislation to the County Council. According to GLIC Board Chair Nick D'Ascoli, county officials seemed open to the possibility of creating a domestic partner registry. GLIC drafted and submitted a proposal on domestic partner benefits to the Montgomery County Human Relations Commission that spring. The commission met to discuss the proposal in May, after which the group voted to table it until a later date.
On October 27, the commission rejected the benefits proposal, frustrating over two years of work by LGBTQ+ activists. The commission voted 6-1 against the bill. Larry Jacobs, the only openly Gay commissioner, cast the only vote in its favor. The proposal was rejected for several reasons, including budgetary concerns, the vague definition of a domestic partner, and worries that extending benefits to same-sex couples would discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples.
"I think this raises troubling questions about the people who are being selected for appointment to the [Human Relations] commission, as to whether they really have an understanding for these issues, and whether there are people who are homophobic who are getting appointed." (Larry Jacobs, Montgomery County Human Relations Commissioner, quoted in The Washington Blade, 10/31/97).
Despite the setback, efforts to secure domestic partner benefits continued. In November 1997, members of the Montgomery County government employees union began formal negotiations with the county government to grant benefits to the unmarried partners of county employees, though negotiations ultimately failed. Meanwhile, members of Montgomery County GLOBE, an organization serving gay, lesbian, and bisexual county employees, met with the Montgomery County Diversity Council to discuss domestic partner benefits. The role of the Diversity Council was to advise the county executive, the chief administrative officer, and the Office of Human Relations on diversity issues.
In late January 1998, the Montgomery County Diversity Council officially endorsed granting domestic partner benefits to county employees. The council sent its endorsement letter to County Executive Douglas Duncan and Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Romer. That August, the County Council commissioned a study of other governments that had adopted domestic partner benefits. The study, which was presented to the County Council nearly a year later in June 1999, found that the extension of benefits would not be a financial burden to the county.
(The Washington Blade, 1/30/98)
Derick Berlage (Sentinel photo, Montgomery History)
In September 1999, Montgomery County Councilmember Derick Berlage introduced Bill #28-99, dubbed the Employee Benefits Equity Act of 1999. The bill would extend the benefits received by the spouses and dependents of married county employees to same-sex domestic partners and their dependents. Couples could establish themselves as domestic partners through various means, including a joint mortgage or housing lease, a jointly owned vehicle, or a joint banking account.
This bill was "all about eliminating discrimination and being fair. This was the right thing to do and the right time to do it" (Derick Berlage, in the Washington Blade 12/3/99, p. 1, 6).
A public hearing for the bill was held on October 26, 1999. At the hearing, which around 150 people attended, speakers on both sides of the issue voiced their opinions on domestic partner benefits. The bill then went to the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee for consideration in early November.
On November 30, the County Council passed the Employee Benefits Equity Act of 1999 by a vote of 6-3. After County Executive Douglas Duncan signed the bill on December 3, it had 91 days before going into effect. During this period, opponents had 90 days to gather enough signed petitions to force a referendum on the bill. The Montgomery County Coalition for Family and Marriage led the referendum effort but narrowly fell short of the 21,291 signature requirement. As a result, the benefits bill went into effect on March 3, 2000.