Did a Seattle domestic partnership qualify for Connecticut retiree health benefits in 2006?

Plain-English summary

A retired Connecticut state employee asked whether his Seattle city domestic partnership entitled his partner to state retiree health coverage. In 2006, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal concluded that a Connecticut court was very unlikely to treat the Seattle registration as equivalent to a Connecticut civil union. Seattle's ordinance expressly said registration created no new legal rights or obligations, whereas Connecticut's civil union law then conferred marriage-like state rights.

The retiree had left state service before a separate domestic partner benefits award took effect and therefore did not qualify through that route, according to the facts supplied to the AG. The opinion addressed this particular municipal registration under the law of 2006; it does not describe present eligibility or present marriage and partnership law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Retirees and partners at the time

The opinion said registration under Seattle's ordinance alone was unlikely to satisfy Connecticut's then-existing civil union route to retiree coverage. It distinguished that registration from legal relationships that created substantive rights and duties. The AG did not decide every out-of-state relationship's status in this letter.

Benefits administrators at the time

The AG focused on the legal effect of the document presented, not its label. Seattle's registration was a municipal acknowledgment that conferred no new rights, while Connecticut's civil union law then attached state-law benefits and responsibilities.

Common questions

Q: Did Seattle domestic partner registration automatically count as a Connecticut civil union in 2006?
A: The AG said a Connecticut court would very likely say no, because the Seattle ordinance created none of the rights or obligations then attached to a Connecticut civil union.

Q: Was Connecticut constitutionally required to recognize a Seattle city ordinance?
A: The AG said the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not require a state to recognize another jurisdiction's municipal ordinance in the way the retiree proposed.

Q: Did the employee qualify through Connecticut's separate domestic partner benefits award?
A: According to the facts given to the AG, no. He had ended state service before that award took effect.

Background and statutory framework

The Comptroller's office asked about a retiree who registered a Seattle domestic partnership in 1996 and sought to add his partner to retiree coverage in 2006. The AG compared Seattle's ordinance with Connecticut's civil union law at the time, including Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn (2006 Supp.). He also addressed the constitutional argument and found no obligation to treat a city ordinance as another state's law.

This opinion's discussion of same-sex relationships reflects the 2006 legal setting and should not be read as a statement of current marriage or benefits law.

Citations and references

Statute cited in the opinion: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn (2006 Supp.).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2006-formal-opinions/honorable-nancy-wyman-comptroller-state-of-connecticut-formal-opinion-2006019-attorney-general-state

Original opinion text

Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, State of Connecticut, Formal Opinion 2006-019, Attorney General, State of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

August 2, 2006

The Honorable Nancy Wyman

Comptroller

State of Connecticut

55 Elm STreet

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Ms. Wyman:

This letter is in response to a request from Karen McDonough, Division Counsel for the Office of the Comptroller’s Retirement and Benefit Services Division, for a legal opinion as to whether the State of Connecticut will recognize a same-sex domestic partnership entered in Seattle, Washington, by a retired Connecticut state employee.

I understand from telephone conversations between my office and Ms. McDonough that the employee, Mr. S., terminated his Connecticut state service on December 13, 1990. On December 23, 1996, he and another man registered as domestic partners pursuant to the City of Seattle’s Ordinance No. 117244. The Ordinance establishes a program whereby two individuals, who need not be of the same sex, may register as domestic partners provided: neither of them is married; they are in a relationship of mutual support, caring, and commitment, they are each eighteen years of age or older; they are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of Washington; and they are each other’s sole domestic partner. On March 1, 2006, Mr. S. became eligible for retirement. He would like to add his partner to his Connecticut retiree health insurance plan, but because he terminated his state service prior to Connecticut’s Domestic Partners Interest Arbitration Award, which took effect in March, 2000, Ms. McDonough states that he is not eligible for benefits pursuant to that Award. As a result, he may not obtain retiree health insurance benefits for his partner simply by signing a Connecticut Domestic Partnership Affidavit. Ms. McDonough states that he would be entitled to such benefits, however, if he were a party to a valid Connecticut civil union or similar out-of-state same-sex partnership that is recognized by Connecticut. Accordingly, you ask whether Connecticut will recognize Mr. S’s domestic partnership registration as equivalent to a Connecticut civil union.

I conclude that a Connecticut court, if faced with the issue, would very likely decline to recognize Mr. S’s domestic partnership as equivalent to a Connecticut civil union. This conclusion is inescapable because the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to recognize another State’s municipal ordinances. Even if it did, Connecticut would be unlikely to recognize Seattle’s Ordinance because the Ordinance confers none of the rights, benefits, or obligations conferred by a Connecticut civil union. Consequently, assuming that Mr. S and his partner are not involved in a civil union or marriage elsewhere, and are not related by certain degrees of kinship, they may seek a civil union in Connecticut, with all its rights and benefits. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38bb (2006 Supplement).

As you are aware, on September 20, 2005, I issued a formal legal opinion concluding that Connecticut courts will likely recognize civil unions entered into in Vermont and domestic partnerships entered into in California, but will not recognize same-sex marriages entered into in Massachusetts. Conn. Op. Atty Gen. No. 2005-024, 2005 Conn. AG Lexis 23 (Sept. 20, 2005). I reached this conclusion based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S. Const., Art. 4, § 1. As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each State to recognize the laws of the other States, but “does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 424 (1979). Because Connecticut’s public policy does not permit same-sex marriages within the State, I concluded that Connecticut would not recognize same-sex marriages entered into in Massachusetts or any other State. I further concluded that Connecticut would likely recognize civil unions entered into in Vermont, and domestic partnerships entered into in California, because the laws in those States were substantially similar to Connecticut’s civil union law and did not violate Connecticut’s public policy.

In the present case, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is inapplicable because, by its express terms, it only requires States to recognize the laws “of every other State.” U.S. Const., Art. 4, § 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Connecticut has no constitutional obligation to give full faith and credit to a municipal ordinance, Ropico, Inc. v. City of New York, 425 F. Supp. 970, 978 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), and therefore need not recognize a domestic partnership entered into pursuant to Seattle Ordinance No. 117244.

Additionally, Ordinance No. 117244 differs substantially from Connecticut law. Unlike a Connecticut civil union, which confers on the parties all of the “benefits, protections and responsibilities under [state] law, . . . as are granted to spouses in a marriage,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn (2006 Supp.), Seattle Ordinance No. 117244 states in its preamble that it “is not intended to create any new or different legal rights or responsibilities, or to itself create or evidence any contractual relationship or obligation between the individuals who participate in the registration program.” The Registration of Domestic Partnership form that Mr. S. signed similarly explicitly states that the parties “understand that the Registration of Domestic Partnership does not afford our relationship any new or different legal status,” does not “create any new or different legal rights or responsibilities,” and does not “establish or evidence any contractual relationship or contractual obligations between us.” Thus, a Seattle domestic partnership is solely a means by which two individuals may publicly acknowledge their commitment to each other. Because it confers none of the rights, benefits or responsibilities of marriage on the individuals involved, it differs substantially from a Connecticut civil union. Accordingly, I conclude that a Connecticut court, if faced with the issue, would be very unlikely to recognize Mr. S’s Seattle domestic partnership as equivalent to a Connecticut civil union.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL