gay marriage
The City Attorney's Office, which months ago gave the plan a thumbs up, changed their mind late Tuesday afternoon following a report by KIRO Radio. (AP Photo/File)

Seattle City Attorney nixes plan to give 'allowance' to gay employees

BY Brandi Kruse  on December 4, 2012 @ 6:29 pm (Updated: 9:21 pm - 12/4/12 )

Despite plans to make an official announcement Wednesday, the city of Seattle will no longer move forward with a plan to give gay and lesbian city employees who get married a monthly "allowance."

The City Attorney's Office, which months ago gave the plan a thumbs up, changed their mind late Tuesday afternoon following a report by KIRO Radio.

"Up until 4:01 p.m. today, we were expecting to announce our work on this publicly tomorrow afternoon at a press conference at City Hall, as reported accurately by KIRO Radio earlier today," Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said in a statement Tuesday. "At 4:01 today, all of that changed."

On Tuesday, KIRO Radio reported that Mayor McGinn and members of the Seattle City Council were set to announce the new benefit at a press conference on Wednesday.

Mayor McGinn confirmed the scheduled announcement when questioned by reporters at an unrelated event Tuesday.

"If the federal government has an unjust law, I don't think it's fair to punish our workers who are following all the rules," he said.

Starting Jan. 1, gay and lesbian city employees who get married under the state's new marriage equality law were to receive a monthly allowance of $90, or approximately $1,080 over a 12-month period.

The stipend was designed to offset federal taxes that those couples must pay due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The benefit to gay couples would have cost taxpayers an estimated $162,000 a year. Multiple sources who work for the city told KIRO Radio the expense had already been worked into the city's 2013-2014 budget.

However, in an internal email sent at 4:01 p.m. Tuesday, Civil Division Chief Jean Boler with the Seattle City Attorney's Office said the stipend would violate a state law that prevents the city from providing benefits to married couples that are not provided to state registered domestic partners.

RCW 26.60.015

It is the intent of the legislature that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a state registered domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual. The provisions of chapter 521, Laws of 2009 shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.

"In view of this analysis, we advise that the City not go forward with the ordinance as written and postpone any announcement related to the ordinance," Boler wrote in the email, which was given to KIRO Radio by a source who works for the city.

The email was in direct opposition to a memo sent to the mayor and members of the city council on Oct. 11.

The memo, from Assistant City Attorneys Fritz Wollett and Gigi Gilman, said the city's plan to offer the benefit would lessen "the discriminatory impact" of DOMA.

"The City has a legitimate interest in seeing that employees, who are the victims of discrimination that the City cannot control, are compensated fairly," said the memo, which was also provided to KIRO Radio by a source who works for the city.

While the memo says such a benefit is "untested in the courts," it concludes by saying, "This office does not foresee any significant legal obstacles to the adoption of this practice, particularly if limited to married same sex couples."

According to a source who provided the memos, City Attorney Pete Holmes was not pleased with negative press surrounding KIRO Radio's original report on Tuesday.

After receiving the memos, KIRO Radio reached out to the mayor's office for comment. Here, in full, is the statement Mayor Mike McGinn provided:

Based on written advice from the law department, we have been working with Council on a proposal that would help to mitigate the discriminatory impacts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Up until 4:01pm today, we were expecting to announce our work on this publicly tomorrow afternoon at a press conference at City Hall, as reported accurately by KIRO Radio earlier today. At 4:01 today, all of that changed. That's when we received an email from the law department that was contrary to their previous advice. The law department informed us that this effort would be in violation of state law and that we should not host a press conference with councilmembers. Based on this latest advice, we are not holding a press conference on this work tomorrow and are now evaluating our options for next steps in our work to help address these inequalities.
Brandi Kruse, KIRO Radio Reporter
Brandi Kruse is a reporter for KIRO Radio who is as spontaneous and adventurous in her free time as she is on the job. Brandi arrived at KIRO Radio in March 2011 and has already collected three regional Edward R. Murrow awards for her reporting.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Devastation
    Oklahoma City tornado kills at least 50, dozens of kids missing

