PA Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Philly DP Benefits

December 7, 2004

The state Supreme Court ruled that Phila. did not overstep its power by giving 'life partners' rights. The city acted within its powers six years ago when it extended benefits to the same-sex life partners of its employees, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The Supreme Court overturned a two-year-old Commonwealth Court decision that held that the city had overstepped its authority in the 1998 ordinance that awarded same-sex couples employee benefits. In 2002, Commonwealth Court ruled that the way the city went about awarding the benefits amounted to an effort to amend the state's marriage law, something that only the state government is legally permitted to do.

In writing for the court, however, Justice Russell M. Nigro rejected Commonwealth Court's reasoning.

While we acknowledge certain facial similarities between marriage and life partnership, we simply do not agree that they are sufficient to establish that the city has legislated in the area of marriage here, Nigro wrote.

William Devlin, the conservative activist who sued to stop the city's plan, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is confused on this if they don't think that the City of Philadelphia has created a new class of marital rights, Devlin said. I guess what they're saying is that 'the family' is anybody who has appeared on Jerry Springer.

Mayor Street's spokeswoman, Barbara Grant, said the city's intent was not to recognize gay marriage, which is prohibited in Pennsylvania, but to treat homosexual employees equally.

We've held very firmly to our belief that you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, she said. It's a fairness issue.

The court's ruling was 6-0; Justice Sandra Schultz Newman did not participate.

The city's victory was not complete, however. The court disallowed parts of the statute that would have prohibited discrimination against couples who registered as life partners and given them an exemption from the city's real estate transfer tax.

Nigro wrote that the anti-discrimination provision was illegal because it allowed people from outside the city to register as life partners, something the city did not have the power to do. Besides, the justice wrote, the city's laws already ban discrimination based on sexual preference.

On the issue of the transfer tax, the justices said Pennsylvania law requires that taxes be assessed evenly within a class of people, and the city hadn't adequately justified giving a tax break to some same-sex couples but not others in long-term non-marital relationships, such as two cousins sharing a house and bank account.

Grant said the city was reviewing whether to appeal those portions of the ruling.