One step forward, two steps back: Vasquez v. Hawthorne wrongly denied Washington's meretricious relationship doctrine to same-sex couples

Washington's property-division scheme for unmarried couples is among the mo st progressive in the nation. The scheme has evolved from a time when court s treated unmarried couples unfavorably and generally refused to divide the ir property equitably. The Washington Supreme Court took a step forward fro m this approach when it created the meretricious relationship doctrine. Und er this doctrine, courts may equitably divide unmarried couples' property a t the termination of their relationship if the relationship Was stable, mar ital-like, and the parties cohabited knowing they were not lawfully married . Now, however, the Washington Court of Appeals has restricted the applicat ion of this doctrine to heterosexual couples only, holding in Vasquez v. Ha wthorne that same-sex relationships cannot qualify as meretricious relation ships. Vasquez reasoned that because Washington law prevents same-sex coupl es from marrying, same-sex relationships cannot be "marital-like." The Wash ington Supreme Court has granted review and should reverse Vasquez. "Marita l-like" has been and should be defined by the conduct of the parties and no t by their legal status. The Vasquez decision unjustly denies to same-sex c ouples an opportunity to benefit from a property-division scheme for unmarr ied couples by violating public policy and reflecting heterosexist views.