As first reported here, City Commissioner Sam Adams has signed on to Basic Rights Oregon’s fight to make the State of Oregon comply with the state constitution. The first step in his lawsuit was filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit is the fourth in a series of suits filed with the help of BRO, but it’s the first that isn’t directly against the state of Oregon. It is, essentially, a “dissolution of domestic partnership” suit between Adams and his former partner of 11 years, Greg Eddie.

They split up in 2004, during Adams’ campaign for city council—relatively amicably, according to all accounts—and began dividing the assets (cars, a house, Eddie’s 401K, etc.) that they had built up in their more than a decade together. But the only thing they couldn’t divide was the money in Adams’ public employee retirement (PERS) fund. Normally, with straight couples who divorce, a court can order that the PERS account be divided—but since Adams and Eddie weren’t (and couldn’t be) legally married, state law prevented the account from being split up.

According to the legal team at BRO, it’s a case of state law violating the state constitution. In 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional for state agencies to treat legally married couples and same-sex domestic partners any differently. Benefits offered to breeders couldn’t be denied to other couples solely based on their sexual orientation. Still, Oregon has dragged its feet in implementing the required policy changes to comply with the ruling, leading BRO to start suing.

The Adams v. Eddie lawsuit is seeking the division of Adams’ pension, but more largely, it’s asking that the statute governing PERS benefits be ruled unconstitutional. Depending on how the state responds (read: if the state says “screw off”), the case could eventually become Adams & Eddie v. The State of Oregon.

Adams is the highest profile litigant BRO has had—yes, even higher profile than WW’s Byron Beck, who was involved in a previous lawsuit called Martinez v. Kulongoski, which attempted to invalidate Measure 36. The specific legal issue in this case—dividing a state employee pension—won’t exactly blow up any newspaper headlines, but the involvement of Adams, a media darling, is bound to grab attention.

And don’t let the Adams v. Eddie name fool you—the former partners aren’t pitted against each other, but are reuniting in the public eye to fight for equality, even in “divorce,” which they proved by hugging after the press conference.