  • Twister Terror
    Gallery: Deadly Oklahoma tornado

  • Messiest
    New lane restrictions mean Mercer Street is tough to travel during afternoon commutes
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (58)


  • Add A Comment

  • ratrustle wrote...
    All I can say is wow!
    December 5, 2012 9:10 am
    This may not be the PC thing to say, but I'm tired of entitled behavior. My girlfriend and I live together. She has a government job and gets health benefits. A gay couple living together has been entitled to health care under "domestic partnership" for years. What's the difference? I'm sure we all love our partners equally as much? I don't expect ANY special treatment because of my living situation which is not condoned by the church either. It sounds like I ought to hire an attorney to go after the State to get my health care benefits paid for. Using this logic -- it's the right thing to do!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Dave0311 wrote...
    what tax needs offset
    December 5, 2012 9:36 am
    "The stipend was designed to offset federal taxes that those couples must pay due to the Defense of Marriage Act" Which tax break (besides married filing jointly) does a married couple get that singles don't get and specifically what will this $1080 offset? Do the math Couple A (Man and Woman) Both make $50K year for total $100K and file MFJ with no mortgage and no other deductions will have a Tax liability of $12,185. If they have $12K in schedule A deductions they will have a tax liability of $12160 (thats right $25 savings) Couple B (Same Sex or Man and Woman) Both make $50K year for total $100K and file single with no mortgage and no other deductions will have a Tax liability of $6,093 each for a total of $12,186 ($1 difference). If they have $12K in schedule A deductions (mortgage interest and property tax) one will have a tax liability of $4,695 (using sch A deductions) and the other will have $6,093 for a total of $10,788 tax liability. A savings of $1,372. Yes I know there are other variables like if in couple B situation if one made $35K and the other made $65K and they didn't have a sch A then they would owe about $1035 more then couple A but if they had the $12K schedule A then they would still be $477 less the Couple A. In couple B situation its at the $30K/$70K point when there would be very little difference if they had $12K on sch A then a married couple with the same sch A. I don't believe every same sex or non married couple are paying more tax because they are not MFJ on their tax return. This is also done without dependents. When the Head of Household standard deduction is used there are so many variables each set of returns would need to be done to see which is better for couple B.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ToldYa wrote...
    RCW 26.60.015
    December 5, 2012 10:44 am
    Yes!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    gay favoritism will end when the manchurian muslim
    December 5, 2012 10:54 am
    appoints sharia muslim attornys to the supreme court.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    HA!
    December 5, 2012 12:07 pm
    I was hoping someone up there would put a stop to that nonsense, if you feel you need to fix federal law, fix it in the federal arena.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Splinge wrote...
    Sheesh...
    December 5, 2012 3:47 pm
    Why oh why can't government be as interested in doing right by the REST of the American people, instead of coddling along the gays and lesbians. Good grief, the whole country will be going to heck in a hand basket, but at least the homosexuals will be getting their "allowance". Countless millions of small business owners and not to mention the tens of millions of unemployed are struggling far more than these prima donna's. I believe we as a nation are on target to get exactly what we deserve, if this is the kind of lunacy our "supposed" leaders are focused on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    So now that there's gay marriage in this state...
    December 5, 2012 4:55 pm
    ...we can kill domestic partnership benefits for unmarried gay couples. Right?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    AJ
    December 5, 2012 6:32 pm
    Your new picture makes you look just as stupid as your old one. Just post a picture of a horses hind end and it will be appropriate.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    AJ Von Braun
    December 5, 2012 7:31 pm
    Resident rocket scientist posted a NEW picture of himself "because he didn't like the other one" The "new one" makes him appear to have a carrot stuck up his poop chute. Nice look, AJ, hope when you run for office as dog catcher all your old posts don't come back to haunt you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dexterjibs wrote...
    The only smart thing
    December 5, 2012 10:18 pm
    the Seattel City attorney's office has ever done.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }