m. - - - Bill 970745 - Amending retirement system, approved December 3, 1956, as amended, and amending the Municipal Retirement Benefit Plan 1987 Ordinance, which became effective January 8, 1987, as amended, to, and in case of both ordinances, allow members of the Retirement System to name as bene- ficiaries and survivors any person designated by the employee, under certain terms and conditions. Bill 970749 - amending Chap. 19-1400 of The Phila. Code entitled "Real Estate Transfer Tax" by further providing for excluded transactions and requiring the signing of the certification affidavit, under certain terms and conditions. Bill 970750 - amending Chap. 9-1100 of The Phila. Code entitled "Fair Practices," by adding a new definition and amending certain definitions, and by prohibiting discrimination in employment and in places of public accommodation on the basis of marital status. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN F. STREET, Chair COUNCIL. A. CLARK COUNCIL. H. FERNANDEZ COUNCIL. J. BLACKWELL COUNCIL. M. TASCO COUNCIL. D. COHEN COUNCIL. A. ORTIZ COUNCIL. J. KRAJEWSKI COUNCIL. F. DICICCO COUNCIL. A. VERNA COUNCIL. B. O'NEILL COUNCIL. J. KENNEY COUNCIL. R. MARIANO COUNCIL. D. MILLER COUNCIL. T. LONGSTRETH COUNCIL. M. NUTTER COUNCIL. F. RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I N D E X Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Archbishop. . 15 Philadelphia Archdiocese Reverend William Devlin. . . . . . 26 Director of the Urban Family Council Reverend Benjamin Smith. . . . . . 35 Deliverance Evangelistic Church Reverend Shine, Vice President . . . . 40 Black Clergy of Philadelphia Reverend Sergio Martinez . . . . . 46 Sinai Assembly of God, Marie Summers, President . . . . . 49 Dignity, Philadelphia Reverend Jeffrey Jordan. . . . . . 56 Metropolitan Community Church of Philadelphia Reverend Neena Gray, Minister. . . . 60 Unitarian Society of Germantown Reverend Benjamin Maucere. . . . . 64 First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia, Reverend Beverly Dale. . . . . . 68 Christian Association, Univ. of Penn. Rabbi Yael . . . . . . . . . 72 Mishkan Shalom, Philadelphia. Reverend Paul Huebner. . . . . . 79 Calvary of the United Methodist Church, Dr. Dan Gottlieb, Family Therapist . . . 85 WHYY Radio Talk Show Host Richard Bansen . . . . . . . . 94 Quaker Society of Friends Arthur Delaney, President . . . . . 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Index- cont'd. Charles E. , Bishop. . . 107 Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania Reverend Barry Hart Pastor. . . . . 111 University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation Mark Aronchick, Esquire . . . . . 116 Chancellor, Philadelphia Bar Association John P. Stanton . . . . . . . 123 Family Life Educational Foundation Larry Gross, Cochair. . . . . . 127 Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force Rabbi Sue Levy Elwell, Director . . . 137 Union of American Hebrew Congregations Andrew Park, Executive Director . . . 141 Center for Lesbian & Gay Law and Public Policy Jim Nolan . . . . . . . . . 149 War Veteran, Retired Teacher Denise Kulp, Cochair. . . . . . 154 Liberty City Lesbian & Gay Democratic Club Rita Addessa, Executive Director. . . 160 Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force Larry Frankel, Executive Director . . . 169 American Civil Liberties Union of Penn. Dabney Miller, Women's Law Project. . . 174 Suzanne Blanchard, Member . . . . . 176 Task Force for Gay and lesbian Concerns Richard Kirk, Private Citizen . . . . 186 Robert Malagesi, Private Citizen. . . 188 James E. Dougherty, Professor Emeritus. . 191 St. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Index- cont'd. Jared Boigon, Director of Programming . . 196 American Jewish Congress, Pennsylvania Region June Krebs, Chair, Germantown Branch. . 201 Women's International League for Peace & Freedom Christine McMenamin, Private Citizen. . 205 David Acosta, Executive Director. . . 207 Phila.
Gay & Lesbian Latino AIDS Education Linda Rhym, AFSCME District Council 47. . , Dolchin, Slotkin & Todd 213 Melina Naldo, PFFLAG. . . . . . 227 J. Ciavarella & T. Schwarz, Life Partners 234 Isaac Miller, Pastor. . . . . . 239 Church of the Advocate, Rabbi Rebecca Alpert. . . . . . 241 Joseph Needham, Private Citizen . . . 244 Kathy Barlow, Private Citizen . . . . 247 Joseph Evans, Private Citizen . . . . 249 Reverend Dwight Lundgren. . . . . 255 Ben Hayllar, Director of Finance. . . 257 Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner. 260 Linda Seyda, Personnel Director . . . 263 Stephanie Franklin-Suber, City Solicitor. 327 Nicole Burton, AFSCME . . . . . . 389 Charles Bradley, Private Citizen. . . 390 Anthony Marachi, Private Citizen. . . 398 Barbara Dowdall, Private Citizen. . . 405 Andrea Furtek, Private Citizen. . . . 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to -- while I've urged Councilmembers, I'd just like to inform the members of the audience here today that Councilmembers have little boxes in their offices. And under ordinary circumstances, they know when the hearings are about to begin, and they wait till this microphone is open and they can hear the activity in the chamber. And so I expect that Councilmembers will be coming to the chambers very shortly. But in the meantime, I'd like to talk a little bit about what we are going to do here today. We have about somewhere between 75 and 100 people who have signed up to testify. This is not the most popular public hearing that we have had; we have had even more people to sign up to testify at public hearings. We appreciate the interest that the members of the general public are showing in this important controversial issue. We'd like to ask your cooperation. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 certain amount of respect and dignity, and that everybody be given an opportunity to speak and to be heard. It is unfair to the Members of City Council, it is unfair to the members of the general public, for those folks who are here, who feel very strongly about this issue, to interrupt the testimony and to not allow them -- witnesses or Councilmembers -- to speak. We don't believe that these hearings can or should be completely without emotion. There are times when people want to express themselves by clapping and doing other things. This is entirely appropriate, and no effort will be made to keep people from expressing themselves in that way. However, there reaches a where emotional displays, one way or the other, interfere with our ability to take the testimony and have the hearing, and we would appreciate very much, no matter what your view is, if you would give us an opportunity to have a public hearing today. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of the evening. We will do everything reasonably possible to hear all the witnesses that have signed up to testify. We will ask people to limit their testimony, particularly members of the general public; we do not expect you to be conversant with all the details of the bills. We think that the likelihood is that people will come, and they will be testifying in favor of the bills in a general kind of way and not necessarily know all the details. These are very complicated issues, and there are, you know, significant legal questions that get raised, and we don't expect the members of the general public to be conversant with all of those issues. And, therefore, we'll respect your right -- therefore, we will respect your right to come and give testimony, even if it's in a general way, in favor of one or more of the bills or in favor of the concepts underlying the bills. Now, I would like to explain early on that as it relates to these bills -- and Councilwoman Verna, I would appreciate it if you would remind me that I have not read the titles of the bills. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 lot of people who have come here who've never been here before, so don't let me forget to go back and read the titles of the bills. There will be a set of amendments that will be offered to some of these bills. The general public had no way of knowing what those amendments will be, so there may be people who are testifying on a bill, as it's currently written; and later, an amendment will be offered. I would appreciate it very much if the Members of Council would understand that, and let's not be technical in holding the witnesses to know the details of amendments that we won't get to until later on this evening or at least after all of the public testimony is given. There are technically five bills before us. I received a letter -- I think it was last Friday -- from Councilman Ortiz, requesting that Bills No. 970181 and 970140 be withdrawn from consideration. And then on Monday, April 20, I received a follow-up note requesting that Bill No. 24 970140 be withdrawn, and Bill No.
970140 be resubmitted for consideration. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Well, I'm not sure what that means. I think that's probably a typo. 'Cause on the one hand, it's the same bill.
Okay. So you wish Council Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 14 No. 970181, is that correct?
Well, we will leave it because we may have -- we may have an amendment to that bill later on.
Councilman, all you have to do is say yes. If you say yes, then it's before us.
I just -- let me say -- let -- let us withdraw the two bills, 970140 and 970181, I move that they be withdrawn.
A motion is not necessary. 10 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Okay. I will wish that those two bills be withdrawn for consideration at this hearing.
And the bills that will be remaining is 970745, 970749, 970750.
Now, I would also like to inform the Members of Council and the general public that we will take two breaks during the course of this testimony. We will break for about 30 minutes at approximately 1 o'clock. And then around 5 o'clock, we'll take another break for about 30 minutes or so, because it is unfair and unreasonable to expect Councilmembers to sit for 16, 17 straight hours without having any break. And so we will take two breaks, and then we will plot on with the testimony. Is there any question from any Member of Council on any of that? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.
Mr. President, would it be possible for people who have 11 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 amendments to at least circulate those Councilmembers now so that we could -- as we're thinking about this issue all day, we could at lease see what the proposed amendments might be.
It is my understanding that the one set of proposed amendments has been circulated -- only set of proposed amendments has been circulated.
I'll ask that they be circulated again. I'll my staff to get those proposed amendments and get them circulated again.
Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, it is correct that those 12 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 amendments were circulated yesterday. They were attached to a City Solicitor's opinion on the three bills. A separate circulation is on its way, with an explanation, but those are proposed amendments drafted by the Law Department to deal with technical clarifications and to provide better information about what certain bills do or don't do. So they are attached to the City Solicitor's opinion.
We're going to need a little cooperation from the press in this hearing. We would appreciate it very much if you have to do various reports to your stations, if you could find a way to do that outside, or at least in a way that doesn't interfere with the progress of the hearing. We are also going to need some cooperation and understanding as we try to conduct this hearing. There are numerous people on all sides of this issue. There are clergy who support 13 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the bills and clergy who oppose the bills. There are witnesses who would like to testify in groups; for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and, I think, the Philadelphia Bar Association and the Women's Law Project has a panel of people that would like to testify. We would like to as best we can accommodate those individuals who've have made an effort to organize themselves and to testify in groups, so we're going to need some cooperation and some understanding as we try to make sure that the hearing is conducted in an orderly fashion. There will be approximately, three maybe four, witnesses who will testify on behalf of the Administration: Mr. Ben Hayllar, Nancy Kammerdeiner, and Linda Seyda, and I think someone from the Law Department. Those people will be you called to testify a little later on in the day. So we will try to get through the variety of witnesses and an as efficient and as reasonable a way as is possible. At this time, a quorum being present, I will officially declare that a quorum of the City Council of Philadelphia is present in the 14 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 chambers. Today we will have a public hearing and perhaps a public meeting on several bills that are before us. We will consider Bill No. 970745, an ordinance amending the retirement system, approved December 3, 1956, as amended, and amending the Municipal Retirement Benefit Plan 1987 Ordinance, which became effective January 8, 1987, as amended, to, and in case of both ordinances, allow members of the Retirement System to name as beneficiaries and survivors any person designated by the employee, under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 970749, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1400 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Real Estate Transfer Tax" by further providing for the excluded transactions and requiring the signing of the certification affidavit, under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 970750, an ordinance 22 amending Chapter 9-1100 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Fair Practices," by adding a new definition and amending certain definitions, and by prohibiting discrimination in employment and in 15 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 places of public accommodation on the basis of marital status. Immediately following the public hearing, a meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole, open to the public, will be held to consider action to be taken on the bills just mentioned. We would like to have as our first witness today His Eminence, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia. He is here. (Applause.) (Cardinal Bevilacqua comes forward.)
Good morning, Your Eminence. CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Good morning, Mr. President.
Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your statement. CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: My name is Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the City Council, ladies and gentlemen, I bid you a very affectionate good morning. I'm here to testify because of the gravity of these five bills regarding life partners and domestic partners being considered by Council. I appear before you, confident that my position, the position of the Catholic Church, is grounded in a firm basis of mortality, custom, and faith. I am testifying in person so that the Members of Council, as well as the public, will hear the Catholic Church's true position on marriage, the traditional family, homosexuality, and the proposed life partners legislation. In 1996, this Council held hearings on ordinances regarding so-called domestic partners. Today, three ordinances refer to life partners, while two ordinances refer to domestic partners; yet both terms refer to the same relationship. The nomenclature is different; the meaning and consequences of the suggested measures are the same. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 legal equality between marriage and same-sex partnerships. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: So-called life partnerships, they reflect an attempt to cast aside marriage as our legal standard and to establish a legitimacy for homosexual unions as well as heterosexual partnerships outside of marriages. However, the marital relationships shared by husband and wife constitutes the only true and lasting life partnership. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Our position is supported by many religious leaders representing many varied denominations. It is uplifting that one can see and hear these leaders speaking together in one voice. To know that so many religious and community leaders have come together united on this issue should not be a surprise to anyone. We have done so before, and if need be, will do so again. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the face of constant assaults on the sacred, time-honored, and vital institutions. It is deeply disturbing that every few years, we have to come before City Council to offer testimony in defense of traditional marriage and the family. Perhaps those all behind these bills hoping that we will grow tired or that our message will become outdated or muted. If so, they are grossly mistaken. Though we are of many faiths, we are of one voice. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: At the outset, I must say unequivocally that the Catholic Church condemns as immoral any act of unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. The church's teachings on the issue of homosexuality is clearly pronounced in the catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that homosexual people, and I quote, must be accepted with respect, compensation, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Church clearly teaches that a homosexual orientation in itself is not immoral. Violence and hatred directed at a homosexual person is sinful and wrong. It is troubling that the issue of life partners has been framed in terms of discrimination. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia works constantly to ensure that our actions and words reflect our firm belief that discrimination against any individual is completely unacceptable. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: To accuse the Catholic Church of unjust discrimination because it labels homosexual behavior as sinful or because it opposes these bills can only be interpreted as a total disregard for truth and honesty. We have nothing but loving concern for those who oppose our position, including those who are homosexual. We recognize that all persons are gifts from God and deserving of our love and respect. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 honor or provide special incentives for their life-style.
) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Some who support these goals allege that their goal is not to equate same-sex life partnerships with marriage but to avoid discrimination. However, other supporters of these bills concede that their ultimate goal is to legally establish same-sex marriages. They argue that the definition of marriage has to change with the times. For the Catholic Church, the issue has always been that of preserving and defending the sacred institution of marriage and traditional family life. It has never been a matter of discrimination. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Each year, our parish and Archdiocesan schools educate over 111,000 students of all races, all beliefs, and varied incomes. Twenty of our schools are composed solely of minority students, the vast majority of whom are non-Catholics. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 educational assistance he or she needs. We offer this education without discrimination. Many of you know that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is the largest provider -- private provider of social services in the Commonwealth. Each year we serve hundreds of thousands of people all races, of varied incomes, and of all beliefs, even those who profess no religious belief. In response to God's call, we help to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and house the homeless. In addition, we provide services to those who suffer with HIV and AIDS. In these humanitarian efforts, all are given assistance without discrimination. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Our human services and educational programs are well known. However, many people may not know about two Archdiocese programs that go more directly to the issue at hand. The Archdiocese supports a program for Catholics who are homosexual. This program, called "Courage," assists those who turn to us for help. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 in their desire to live a chaste life. Our faith teaches us that all people are gifts from God. How could we respond otherwise? Another program, called "Encourage," is offered for the families of homosexuals. This program provides education, support, and love for these family members. The real issues at hand, marriage and the traditional family, are too important to be lost in the confusion of the debate. These values are too central to all of society. The definition of marriage -- the union of a man and a woman -- is timeless. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Marriage does not change to fit momentary whims or to be politically correct. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: I emphatically repeat what I stated five years ago when I testified before Council, because the truth has not changed and will not change. At that time, I testified that such bills are dangerous because they attempt to cast aside marriage as our legal standard of legitimate cohabitation, they intend to give legitimacy to homosexual cohabitation as well as heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage. This is a legitimacy which neither homosexual or heterosexual cohabitation now enjoys and, which, for the common good of the City, should not be given. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: This legislation communicates to the whole of society, but especially to our youth, that extramarital and homosexual relationships are the natural, moral, and legal equivalents of marriage and the family. They endeavor to nullify the fact that committed, traditional marriages and stable families constitute the foundation on which a lasting and civilized society is built. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Marriage and family life have a unique and fundamental role in society. This role springs from the fact that the permanent commitment of husband and wife in marriage is intrinsically tied to the procreation and education of children. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: This leads eventually to the necessary support of society. The health and well-being of our City depends on stable families.
) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: As elected leaders of our City, you are called to defend the sacred institution of marriage and to support traditional family life. Do not become another negative force in society which gradually erases the term "marriage" from our vocabulary. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Members of Council, I submit that the actions of the Catholic Church are based on compassion, justice, and equality before God. We strongly disagree with those who oppose. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 One can recognize that each person is a gift from God; yet one does not have to condone every behavior of that person. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Therefore, I urge you to reject legislation that gives legal validation to life partners and compels businesses and taxpayers to subsidize these relationships. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Just because one's relationship is not validated by law or subsidized by taxpayers, it does not mean that one is facing unjust discrimination. A stable civilization needs a stable family life. Therefore, law and public policy should seek to stabilize the traditional family structure through support, protection, enhancement, and encouragement. As Archbishop of Philadelphia, shepherd for nearly a half million Catholics in the City of Philadelphia, and as a citizen of this great city, I respectfully exhort you to reject these bills and to voice your support for marriage and traditional family life. ) CARDINAL BEVILACQUA: Members of City Council, I again extend my hand to you. Together, we must work to support the institution of marriage and to strengthen the traditional family. If we are successful, a stronger, healthier Philadelphia and society will surely emerge. Thank you. )
Good morning, Members of Council and citizens of Philadelphia. It is great to be here this morning to testify about marriage and family and the strength that it brings to our fine City. My name is Bill Devlin. I'm a Democratic Committeeman from the 61st Ward. I reside with my wife of 18 years and 5 children in the East Oak Lane section of the City. I am also the director of the Urban Family Council, an urban-based interracial pro-family organization dedicated to the City, its children, and families. 27 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Just yesterday, our organization ran a full-page ad in the Philadelphia Daily News, 11. Many of you have seen it. That ad, with its 36 signers, represents over 550,000 citizens in the City of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
Including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, along with the largest Black church in the City of Philadelphia, Deliverance Evangelistic Church. (Applause.)
The largest Anglo church in the City of Philadelphia, Calvary Chapel in Northeast Philadelphia, represented here today. Also the -- one of the largest Spanish churches, Sergio Martinez, at Sinai Assemblia de Dios, on Fifth Street. And also the largest Chinese church. And that's why we have called our opposition to these bills the "Campaign of Love and the Rainbow Coalition." (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 28 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am encouraging Members of City Council to vote against the life partners and domestic partners bills. The reason for the Urban Family Council's opposition to these bills is manyfold. First, since these bills were introduced, opponents -- I among them -- have stated that these bills would undermine marriage or change its definition. Supporters of these bills in Council, in the public, and in the media have ridiculed our position. Yet, four of the five bills before Council clearly establish a process whereby two people may come forward and formally declare themselves to be partners. Thereafter, they would be, by law, entitled to benefits and be exempt from taxes, just as married heterosexual couples are. (Applause.)
Thank you. In fact, the two domestic partners bills even call for a City registration and certification process before the benefits are mandated. Therefore, I ask the supporters of 29 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 these bills to be honest with everyone, admit it: You are trying to establish same-sex marriages in the City of Philadelphia -- (Applause.)
-- under the guise of partnerships. Second, there has been a clear pattern of misunderstanding as to the scope of these bills. Again, the statement that I am about to make comes from a clear reading of the plain language of the bills before Council. These bills apply to every person -- every person, I repeat -- who lives and works in the City of Philadelphia. No, I am not yet making the point that all Philadelphians will be harmed; rather, I mean it literally. The sponsors of these bills and too many in the media have reported that these bills apply only to City employees, as if that would make it acceptable. That is totally and clearly false. Four of the five bills would allow any same-sex couple living in Philadelphia to register as life partners. Furthermore, the Realty Transfer Tax Bill clearly applies to every single residential 30 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 property in the City. It has nothing to do with one's employment. The reason for the Urban Family Council's opposition -- and again, we represent over 550,000 in the City -- is twofold: for financial reasons and for common sense. Recent facts show that 30 percent of adults in southeastern Pennsylvania and percent 10 of their children go hungry each month because 11 they do not have enough food or money to buy food. 12 According to a comprehensive survey 13 conducted by the Philadelphia Food Bank, 82 14 percent of their clients have no other resources 15 for food other than agency or government food 16 programs. And 78 percent of households receiving 17 food from emergency food programs have an annual 18 household income below $10,000. And 26 percent 19 have no stove for cooking. Finally, while 50 percent of clients receive food stamps, 76 of this group reported that food stamps don't last the entire month. These are statistics compiled prior to welfare cutbacks. Children go hungry in Philadelphia because of lack of resources. 31 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Our School District, where I send four of my five children, is a hundred million dollars in debt. City Council passed the drink tax legislation, which our organization supported, in order to bolster the District's resources so our kids could have books. Not every police officer in our City has a bulletproof vest, and not every Citywide swimming pool will be open on June 1st. Not every child is immunized in this City. We're celebrating National Childhood Immunization Week this week. And, yet, according to Council sources and the news media, these radical bills before you, which radically redefine the family, will cost the City $617,000. How many vests is that? How many immunizations is that? How much food for a hungry child? (Applause.)
Men and women of Council, and men and women of the City of Philadelphia, with these emotional realities before us, let's talk about equity fairness and 32 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 economic justice. These bills before Council will benefit a demographic group, according to the local Diversity of Pride Market Audience Product Benefit Summary, that this demographic group that would benefit as a result of these bills is the wealthiest in this City. Let me quote from the Diversity of Pride fax of April 14th, a fax sent to local radio and TV stations designed to obtain corporate sponsorship for their Diversity of Pride event at the end of this month. And I quote: This market -- meaning the homosexual community -- possesses a track record for basing purchasing decisions on gay and lesbian media advertising averaging 80 percent of all gays and lesbians. Listen carefully. Over 50 percent of gay males households earn annual incomes above $50,000, and over 30 percent of lesbians earn annual incomes above $50,000. Yes, this is about economic -- (Shouting, heckling from members of the audience.) 33 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Yes, men and women of Council, this is about economic justice and economic fairness. And, by the way, the average salary for the African-American male in this City is $21,500. Giving a benefit, men and women of Council, to the wealthiest demographic group of people while children go unimmunized, police go without vests, and senior citizens go hungry, these bills are a reverse Robin Hood. They take from the poor and give to the rich. (Applause.)
I thank you. Finally, our opposition to these bills is based on common sense. Heterosexual marriage: one man, one woman for life -- one man, one woman for life in all cultures, in all countries, in all colors, in all ethnicities, and in all races has been the norm for 6,000 years. (Applause.)
Has there been a deviation from the norm? Yes. 34 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The family has been redefined in some places, but always -- but always to the detriment of men, women, and children, and the culture and civilization. When you have a sick family member, you don't abandon them. Marriage in our culture is clearly in need of repair. City Council, don't redefine marriage with these five bills. Rather -- (Applause.)
Rather, the Urban Family Council works with you, and we rather you support those bills and that legislation and those ideas and programs which will bolster and support the one-man-one-woman-for-life. Statistics show that 53 percent of all children born in Philadelphia hospitals, men and women in, 1996 in our City, left that hospital without a father -- left the hospital without a father. We all -- we all have to work together. Listen to the wisdom of the last 6,000 years, men and women of Council, and vote no on redefining the family. 35 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Thank you very much. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Reverend Benjamin Smith. (Applause.)
Mr. President, Council, and members, and all of the people that have assembled here in view of this undertaking that you're going to have to face today, I want to approach this entire situation from the root cause. And that is very simply, it's a question of right and wrong, of righteousness and adjustment. The creator said to the creature, "It's not good for man to be alone." So he created woman. (Applause.)
And said, "Replenish the earth." Those of us who profess Christianity have to realize that God is just not in the pulpit or in the pews or in the sanctuary. But in every phase of life, God is concerned about every phase 36 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of our lives. (Applause.)
Now, sooner or later, every person in this chamber is going to have to face God. And while he is a God of love, he is also a God of judgment. We are given the opportunity to make choices. The choice we make will determine where we will spend eternity. God loves the homosexual, but God hates homosexuality. (Applause.)
The solution to the homosexual's behavior will not be settled in this chamber. The solution is found in repentance and deliverance, and every one of them have the opportunity to be prepared to meet God. On our currency, and the very currency these people are seeking security in, it says, "In God, we trust." Well who is the God that they're trusting? If we trust the true and living God, he has promised to deliver us from whatever separates us from Him. I want to cite to you and those of you who are taking adverse positions to the 37 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 presentation that has been made here today, while God is sovereign, he respects your will, he will deliver you if you will repent. And you can be as normal as any other individual. (Applause.)
I'm going to cite to you -- listen to me -- you are going to hear these words again. You are going to hear these words again. It's going to be judgment or repentance. And the final analysis is not going to be settled in the court of law, it's not going to be settled by what Council vote on. In the final analysis, every one of us is going to have to face a just God, a God who says, ""I love you and I will forgive you, I will set you free." He that the son set free is free indeed, but you have to make the choice. You can get all of the laws passed that you want. But in the final analysis, when you've faced God, your lawyers will not help you. (Applause.)
Only one lawyer is going to count, and that is Jesus Christ of 38 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Nazareth. (Applause.)
I am not ashamed -- I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God and the salvation to all who believe it -- first the Jew, then the Greek, then to the homosexual. That applies to every living sole. But as individuals, you have to make the decision. My prayer is that you will decide on God's side. The nation and the individuals that forget God shall be turned in to hell. You have a choice. Members of City Council, we have to demonstrate our Christianity in whatever position God allows us to occupy. Wherever we are, we have to demonstrate our relationship with Jesus Christ. Passing these laws giving people a right to commit sin is not demonstrating righteousness. Jesus said, "Seek ye first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto three." I command because if you don't take God's word seriously and apply Christian 39 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 principles to daily living, you're going to have to face Him in the judgment. And my plea to you is to search the scriptures; for in them, you will have eternal life. Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 6 through 32; Genesis, Chapter 19; First 7 Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verse 9. Search it for 8 yourself. 9 I will pray with you, I will minister 10 to you, I will do everything that God has enabled 11 me to do to help you to become what He desires you 12 to be. 13 (Applause.) 14
Can we have Reverend 16 Martinez. I would appreciate it if Reverend 17 Martinez would join Reverend Shine at the witness 18 table. Reverend Martinez. 19 (Reverend Martinez comes forward.) 20
Can I have your attention, please. May I have your attention, please. At this time, we will hear testimony 40 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 from Reverend Shine, after which we will hear testimony from Reverend Sergio Martinez of the Hispanic clergy. The Chair recognizes Reverend Shine.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and Members of City Council and to all of the citizenry of Philadelphia that are here for this most emotional occasion, I am here as the Vice President of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and vicinity, serving as the Chairman of the Social and Civic Committee, Chairman of the (unintelligible) Institute, one of the most historic and prestigious schools of religious education of our City and nation. I'm here also as one of the our City's pastors representing Black clergy, of which there are 400 churches that comprise our organization, constituting over 300,000 congregants. Mr. President, because of the grave concern that the religious community shares in this issue, we would have City Council to know that our government institutions, elected officials, and the fundamental documents under 41 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 which traditional family values are secured were to be under the higher law of principles. These higher-law principles would act as a barrier to the implementation of any legislation that could be imposed on the citizenry of our City by the whims and fancies of non-traditional values of a God-ordained objective order. We join with many religious communions, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Ecumenical Organization of Black Clergy, and the ministerial councils and conferences of our City to express our opposition to any legislation that would bring to our City this immoral bill. The Church stands as the moral and ethical conscience of the State along the basis of scripture, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. We call upon you to obey the rule of God in this matter that will potentially breed serious moral consequences, the likes of which ultimately brought about the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Applause.)
God's clear plan in 42 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the Bible is that women complement men, and that men complement women. God's objective order in creation includes heterosexual orientation for humans. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex are necessarily and essentially disordered, according to the objective moral order and the sacred scriptures. The sacred scriptures oppose such acts as wrong, immoral, and even portray them as a tragic consequence of rejecting God and living independent of God -- not under God's authority, but in opposition to it. The community of faith believes that the scriptures are the inspired word of God, the final authority for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instructions in right living. We believe that heterosexuality is God's created intent for humanity; and, therefore, view homosexual expression as outside of God's creative order. We believe that the homosexual life-style is one of many manifestations of transgressions against God's objective order, and under no circumstances -- (Applause.) 43 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And under no 3 circumstances should the clear teachings of God's word regarding same-sex union -- homosexuality lesbianism -- be ignored. And by legislation unilaterally hand us a law enacted upon the citizens that the scriptures and the community of faith, the church, and good moral conscience oppose. The question that I raise, Mr. President and Members of City Council, is, can we impeach God because we do not like his teachings? The special interests of the gay community is described as "gay rights." Gay rights must not be viewed as civil rights. The civil rights of every citizen are guaranteed protection under the Constitution of the United States. Sexual orientation does not constitute a state of life comparable to race, color, ethnicity, religion, and the handicapped, in regards to the law and the spirit of the law, as provided under the current civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination. Neither are moral rights established by human legislation, nor by the data 44 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of empirical scientists that deal with human behavior. We do, in fact, support human rights that are also the guaranteed rights under the Constitution. But above and beyond that, they are the endowment of all of our creator, human rights. The psychologists and the sociologists and the anthropologists should not be the determinative factor in informing moral norms. It is God who created man. And God has the exclusive right to establish moral standards. The behavioral scientists do not give orders to God, nor have the right to change His objective orders for human existence and human conjugal relationships and society procreation. As for gay rights, it is promoted that the homosexual life-style is good in and of itself, even superior to a heterosexual life-style. That's according to the gay rights. It is the active homosexual life-style wherein celibacy is not part of that community. Gay rights, then, is an attempt to justify and to legitimize the state of homosexuality. But all men are endowed by their 45 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 creator. Therefore, you do not need to have legislation to give us rights that God has already granted us. (Applause.)
Therefore, this must be something that is opposed and in direct opposition to the moral law of God for society. An alternative life-style is in violation, Mr. President, of God's created order, which is male, and female, created he then. We therefore respectfully call upon this august chamber not to approve this legislation, as it is in direct violation to the mind and the will of God for mankind. We must not live independent of God's rule. There is, as has been stated before, a judgment to come. The Bible declares that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Homosexuality is against the established order of the Creator, our God. So we ask you respectfully not to move forward in a positive manner on this legislation. Thank you. 46 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
Mr. President, Members of City Council, and members of the Philadelphia community, I am Pastor of the Sinai Assembly of God, one of the Hispanic churches right here in Philadelphia. I've been a member of the Philadelphia community for the last years, 11 and it burdens me that City Council is considering 12 these bills. 13 Because one thing that we know, this is 14 the birthplace of the nation. And our nation was 15 based on the Bible. It was the scripture that 16 provided a framework for everything that we have 17 up to date. And it is back to the scriptures that 18 we must go if we are to have a strong society. As a member of the Hispanic community, I strongly am against any legislation that will equate life partners with marriage. And I am speaking not only for myself, but as part of the Hispanic community, which is a growing community in our City. And we may not have a lot of 47 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 representation of Hispanics at this gathering, because, in many instances, we as a community have been placed aside, and we are not aware of the things that City Council is dealing with. But in this instance, I'm telling you, if you just made a poll within our Hispanic community, you will find out that over 90 percent of Hispanics will not agree with the bills that are being presented to City Council. (Applause.)
Therefore, being part of this community as Hispanics, being citizens of this City and assisting this City in its development and its continued growth, I advise you to vote no against these bills. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, thank you very much. At this time, we would like to hear from Rabbi Sue Yael, Reverend Neena Gray, Marie Summers -- I think she's from the organization Dignity. Beverly Dale, Reverend Benjamin Maucere. And I think Reverend Richard Bansen is 48 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 part of the group that cannot be here till a little later. Can we have any of these clergy people who are here come and testify at this time. We would appreciate it if you would all come up to the witness table at one time. (Applause.)
I understand that there is a minister who has yellow pad and is in the green (referring to Rabbi Sue Yael.
Rabbi, I'm sorry. I understand you should have been a part of this group.
I would appreciate it if -- just like to offer just a little word of caution to those of you who are here who have very strong feelings abilities this issue. You don't add very much to this hearing by interrupting the witnesses one way or the other. 49 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 It would be very helpful and useful to us if people could just listen to the testimony given by the witnesses and allow us to proceed with this hearing. We could be here infinitely longer if people don't kind of adjust to the fact that you will be hearing a lot of things with which you disagree. So with that caution, would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your statement. (Marie Summers comes forward.)
My name is Marie Summers, and I'm the President of Dignity Philadelphia. I'd like to say good morning first to Council President Street and to all the Members of City Council. And I thank you for the opportunity of addressing you today. Dignity Philadelphia is an organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Catholics, our families and our friends. We gather every Sunday in the community room of an Episcopal Church for mass. And on any given Sunday, our congregation totals approximately 100 people. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am also a native Philadelphian, South-Philly-born and bread, the product of 4 years of schooling in the Archdiocesan School 5 District, and in a committed relationship with 6 another woman. She is a former sister of St. 7 Francis of Glen Riddle, also of this Archdiocese. 8 And I love the Catholic Church. The 9 question that is asked most often of me and of 10 other gay and lesbian Catholics is: Why don't you 11 just leave the church? There's so much you 12 disagree with, why don't you just walk up the stairs and join the Episcopal Church where you will be more welcomed? And the only answer that I can give to that is: Because we can't. We are a community of Catholics, first and foremost, and truly believe that we also have a place at the table of this great church. We believe that this place becomes clear when its viewed within the context of the wider Catholic church community. Throughout the 2,000-year history of this church, a great deal of diversity has flourished, and it is in this diversity where the Church has found its strength. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 especially apparent when we look at the way different United States bishops and different diocese have chosen to respond to legislative matters such as those before this City Council. While we are certainly familiar with the Church's opposition, I would ask you to also consider that when presented with legislative action in the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Diocese of Spokane and Yakima, Washington, Archbishop Thomas Murphy wrote a letter stating that the bishops had decided neither to endorse nor to oppose these initiatives. Archbishop Murphy also asked local parishes not to allow supporters of two anti-gay rights initiatives to gather signatures on church property. The bishops were content to urge Catholics to use their own conscience and best judgment in deciding whether to support the initiatives. A spirit of cooperative opposition was present in California when domestic partnership health benefits were the issue. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 benefits it offers to spouses or to lose funding for the Catholic charities from the city of San Francisco. Recognizing that this was an opportunity for the Archdiocese to address a new and very serious social debate, Archbishop Levata and Mayor Willy Brown worked together to find a solution which was mutually acceptable. As a result of their collaboration, the City has codified regulations to recognize that a business or agency which allows each employee to designate a legally-domicile member of the employee's household as being eligible for spousal-equivalent benefits to be in compliance with the law. Archbishop Levata has stated, quote, I agree with moral theologians like William May who see no compromise of Catholic moral principle in this practice. This policy has since been adopted by the Archdiocese of San Francisco and by many large corporations, including the Bank of America. 7 percent of employees have taken advantage of these benefits. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I celebrate that this wonderful church is blessed with the richness of intellect and the wisdom of the ages which enables us to enter into these debates and to work together to find a way to include all people. I respect that Cardinal Bevilacqua is exercising his own conscience and ask that each one of you do the same.
Even within our diocese, there are parishes which have not participated in the collecting of signatures or in the reading of anti-gay messages from the pulpit. And God bless those priests and other religions who have indicated to us privately that they do not support the use of the full power and force of the Archdiocese to lobby so strenuously against this legislation. )
Among bishops can also be seen within the dignity community. Dignity Philadelphia has been a presence in the faith community of Philadelphia for years. We meet 23 at an Episcopal Church for a weekly Sunday 24 liturgy, and many validly-ordained Roman Catholic 25 priests who are supportive of us serve us. None 54 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of these priests, however, is Archdiocesan. In some cities, including Baltimore, Maryland, the local Dignity Chapter meets in a Catholic church and has mass celebrated by Archdiocesan priests. In some cities, there is dialogue between Dignity and the local hierarchy. In other cities, including Philadelphia, there is no 10 dialogue. And I am sure that each bishop believes that he is following what his conscience is dictating. I agree with many of the things that we've heard here today. I agree wholeheartedly that the Catholic Church has an outstanding record of providing social services, and I am so proud of them for that. I agree that it is tragic that so many babies are leaving hospitals without a father. And I agree that each and every one of us will someday need to look into the face of God. And I can tell you right now, I don't know what that face looks like. And the only place I know to look for that place is in my own heart. And the God that I 55 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 find in my heart tells me what Jesus said was to love one another. (Applause.)
So I ask each of you, I ask each of you with a vote to cast, look into your own heart before you cast that vote. Realize that we are your sons and daughters and that we are the sons and daughters and grandchildren of many of the people sitting here holding their signs against us today. (Applause.)
We may not have told you yet, but you know who we are. We are not a faceless group of strangers. We may not have told you yet because we are afraid, but we are your sons and daughters, and we are only asking that you recognize this, and that we want and need the same things that you do -- love, honor and respect. You have in your hands today the power to give some of this to us, to help us to live our lives in dignity and integrity. I pray that you open your heart to the Holy Spirit and find a solution which will best serve all of God's 56 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 children. Thank you. (Applause.)
Jeffrey H. Jordan. To President Street, to the Members of Council, I would like to say good morning, and I would like to thank you for advancing to the point where we are here today to set all agendas and all thoughts on this issue on the table. Years ago, there would not have been a discussion like this. So we can say we have come a long way. I'm Reverend Jeffrey Jordan. I'm pastor of Metropolitan Community Church of Philadelphia. Metropolitan Community Church of Philadelphia is a Christian church that has a ministry to the gay and lesbian community. We are a part of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, with over 300 congregations in 13 different countries, recently reaching out to South Africa. From some responses that was said by 57 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 those near me, I know that I'm not the most popular person here today. I am a pastor of a church that ministers to the gay community, I am an African-American male, and I am a gay man in a loving relationship with my partner. (Applause.)
There are those who say that you can not be gay and a Christian. You cannot question -- excuse me. You cannot question my Christianity -- that's between me and God. (Applause.)
And my partner will tell you -- and my partner will tell you that I am gay. Before we can even begin a mature discussion concerning domestic-partner benefits, I feel it is necessary to agree that most gay and lesbian people are healthy, mature humans who are not in need of a healing or an exorcism. (Applause.)
Even though many fundamentalists still adhere to primitive thoughts, homosexuality is neither a sin or a sickness. 58 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
I have heard a lot of people say that the Bible says this, the Bible says that. The Bible also says -- the Bible also says, "Salves, obey your masters." The Bible says -- the Bible says that women -- the Bible says that women should be submissive and be quiet. (Applause.)
The Bible says, "If your right eye offends you, pluck it out." What, then, should we say about same-sex unions? Society has decided that marital status, with all its benefits, should be based on respected cultural norms. This in no way makes the exclusion of same-sex couples right, legal, or holy. A wedding is a symbol of two people committing their lives to each other. Being that some religious institutions have denied a ceremony to same-sex couples, we cannot let a ceremony define a relationship. There are gay and lesbian couples who are living in committed relationships, even though they've been denied a marriage. 59 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
Right here in Philadelphia, I get calls daily from to gay 5 and lesbian couples who have been together for 6 many years, seeking me to bless there union. 7 Right here in Philadelphia, there are families 8 with children that are same-sex. I have one 9 couple in my church who have adopted five 10 children. 11 (Applause.) 12
One of the children 13 has Down's syndrome, one of the children was born 14 a crack baby due to a heterosexual relationship, 15 one of the children was born with AIDS, and the other two children were abused. Does this family have the right to call themselves "a family"? (Applause.)
We are living in a time when we must take the acceptance of a truth to a higher plane. Just as social intolerance brought about the movement of slavery emancipation, women's suffrage, and civil rights for African Americans, we must become intolerant to the exclusion of rights to sexual minorities. 60 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
In the past, many of our patriarchs have tried to use the Bible to push their personal agendas. Still, truth has always prevailed. How can we not let the same truth prevail today? You say the Bible is against it. Show me word. I'll show you where John 3:16 says, "Whosoever. . . " I am "a whosoever." I pray that this great City not rest until justice and equality is established. How can you not vote to give us equal rights? May God bless you and heaven smile on you. (Applause.)
Honorable Council President Street and Members of the Council, I am Reverend Neena Gray, Minister of the Unitarian Society of Germantown, on Lincoln Drive, in Mount 61 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Airy. (Applause.)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this decision before you, which is a matter dear to the soul of my church, the Unitarian Society of Germantown, and dear to the soul of my denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association. Our church in Mount Airy is involved in the Northwest Philadelphia Interfaith Hospital Network which provides shelters and seeks to help families which are homeless to strengthen their life situations and move to safe and healthy housing. The Unitarian Society of Germantown has adopted the Lingelboch School, providing classroom libraries for children and other support there for children and families. We have food programs, support recycling and the New Threads Program. We support the Nicetown Boys and Girls Club, which our former minister founded decades ago. Our church is pro-family and 62 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 pro-children's lives. (Applause.)
Ten years ago, our church voted to support its ministers in performing services of holy union for gay and lesbian couples. (Applause.)
Our church, the Unitarian Society of Germantown, voted at that time nondiscrimination in hiring staff. And that is nondiscrimination as to sexual orientation. Our church voted to cherish the life choice of gay and lesbian people. Our denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association, refuses to pit one minority group against another. (Applause.)
We have embarked on an anti-racist initiative at the same time as we are encouraging a Welcoming Congregation Program, welcoming gay and lesbian people and affirming their right to develop and stable family ties. The first tenet of our faith is to cherish the inherent dignity and worth of all 63 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 people. The second is to promote justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. The youth in our church school learn to cherish diversity and respect difference. Like most children, they develop a passionate conviction about fairness. Unitarian Universalists have worked tirelessly for policies of equity and justice. Our denomination and my congregation have long stood for the rights of gay and lesbian people, supporting nondiscrimination in hiring and calling ministers fighting, homophobia, and developing welcoming congregations. We believe, as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that if some are treated unjustly, then all are diminished. (Applause.)
We affirm the family in its great variety of expression, believing love and justice strengthen family, our neighborhoods and our City. In this spirit, I urge you to act positively, voting yes for providing health insurance benefits, pension survivor benefits, and 64 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 real estate transfer benefits for domestic partners and life partners. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
My name is the Reverend Benjamin Maucere. That's M-A-U-C-E-R-E. Honorable Council Chair John Street and Members of Council, I thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I am co-minister of First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia, at 2125 Chestnut. Our church has stood for full inclusion of all people in the human family for over 200 years here in Philadelphia. (Applause.)
Full inclusion in the human family, participation full, full citizenship. And these are the larger issues raised by this debate. If you consider justice, if you consider family values, then granting domestic partner benefits is the right thing to do. 65 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
I can't believe we're still talking about this. I testified here five years ago, on the same issue, and we're having the same conversation. Five years ago, I mentioned that I entered City Hall through an archway on Broad Street, which had the word "justice" carved in the archway. I spoke of domestic partner benefits as a justice issue then, and the Honorable Chair of City Council didn't agree with the connection. And I've had five years ago to think about it, so I'll try again. The justice issue has to do with equal protection under the law. Gays and lesbians are caught in a catch-22 situation. The state tells them can't marry, and the City tells them they can't have benefits 'cause they're not married. (Applause.)
Now, you might say that gays and lesbians do have equal protection under the law -- they're free to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's very much like the freedom of the rich and poor to sleep under 66 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 bridges. The state should not deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, to proclaim their commitment before God and to the gathered community, and to share in whatever legal benefits are the right of married couples. The state should not consign gays and lesbians to the ranks of second-class citizens. But as long as the right to marry is denied, it is cruel and absurd for the City to deny because they are not married. It is unconscionable. (Applause.)
In our society, gays and lesbians are subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence. Studies indicate that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian teens. They are three times more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual teens. This is an abomination. And these events occur because of a climate of fear and hatred, and bigotry. (Applause.)
And I'm ashamed to 67 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 say that that climate of fear and hatred and bigotry is created and fostered by members of the religious community. (Applause.)
My breath was taken away earlier to hear that this initiative is taking food out of the mouths of poor children and vests off the chests of officers. And I say, if that's the issue, then let's take away all benefits. It was obviously a cynical ploy. You on the City Council have a sacred duty to protect and defend the rights of all citizens, including the rights of gays and lesbians who work and pay taxes and vote, fall in love, commit to one another, and raise children in real families. (Applause.)
These families and the well-being of these partners and these children are the concern of all of us, and these families should be strengthened and not scorned or attacked. These are family values. (Applause.)
The religious 68 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 beliefs of some should not result in the denial of the rights of others. To those of you who are opposed to domestic partner benefits, my response is simple: If you don't want the benefits, don't apply for them. (Applause.)
But don't deny those rights to others. Thank you. (Applause.)
Can I ask Mr. Dan Gottlieb join this group. I'd like for Mr. Dan Gottlieb to join this group. Can we have our next witness. (Reverend Beverly Dale comes forward.)
I work as a clergy at the Christian Association at the University of Pennsylvania. My constituents is faculty, 69 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 students -- graduate students and undergraduate -- and staff in that community. Last week, City Council was -- you considered a very important vending ordinance that the University of Pennsylvania had requested. You noted at that time the importance of that institution to the City as the second-largest employer. I would also note for the record that since July 1, 1991, the University of Pennsylvania has provided domestic partnerships for all of its staff. (Applause.)
I would hope that this Council would also take that into consideration as you are considering moving in this direction. I was really pleased this morning to hear Cardinal Bevilacqua make the distinction that he was talking about church teaching. He wanted to make clear what church teaching was. And that is to be commended. Many of us seem to think that church teaching and this ordinance are incompatible. And I would suggest that, indeed, for some churches 70 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that is the case. However, I would also suggest that these ordinances being presented and Christian principles are not in contradiction. (Applause.)
While the cardinal suggested we speak with one voice as a religious community, obviously, that is not the case; there are many voices here. And I consider myself a Christian and clergy, and I disagree with the church teachings that Cardinal Bevilacqua was speaking of. (Applause.)
There's a significant difference between teachings and principles. In the academic environment in which I work, we understand the basic premise that education is always changing, that truths are always changing and in flux. One simply needs to look at Galileo and his head-on battle with the church so understand that yes, teachings do change. (Applause.)
There are, however, Christian principles that are consistent with 71 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 every other major faith tradition principles. Some of these are to consider justice in light of the least of these, my brothers and sisters. (Applause.)
A second commandment is to love ourselves and others as we love our God. That principle is also at work in this issue. The third principal issue is the golden rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated, with fairness. (Applause.)
Just as research and academic teachings are always changing, so church teachings are also in flux, depending on the time and the culture. One analogy would be if this body of folks who were to pass an ordinance saying that because church teachings -- some church teachings -- do not recognize the credibility of women's ordination, you should not indeed allow me to perform weddings in the City of Philadelphia. Now, I'm sure most of you would see that that would be inflicting church teaching on a different matter. That should not be. I would 72 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 suggest that we have the same thing at work here. (Applause.)
On our college campuses, I have seen pain and wounds that have been created by well-meaning people of faith, who have not understood the difference between church teachings and the moral, ethical principles of Christianity, which are consistent with Judaism, Islam, and all other major faith traditions. None of us should lay aside our own morality when we are in public-service capacity, and I would commend you for hanging on to your own moral standing. However, public servants are required to lay aside sectarian views, views which are shaped by specific teachings of their own institutions, which may be in conflict with the basic democratic principles of creating justice. I wish you well. (Applause.) (Rabbi Yael comes forward.)
Rabbi Yael, Y-A-E-L. I'm 73 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 from the congregation of Mishkan Shalom. We're located in Philadelphia -- Chestnut Hill, in Philadelphia. We're a Reconstructionist congregation, so I'm speaking for myself, I'm speaking for my congregation Mishkan Shalom, and I'm speaking for the entire Reconstructionist movement to come here today and to urge you, to implore you to support domestic partnership. (Applause.)
I'm speaking as a rabbi and as a religious leader of a community, and I take that position very seriously. I am also speaking for myself, I'm also speaking as a lesbian, as a woman in a committed relationship with another woman who has a two-year-old son. (Applause.)
And I implore you from this place, from the place of being a lesbian family, from the place of being a loving, committed lesbian family, and I am imploring you to support domestic partnership. I have to say that I was deeply 74 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 saddened -- deeply, deeply saddened and disturbed to hear over and over again this morning the use of the Bible to speak against justice, the use of the Bible to speak against equality and against humanity. (Applause.)
I have a different message from the holy scriptures. I hear a different message from these scriptures, I hear the voice of the prophets calling to us from the mountains. I hear the voice of the prophets calling us to seek justice, calling us to repair the world. The prophets are telling us the world is broken the prophets are telling us we must repair the world. The prophets are telling us we must join together, to come off the mountain, to come out of the churches, out of the synagogues, into the streets together and repair our world and repair our communities. The way that we do this is to end oppression, the way that we do this is to end inequality and to end hatred. (Applause.)
The way that we do this is 75 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 to see the face of God in every person that we meet. The way that we do this is to recognize the absolute holiness in each and every person we meet. The way that we do this is to sanctify love and sanctify committed relationships between people any two people. We must not be the judges, we are not the judges. (Applause.)
We have heard this today. We are not the judges. God is the judge. And we do not -- nobody can say what God wants. None of us, none of us can speak for God. But we can speak from our hearts, we can speak for our families, our City, and our communities. We must sanctify loving relationships. We have a commitment as human beings to do this. (Applause.)
Not to have equal rights -- not to have equal rights for gay and lesbian couples is to perpetuate injustice. Not to recognize the rights of gay and lesbian men and women to sanctify their loving relationships is to 76 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 perpetuate injustice. To say that to give equal benefits to gay and lesbian partners, to say that if we do this, that we're taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich not only perpetuates injustice and hateful division, it is absolutely, absolutely shameful. (Applause.)
Gay men and lesbians are creating families. Let me say that again. Gay men and lesbian are creating loving, committed, strong families. This is the reality, this is our world. (Applause.)
We are committed families. We are creating families that do not tear up the fabric of our society. Our society is torn. Our society is torn. We are creating families that are helping sew back the society. We are creating families of commitment and love. (Applause.)
Families come in every size, every color, and every configuration. Families have not been consistent for 6,000 77 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 years. Families have grown and changed, and will continue to grow and change forever. As religious leaders, as political leaders, as community members, it is incumbent upon us to support the creation of families. That's what will make our communities, our cities, our schools and our countries strong. Passage of the domestic partner legislation will not undermine heterosexual marriage. It will support and strengthen the power of commitment. (Applause.)
There is no dearth of holiness and love. Give holiness to gay and lesbian families is not to take holiness away from heterosexual partners. (Applause.)
The Reconstructionist movement, of which I am proud to be a part, strongly, strongly supports gay and lesbian rights and gay and lesbian relationships. The reconstruction movement supports gay and lesbian marriage and urges all Reconstructionist clergy to officiate as these marriages. 78 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 In our Jewish tradition. We just celebrated the holiday of Passover. As Jews, as Israelites, we have just left Egypt. We have just left the narrowness of slavery. We have just left the bondage of the oppressors. And now we're wandering in the wilderness. Now, as a people, as a community, as a city, as a country, we are wandering in the wilderness. We must join together on this march. We know that if there's not justice for everybody, then there's not justice. And we know if there's not equality for everybody, there is not equality. We must join together and create a society and a community where justice and equality exists. We are in the desert, and we are in the wilderness. I implore you, I implore you to lead the way in this wilderness. I implore you to lead the way. I implore you to vote for the domestic partnership legislation and to support the creation of families. (Applause.)
Please identify yourself for the record. 79 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Reverend Paul Huebner comes forward.)
Mr. President, I'm the Reverend Paul Huebner, H-U-E-B-N-E-R, Pastor of the Calvary of the United Methodist Church, at 48th and Baltimore, in West Philly. (Applause.)
In my years of 9 ministry, that's the first time I ever got 10 applause. 11 (Laughter.) 12
I come at this in a 13 slightly different way, Mr. President and Members 14 of Council that are still here. I come at it as 15 kind of a humble preacher, probably representing 16 the smallest congregation as compared to my 17 esteemed colleagues that have gone before me. 18 But I have spent most all of my life in 19 the City. I was educated in the public schools, 20 which, sadly to say, reading today's Daily News article, are in great jeopardy. And I wish City Council would spend as much energy on the schools as this issue. (Applause.)
I come as a father 80 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of two boys that I love very much and who have been also educated in the City, and have gone to what is known as the finest high school in the city, which I also went to, and, I'm sorry to say, again, the City continues to ignore, our children in our public schools. I also come at it as a loving husband; it just so happens that my partner is female. But I feel very strongly in this issue and support these resolutions very strongly. I also come as someone who has been a taxpayer, who has paid thousands of dollars of city wage tax over the years. Yes, clergy are taxed. And I have served churches in this city that have paid thousands upon thousands dollars of real estate taxes to support me in the parsonages that I've lived in. I grew up in a conservative Evangelical church up in North Philadelphia. And like a lot of churches, old city churches, there was a gym in the basement. And in that gym, we played basketball all the time. And it was one of those gyms you probably have all seen. You know, the 81 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 out-of-bounds were the walls, the ceiling was so low that we all learned to shoot jump shots like a line drive. And there was always in the corner that was protected by wire mesh. And it said "Play Fair." I can remember, as a young kid, saying to my father, Why is that sign there, play fair? I mean, it seems kind of incredulous -- I didn't use that word at that time, but it seemed kind of incredulous that in a church, there would need to be a sign that said "Play Fair." And then, as I got older and my skills weren't as good as the other kids', I realized that that sign was there for me, because I didn't usually play fair, because I just wanted to win. And that's all I was concerned about. As I became an adult and went into ministry, and after 20 years of ministry, I realize that most of our churches need signs that say "Play Fair." (Applause.)
Because, unfortunately, it is the churches that often play 82 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the dirtiest. (Applause.)
I have all respect for my colleague in ministry, Anthony. I have spent many hours in my office with Roman Catholics that have been hurt and pained by the church trying to keep them in Roman Catholicism even though they wanted to come to United Methodism. I have counseled with many couples who stay married in name only for their fear of the Church, and for their fear of losing City benefits. I am pained that people would wave Bibles at me and pull dirty tricks like that, as we come to offer, hopefully, legislation which speaks about justice and about care for all types of families. (Applause.)
I was taught in the Philadelphia schools about a concept known as separation of Church and state. And though I always want the church to speak for justice and righteousness in this world, I just feel I need to take this moment to remind 83 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the City Council that many of you are aligning yourselves with a church and with churches, but specifically a church, who, if my brother Anthony were celebrating mass tomorrow and the president of the United States were to approach him as a sinner seeking the signs of grace and love and reconciliation, the Cardinal would just say no. 9 I would remind you that it is also a church that women who say that they are called of God and wish to celebrate the sacraments are told very plainly, You aren't good enough. (Applause.)
We have heard from a prince of the church who will make sure till his dying day that there are no princesses because they are not worthy and are not in the image of Christ. I come to you as a pastor of a small congregation in an old building in West Philadelphia that is made up of many people of many colors and many backgrounds and many sexual preferences. I realize that some of you feel pressured by church leaders. At the risk of 84 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 sounding like I'm proselytizing, may I say to you that every Sunday at 10:30, you would be welcomed around our table of fellowship no matter what your color or what your preference or what your political beliefs. (Applause.)
As someone who has paid thousands of dollars to this city, I'm not worried about the financial -- the financial needs of these bills. As a matter of fact, if she were here, I would invite my Councilwoman where I live and the Councilwoman where I work to spend a day with me in both neighborhoods, and we would find enough money in waste that would cover these bills. (Applause.)
As a father of two boys who are beginning to find partners for themselves, my concern for them is that they find loving relationships and just relationships, and not relationships that just go on paper alone. (Applause.)
And as a pastor of a church which has been a reconciling and welcome 85 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 congregation for years, we come to ask you to support these bills so that we may support and help people maintain the family values that they cherish. (Applause.)
My name is Dan Gottlieb, 10 and I appreciate and am honored to speak with City 11 Council today. 12 I have been practicing marital family 13 therapy in this city for 29 years now. 14 For the last 13 years, I've had a radio 15 show on WHYY called "Voices in the Family." It's a call-in show. And for the last 5 years, I've written a bimonthly newspaper column for The Philadelphia Inquirer. In addition to the all of those voices that I hear, I get about to 30 letters and 22 phone calls a week from individuals and families 23 in distress. In their own way, they tell me their 24 story. And in that context, I'd like to share 25 some of my observations about what harms families 86 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and what helps them. First, what harms them from within are expectations. Early on, we develop something called "an ego ideal." It's the perfect self, it's that perfect human we aspire to be. It's based on our parents' image, it's based on our cultural image, it's based often on our parents' unfulfilled dreams. It's that perfect self. And by the way, it usually takes the form of looks or achievement or power or money. Rarely is that perfect self seen as a kind or compassionate self. Now, it's nice to strive for ideals. Our culture wouldn't survive if we didn't all strive to be better. But we live in a time when we can have the illusion of perfection. The media says to us, You can and should have it all. And worse, you can be whoever and whatever you want to be. Given that, then, that perfect self is no longer something to strive for. That becomes our minimum acceptable standard. Now, here's the danger. When the gap between who we are at core, who we are in our 87 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 heart is different from who we think we ought to be, when that gap gets too big, bad things happen. We're convinced that we should be different and we feel badly about ourselves. We feel that we're not good enough, ashamed of what we haven't become. Now, the same thing happens with families. Around age 5 or 6, we develop a vision of the ideal family, the perfect family. And it looks something like this. And I'm sure we all know it. She expects him to be present, involved, powerful, loving. And consistent. He expects her to be attractive, warm, nurturing, a wonderful mother, and consistently supportive of him. They together expect their children to be self-motivated, high achievers, and not too demanding; anything but what kids really are. And they all expect this family to make them happy. That's what we all learn. If you get in the right family, then you will be happy. Well, my colleague says getting married doesn't make you happy; getting married just makes you 88 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 married. (Laughter.)
I see these people in my office every day, every day of my career. They are angry and disappointed with themselves and with one another. They try to change one another to create that vision they have in their head. And they fail, they always fail. Expectations damage families. They expect each other to be someone they're not. They expect the same of themselves and their children. Now, society has an ideal image of families, too. We know it. The ideal family is middle class or better, it's heterosexual, it's never divorced, it's always loving, and it's never in crisis. That means it never has doubts, resentment, hatred, desire for infidelity, feelings of sadism, or loneliness. All of these things are considered by our culture to be abnormal. If we have them, then there's something wrong with us, our families. The truth is, if you don't have these feelings in your relationship, somebody's been sleeping. Expectations hurt families. Families 89 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 break up and people live with low self-esteem and feel victimized. Expectations hurt families. The result is, everyone feels alienated. They feel alienated from the family, they feel alienated from one another, because they haven't lived up to some mythic standard. I had a woman in my office who was in crisis. And I asked her who cared about her, who supported her. And she mentioned some of her friends, and I said, "What about your mother?" She said, "Oh, my mother doesn't hear my heart." I thought, How sad. That's what a family's supposed to do for us. They're supposed to hear our heart, and we're supposed to hear the hearts of people we love. So people feel like they don't belong. Part of being human is the desire to belong to family and to the community at large. Well, that's what hurts families from the inside; to be judged, to be told you should feel a certain way. To judge someone creates alienation, it creates pain and suffering. Let me tell you briefly what hurts families from the outside. When a single family 90 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 comes home bone-tired from a minimum-wage menial job, and she's too tired to read to child, that hurts the families. Or a man who is repeatedly downsized, who is so angry, hopeless, and ashamed that in a misguided effort to face leaves the family 'cause he can't look at them anymore. Every week I get at least one phone call from a family member who's got a loved one with a chronic physical or mental illness, whose managed care plan won't pay for the care, and the burden falls on the family. Research shows this doubles the divorce rate with this kind of burden; doubles an already-50 percent divorce rate. This is what hurts families. Or the family I will never forget from West Philadelphia that I worked with last year. I asked the 17-year-old son, "What do you think about when you lay in bed at night, before you go to sleep?" He said, "I worry whether my younger sister will be okay tomorrow because the gunshots are getting closer to my house." This is what hurts the families, not the lesbian couple down the street. 91 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
This is a story about being human. And as long as there is anxiety, there will be scapegoats. It's part of being human. The more crowded we get on this planet and in this city, the fewer the resources, the greater the anxiety. And certain people are always going to become a risk for becoming society's scapegoat; generally, the more vulnerable ones. Not just gays and lesbians. Poor people, street people, handicapped people, old people, most minorities, all vulnerable, all at risk. It takes the form of hatred, but hatred is just fear. We are afraid of our own vulnerability, we are afraid of loss. All hatred is fear turned inside out. That's what hurts families from inside and from without. It's unreasonable expectations from a highly judgemental society. It's alienation and loneliness, it's poverty and discrimination. This is what hurts families. But I know the resolution. I have the resolution. It's eye contact. It's very simple, 92 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 eye contact. You see, when we judge somebody, we don't make eye contact. We don't look in their eyes. As a man in a wheelchair, I know the pain of someone not looking in my eyes. They look at me, and they see stainless steel; they don't see a man with a heart and a mind. I was at Allegheny Hospital a couple years ago, waiting to meet some colleagues. And I was sitting there in the lobby, with my mug, drinking cup of coffee, and a woman came walked by and put a dollar in my mug. (Laughter.)
Which told me I can always make a living. No eye contact. We step over street people and grumble about what's happened to our city. No eye contact. We don't look in the eye of who and what we're uncomfortable with, often ourselves. We in the mental health field have recently begun to examine what contributes to mental health.
Sir, I reluctantly 93 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 do this, and there is some relevance to this, but it would be good if you would get to the bills. And I guess I have to interrupt you because you're a professional and I don't know if you would ever stop. (Laughter.)
I mean, in true candor, I don't want to be -- (Applause.)
I appreciate your comments, sir, and I've only got one more paragraph. In my profession, we're trained to listen more than talk so this is awkward for me. (Applause.)
I just want to briefly comment on what hurts mental health. We've learned that judgment and pessimism interfere with mental health. Hopelessness and mistrust interfere with it. Building walls around your home and turning your back on suffering and injustice only creates more anxiety and more insecurity. 94 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 We have learned that what contributes to mental health is something we've known for thousands of years -- compassion and generosity contribute to mental health. Optimism, trust, and faith contribute to mental health -- not just faith in God, but faith in the human spirit. All of these contribute to mental health. I say to you what I say to families who are destroying one another with unreasonable expectations: Please look in one another's eyes long enough to see their hearts. It will make you both more human. In my opinion, this legislation make eye contact. And for that, I applaud it. (Applause.)
Richard Bansen. I live in West Mt. Airy, having lived there for 37 years. I've been married for 47 years, and I have 4 children, all adults. I come not as a reverend clergy today but I do come as a lifelong member of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers. 95 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
And I'd like to tell the Council about a brief -- very briefly about an experience that happened in our Meeting. That's the Green Street Friends Meeting, 45 West Schoolhouse Lane, in Germantown. Some years ago, we were faced with the question of same-sex ceremonies of commitment, or, some might call it, "marriages." And our Meeting decided that before we were approached by a same-sex couple asking to be married or committed under the care of our Meeting, we decided we'd better do some study on this question. And we appointed a committee, as Quakers often do, to check into the ratifications of such a ceremony. We studied this question for over a year. We interviewed parents of lesbians and gays, gay people, lesbians. And after a year's study, where we had many opportunities to consider the pros and cons -- and, believe me, there were -- everyone in our Meeting was not in favor of such taking this step. We did reach consensus on the fact that we would honor lesbians or gay couples, and honor 96 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 their commitment to each other by being willing to have a ceremony of such commitment, under the care of our Meeting. And I personally have been very influenced and moved by the caring -- caring that occurs in such a relationship -- that can occur in such a relationship. And I urge the Council to affirm their -- affirm these bills and vote in favor of them. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Arthur Delaney. Arthur Delaney. Is Mr. Delaney here? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's just right outside the door.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Mr. President and Members 97 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of Council, thank you for the opportunity of addressing you this morning. My name is Arthur Delaney. I'm President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and it's an organization 350,000 members nationally. And the Catholic League -- I preface I sent everyone, by the way, a copy of the testimony. I'm not going to say all that I wrote there, but you do have copies. I mailed them to everyone, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here to present some of it. And the Catholic League, I want to preface my remarks by saying, is concerned not so much about the monetary matters concerned with this matter, but with the family matters. We're concerned about what these bills do to family structure, the family's ability to have rightful protection, the family's ability to survive, and the family's ability indeed and in fact to give back to society and to this civilization what society and civilization needs, and that is a future. So that is our main concern. We're not 98 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 so much worried about monetary benefits, although we think there are other ways to obtain these benefits, if people think they really need them, without a government legitimizing a questionable life-style or validating and enforcing a coequal status for a bizarre way of life. (Jeers from the audience.) (Applause.)
These bills -- in our judgment these bills are not a matter of justice, they're not a matter of fairness, and they're not even a matter of civil rights. They're a matter of incentive, they're a matter of franchise, and they're a matter of privilege. And in this country -- and in this country, we have a long history of granting exemptions, privileges, and franchise to those groups that have served this society in a particular way. For example, those over 65 get a double exemption on their income tax. Senior citizens get special rates for travel and SEPTA and the rest of it. We get a special rate, a deduction, for each child on the income tax form. 99 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 And, certainly, the U.S. military is a great example of giving exemptions to people who have served. You cannot, after all, get into Walter Reed Hospital, unless you are somehow service-related. They have auto insurance, home insurance, banking privileges, PX privileges, burial privileges. And you don't get the G.I. Bill unless you have served. So giving exemptions and privileges to special groups is not something new. And just because it is given to marriage, it is given to marriage because marriage has produced for this society and this civilization its future. And it's self-evident to me and to most of us that the government and the State have a primary duty and a responsibility of protecting and preserving the family for its own good. And its own good is its own future. One state -- or one country recognized this fact so strongly that they included in their constitution when they said, The State recognizes family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society; and as a moral institution 100 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 possessing inalienable, imprescriptible rights that are antecedent and superior to all positive law. And the State, therefore, guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and in its authority as the necessary basis of social order and as an indispensable welfare for the nation and of the State. The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage in which the family is founded and to protect it against all attack. (Applause.)
It is in light of this that we see -- that is the Catholic League -- the bills before us now, 970745, 49 and 50 as outrightly trivializing marriage, which has been held through all history by many to be not only a legally-binding contract but as a sacred covenant. And by many others, to be a religious sacrament of the highest order. The proposed legislation that equates the very limited and very tenuous stable life partnership is equivalent with the lawful, stable, 101 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 committed traditional marriage. It not only contradicts but seriously endangers the deepest values of our common public moral heritage, damaging, perhaps irreparably, the common good and the fundamental social order. The proposed legislation imperils our social future and seriously obstructs any human development and education. Traditionally the family -- and by "the family," traditionally, I mean the nuclear-based married union of one man, one woman, and their offspring -- has always been viewed and has proven itself over the centuries to be the only really effective way of transmitting not only new life, but education, religion, moral values, and civilization itself. Marriage and family have a unique and fundamental and irrevocable role in society, which springs from the fact that the permanent commitment of husbands and wives and in marriage is intrinsically tied to the procreation and education of children, leading eventually to the necessary support of society and civilization. And that necessary support that society and 102 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 civilization needs is a future. And this proposed legislation removes marriage from its privileged position in our society and, thereby, undermines the entire social future and the continuation of our civilization. Historical tradition testifies loudly and clearly that it is the public consensus that marriage should enjoy unique benefits and the rights obtained in public law because of the unique contribution that marriage and family make to our future and to our society. This proposed legislation flies in the face of all American people, both native and immigrant, who have, for centuries, seen their commitment to marriage and family life as their best contribution to the welfare, to the common good, and to the general success of this civilization. History certainly demonstrates that this commitment to the centrality of marriage and the family has made this civilization what it is today. The proposed legislation using the supporting argument that the contemporary failure rates of traditional marriage and family stability 103 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 completely misses the point that such rates are in fact and indeed failures. Public law has always recognized marriage ideally as the lifelong commitment which, regardless of its relative failures, aspires to the relationship that is permanent and unbreakable. The ease with which proposed legislation allows domestic partnerships or life partnership unions and even more so, their termination, makes a mockery of these aspirations. Public law has always recognized marriage to be a relationship which entails substantial and legally-enforceable mutual responsibilities for husbands and wives. No such responsibilities are placed on life partners. Their obligations and duties are minimal and their termination requirements are as near to a joke as you can get and still appear to be serious. Clearly, the proposed legislation seeks to guarantee for life partners the public benefits of marriage while imposing none of the obligations. (Jeers from the audience.) 104 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
If it is true, as we believe it is, that every obligation presupposes a right, it's easy to understand why life partner legislation imposes no obligations, simply because there is no right. The proposed legislation effectively removes the fundamental value on which all previous special marital benefits have been based. That is the need to create a safe, stable, enduring, and nurturing environment for the rearing of the next generation, passing on of religion, the accumulated moral wisdom of the ages, and stabilizing civilization, allowing it to continue into the future. A stable civilization needs a stable family life. Therefore, law and public policy should seek to stabilize the family and the family structure by supporting, protecting, enhancing, and encouraging it. The proposed life partners legislation has the diametrically opposite effect. The proposed legislation reduces marriage from the high and exalted sphere of vocation to the low level of mere commercial contract. It changes 105 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 family from a genuine, authentic community into some sort of individualistic federation, sapping the essential vitality of the family and disallowing it to make its maximum contribution to society. The proposed legislation is wholly unnecessary. Those who believe their human rights have been violated have all the laws presently on the books to protect them and to redress such violations and a such injuries in reference to their individual rights. All citizens should have the right to redress, and they should have means other than the radical repudiation of long-held, rationally defensible, and time-tested fundamental values and institutions which impact not only on our population, but on the present and future viability of this society as well. The proposed legislation aptly is biased and discriminating in reference to a large group. And by that fact alone, it is poor legislation. It is, in addition, obviously and transparently a partisan advocacy for a particular life-style and a blatant attempt at ideological 106 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 coercion. The proposed legislation -- (Jeers from the audience.)
The proposed legislation is as obvious from the text is based on many untried, unproven, unsubstantiated assumptions. Much of the argumentation for life partner proposals is mere supposition and weakens the case to the point of invalidity. (Jeers from the audience.)
The proposed legislation has not been sufficiently analyzed in terms of its economic impact. And I will skip over that because of time and -- (Applause.)
But the proposed legislation is, as is glaringly apparent, it's simply unenforceable and just as glaringly apparent as the unique characteristic of not only destroying the family but destroying but of strongly rewarding and supporting a public commitment -- a lack of public commitment to civil responsibility. And I would simply conclude by saying 107 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that marriage, the foundation of the family stands in a critical and necessary position regarding society. Both social order and the common good therefore demand the protection of the privileged position that this union has heretofore received. The State has an obligation to regard with special care the institution of marriage and to protect the family. And we certainly don't need the government or the State redressing grievances by the radical repudiation of long-held, rationally-defensible and time-tested fundamental values and institutions which impact not only the majority of us in this population, but also impact the present and the future of this society. I thank you for your time. (Applause.)
Reverend Charles Benson, Reverend Charles Bennison. (Reverend Charles Bennison comes forward.)
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on a matter of great moral concern, a matter of simple justice. 108 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am Charles E. Bennison, Jr., the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. (Applause.)
And I live at 279 South Fourth Street, in Philadelphia. The Church, like the culture of which it is a part, is deeply divided on the question of the full acceptance and inclusion of homosexual persons. To my colleague and friend, Cardinal Bevilacqua, and others, I want to say that in all the ways we seek to love and serve God, we have far more in common than we have in conflict. We do differ on this issue. At our general convention here in Philadelphia last summer, the Episcopal Church adopted for its own employees legislation similar to that before you today. (Applause.)
You have argued over these bills for five years now. I urge you to pass them today, and for two reasons: First, these bills advance distributive justice. There should be equal pay for equal 109 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 work. For the City to use employees' benefit packages or the real estate transfer tax exemption for the benefit of some and not of all is discriminatory. (Applause.)
Indeed, a case could be made that the City owes reparations for its past and present discrimination against partners in gay and lesbian relations. (Applause.)
Second, these bills liberate this City from the sin of heterosexism. (Applause.)
Heterosexuality, which is good, is obviously different from heterosexism, which is evil. (Applause.)
Like racism, in which some are benefitted to the detriment of others -- (Brief interruption.)
Like racism, in which some are benefitted to the detriment of others merely because of who they are by nature, 110 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 whether they're black or white, heterosexism is a systemic injustice in which some are benefitted to the detriment of others, merely because of who they are by nature. (Applause.)
One of the Bible's profoundest insights about you and me is that we are sexual beings by nature. The Bible also contends that our expression of our sexuality should be according to nature. For the City of Philadelphia to continue a system in which heterosexual persons are treated differently from homosexual persons is not only to perpetuate a grave systemic injustice, but it is also to sanction implicitly hurtful attitudes and actions of discrimination, bias, and prejudice. If the issue today were one of providing the same benefits to black citizens as to whites, there would be no hearing necessary. How is the case before you today very different? Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Identify yourself 111 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 for the record, please.
My name is Barry Hart. I am Pastor at the University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation, in West Philadelphia, a congregation that has welcomed and affirmed all people, including gays and lesbians who seek the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am here so speak on behalf of Bishop Roy Omquist (ph.) in support of the bill. Bishop Omquist is Bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, representing well over 50 congregations in the City of Philadelphia. The bishop writes: I am the Reverend Roy Omquist, Bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Our denomination is the fifth-largest Protestant denomination in the United States. Our synod consists of congregations in the five-county Philadelphia area, and serves over 110,000 people. Approximately 50 of our congregations are an integral part of the City of Philadelphia. 112 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Lutherans been in Philadelphia since the early colonial period, Swedish colonists settled along the Delaware. We have been an important part of the City, as the City has been central to life of the Lutheran Church in this region. We take pride in the contributions that our church and its many social-service agencies have made to the health and well-being of the City. From the ministry of institutions like the Lutheran Home in Germantown and the Settlement House in Kensington, to our work with foster care and immigrant placement, we have been a church that cares about people. For that reason, I am very pleased in support this morning and for the amendments Bill 18 No. 970745, the pension ordinance amendments; Bill 19 970750, fair practices code amendments; and Bill 20 No. 970749, realty transfer tax amendment. 21 Our church, like most churches, which 22 minister in the City of Philadelphia, places a 23 very high value on strengthening the family and 24 supporting the needs of children, but we are 25 equally committed to the principle of liberty and 113 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 justice for all. (Applause.)
It would appear to me 5 that all three of these bills have as their 6 guiding principle the desire to make certain that 7 appropriate privilege is afforded to all of our 8 citizens, without discrimination. 9 Although there is no official position 10 or policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 11 American life partnership, we are a church that 12 strongly believes in fairness, kindness, 13 tolerance, and justice for all. The official 14 policy of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of 15 the ELCA calls upon all of our congregations to be 16 welcoming toward all people, including gay and 17 lesbian individuals. So let me be very clear. The position I would take on these bills would not be as an expression of an official stance of either my synod or our denomination on the issue of life partnership, but rather because of our passion for justice and fairness. I have long believed that there is both justice and fairness in the ability of an 114 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 individual employee to identify one person, regardless of blood or legal relationship, as an individual with whom he or she shares life, with some form of commitment and mutual dependence; and, therefore should be entitled to appropriate benefits. Any other policy would seem to provide both an unequal advantage to the majority and an unfair denial to a minority. If a person were to be raised by a surrogate relative and then, at a later time, wanted to designate that person as his/her relative and life partner for the purpose of qualifying for appropriate benefits, I believe that to be patently fair and appropriate. Indeed, the denial of such opportunity would seem extremely cruel and inappropriate. I know some will speak in opposition to these bills, characterizing them as anti-family. I would not agree. I believe that they are pro-fairness and pro-justice. And these are values that must under-gird our society and all our families. Those who are now denied rights and privileges are 115 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 members of our families. They are our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters. (Applause.)
We do not further any value, no matter how noble and foundational, through the denial of other citizens of their appropriate value, benefits, and public status. I do not believe that we can encourage something good, no matter how altruistic our motives, if in the process, we dehumanize or diminish others. As Bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I would strongly urge the City Council to grant approval to these significant bills, which will expand the quality of life within our City of Brotherly and Sisterly Love, to all of our brothers and sisters. Thank you for the opportunity of sharing my views. Thank you. (Applause.)
Mark Aronchick. 116 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Mark Aronchick comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Council President Street. With me today is Andrew Charles, who's a partner at Wolf, Bloch, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, one of the most preeminent law firms in the City, and a member of the Board of Governors of the Bar Association. And David Rosenblum, who is a trial attorney at the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and the current Chair of the Gay and Lesbian Lawyers of Philadelphia, referred to as "GALLOP." I, of course, am the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, which is an organization of 14,000 lawyers in the City of Philadelphia. I'm pleased to be here. I've been here many times, as you know. I used to be the City Solicitor for the City, but I'm particularly pleased to be here because wherever we -- meaning our organization -- and you stand on this issue, I know that we and you and your City Council have worked together on so many things to make this one of the greatest cities in the world. 117 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 And it's been under your leadership, with this extraordinary group people around you -- and I can't imagine a -- let me put it this way: I think you're the best legislative body in the free world. (Laughter.)
Council President Street, I am pleased to be here on this issue and speaking on behalf of our organization in support of the legislation. The Philadelphia Bar Association, I think, maybe has a few different perspectives to add to the matter before you. And I'm going to tick them off quickly. First of all, in terms of the legal profession -- and this is a rather conservative organization, the legal profession is fairly conservative -- there is a trend that is evident in bar associations generally toward recognizing committees and sections and activities of our gay and lesbian members. And we have in our own association a section that leads the way on many issues, not 118 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 just issues pertinent to gay and lesbian lawyers. And that, sectioned together with GALLOP, for example, it's a political force. For example, in the recent controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Fredericka Messiah-Jackson to the federal bench, one of the very first groups that weighted in on behalf of Judge Messiah-Jackson was GALLUP. In fact, they helped organize several other groups, led the charge with the barristers and the Asian bar and the Hispanic bar within days to produce the first resolution in support of that nomination. And so I think it's important to understand that there is a political -- not only a moral but a political reality that we have here. And the Bar Association certainly understands that. There's another issue, and that is that we understand it because we see it in-house. We have insurance that covers domestic partners for our own bar staff. And I tell you that I know specifically -- I'm thinking -- I'm visualizing specifically people that we have on our staff who produce an enormous amount of work, who, I wonder 119 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 if they would be there. They are people who could work in any number of places. I wonder if they would be there doing all the things that they do in terms of putting our bar association in the midst of all the good issues that going on this the City. I don't think that I could have accomplished a lot of what I've done without specific people I'm thinking of, and one in particular who I doubt very much would find it a comfortable place if we didn't have this benefits package. And that is a political reality, a moral reality, and a workplace reality that we know that employers throughout the Delaware Valley are facing. In fact, corporations, one after another, are facing that to have the best talented work pool, we have to provide benefits in a work-friendly environment. And that work pool is a work pool that improves the lives of citizens throughout this City. The people that are for this and that are against this, their lives are being improved by the work pool that those organizations are 120 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 attracting. That includes the University of Pennsylvania. And there isn't a person isn't this room who would say that the University of Pennsylvania isn't improving the lives of every single person in this room by what it is doing for our region. So I think we have to be very careful to understand that we in Philly could be limiting our talent bank if we don't provide these kinds of packages. And I think we have to understand that -- and I know you understand, Council President Street, and I know everyone in this room 15 understands that this City Council leads the way as a example for most of the employers, and for many of the other institutions in town. (Jeers from the audience.)
Even that fellow's life is being improved by the University of Pennsylvania. (Applause.)
And there's no 24 question, whether he understands it or not, by our Bar Association, the things we've been doing for 121 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 him. Now, in addition, Your Honor -- and I call you "Your Honor" because you are, you are one of our leaders in this city -- there is an absolute inevitability to this issue. Let's face it, there is an inevitability to this issue whether we do something about it in this City Council today, it will be done next year or the year after or the year after. We see it in all of our cultural institutions. We see it -- we see an acceptance, an acceptance of all kinds of ways people are choosing to live with each other, properly and fairly. In other words, we don't want criminality, but properly and fairly, all over the place. And I know and I tell you -- and my final comment is, I see it in our bar association. It is there, it is obvious. One of the most conservative institutions that America can produce is a bar association, and it is there. Council President Street, if you would permit me one very small personal reflection, and that is this, and I think you might very well 122 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 understand the import of this, and I know that Councilman Nutter does, and I know that there are certain other Councilmembers that do. And that is this: Very long ago, when I was a young pup, before I even got to City Council, before you and I and several others participated, in the early eighties, in what was an absolute revolution in this City Council -- and you know what I'm talking about -- there was a City Council member that I worked for and that worked for me named John Anderson. And there was a day when I actually had the opportunity to be named City Solicitor in the Green administration. And there were a few City Councilmembers who didn't like that Mayor and so -- maybe they liked me but they wanted to make an example of the Mayor. And so my hearing got a little rocky. I had Carl Singley with me -- that helped. I had you there -- that helped. But the person who absolutely shut it all down got up and said, "Enough. He's not the issue whatever, you think of Mayor Green." And that was John 123 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Anderson. He stood right over there and said, "Let's just end this nonsense because Mark will make an incredibly good first deputy, he will be add to the good of this City. Let's just approve him." And you all did unanimously, and I've always appreciated that. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Street, Members of City Council. The Family Life Educational Foundation appreciates the opportunity here to speak against the so-called domestic partners bill. (Applause.)
Those who back these bills claim they're only about fairness. They say they are not out to dismantle society. Many insist that these bills in City Council are just about treating everyone the same. If you listen, you will even hear the term "civil rights" thrown in. The more separate 124 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 will go further and make an attempt to correlate racial justice with the alleged plight of those City employees who are unmarried but who demand that the City treat them as such. The zeal of some backers have brought them to issue threats against Roman Catholics priests. We know about church burnings in Philadelphia. We don't intend to have any more, and we don't intend to have our priests hunted down. (Applause.)
So why are scores of Black Protestant ministers thundering against domestic partners? Why are dozens and dozens of Evangelical leaders opposing domestic partners? Why has Cardinal Bevilacqua gone to the City square once again to preach and to teach about the evil effect of domestic partners? Are they onto something critical? Or are they just mean-spirited and looking for a family? No, they and we are here because of the gospel and because we need order in our society. We are not mounting a campaign of personal 125 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 condemnation against homosexual people for their sexual behavior. Rather, the message is about family -- marriage, family, and the common good of society. And for these stakes, all of our opposition is justified and demanded by theology and sociology. During the past 40 years, we have watched the primary enemies to the family gain ascendancy in the U.S. Divorce, open sex, abortion, out-of-wedlock births have inflicted huge wounds on our society. As we observe growth in crime, poverty illiteracy, and the abuse of humans, do we not get the message to rebuild the family, the institution fundamental to the life of every society? To give status to same-sex unions is another strike against the family. It would be insane. Some Councilmembers who support these bills may deny their true purpose, but they are aware, they know that only a man and a woman can be married. (Applause.)
They know that the State has and should affirm its special status, the 126 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 special status of the family with financial aids. They know because it's self-evident that no other sexual liaison is a marriage. They also know that domestic partners is not about economics or wages or fairness. Anybody who really listens will quickly learn it is about social approbation. Supporters of domestic partners want approval and equality with marriage, period. They want to eliminate the special status of marriage. They are demanding nothing less from government than blessings for homosexual behavior. In seeking to destroy marriage, ACT UP, and other groups promoting domestic partners, have powerful collaborators, such as Planned Parenthood. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, pronounced that the marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order, and they made that dictum a vital part of their organization. Marriage and family are priorities for human society. They give dignity to bonded partners and their children. Councilmembers should take immediate steps to dispose of domestic partners on the basis 127 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of the facts. They know that the majority, the vast majority of their constituents, oppose it. Every member of Council has a dictionary which describes marriage as a voluntary union for the life of a man and a woman, solemnized in accordance with local law by a wedding ceremony and the filing of a certificate of marriage. A vote for domestic partners is a vote against marriage and the family. Thank you very much. (Jeers from the audience.) (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Larry Gross. (Larry Gross comes forward.)
Thank you, President Street and Members of City Council. My name is Larry Gross, and I'm Cochair of the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force. (Applause.)
When I first appeared here, it was to testify in favor of bills that would provide domestic partnership benefits to all City 128 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 employees in May 1993. As you know, that legislation did not emerge from the Rules. However, the Task Force and the lesbian and gay community remain committed to the basic principles of equity that we proclaimed at that time, and we intend to pursue the original goal of achieving full benefits for all employees and, indeed, all citizens of Philadelphia. Let me try once more to bring some clarity to issues that have been obscured this morning by clouds of theological rhetoric. Who are domestic partners? They are the lesbian and gay couples; and, in many places, unmarried heterosexual couples in a committed relationship, sharing both emotional and economic bonds. Domestic partnerships have been given a legal definition in many cities across the country. And in these cities, city employees with domestic partners are eligible for spousal benefits. In the private sector, domestic partnership benefits are provided by scores of major corporations across the country as well as 129 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 colleges and universities, including my own University of Pennsylvania. Why should domestic partnerships be recognized? Society has historically believed that personal relationships characterized by mutual affection and commitment and financial interdependence advanced the public welfare by promoting the happiness, physical and emotional health, and financial stability of its members. However, the only form of committed relationship that receives social recognition and financial and legal benefits is that of heterosexual marriage; despite the reality that this so-called traditional nuclear family -- two parents living with their children -- now only comprise 27 percent of the nation's more than 90 million households. At present, a heterosexual couple who have been married for ten minutes have innumerable legal financial privileges denied to lesbian or gay couples who have lived together for ten years -- or, I should say, to my partner and myself, who have been together for more than 22 years. (Applause.) 130 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Yet lesbian women and gay men who are part of a couple take on added responsibilities as the relationship grows, just as married heterosexuals do. Home ownership, health care, emotional support, and, in many cases, child care become realities. The lack of employment benefits and other protections, such as inheritance and pension rights and hospital-visitation rights, puts lesbian and gay couples and their children at greatly increased risk of financial and emotional disaster and places an unequal burden on them, though their needs are essentially the same as married couples', who are entitled to benefits. Will recognition for domestic partnership undermined the own traditional family? People decide to marry because of their feelings for their intended spouse and because of their commitment to historical and religious traditions that marriage represents; although they also may be motivated by the legal and financial benefits that society provides to married couples. It is ludicrous and offensive to 131 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 suppose that heterosexual couples marry because lesbian and gay couples are not eligible for those same benefits. If the survival of heterosexual marriage is dependent on continued discrimination against lesbian and gay couples, then the institution is indeed in deep trouble. (Applause.)
The requirements of domestic partnership are in some ways more stringent than the marriage criterion for benefits. Heterosexual employees do not need to produce a marriage certificate to obtain spousal benefits. Currently, the City of Philadelphia does not require heterosexual employees seeking benefits for a spouse to prove that they are legally married, they don't have to affirm that they share expenses and do not have to share a residence. What arguments are being used to oppose domestic partnership benefits? The finance issue. On May 27, 1993, President Street issued a statement in opposition to the bills then considered. 132 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 In that statement, President Street stressed that budgetary considerations have not been a factor in forming his opinion of the partnership bills. "Some have seen this issue as a budgetary or fiscal matter," said President Street. "I disagree strongly with that position." In this instance, I completely agree with President Street. The experience of city governments' incorporations across the country has unequivocally resolved the issue. Domestic partnership benefits do not impose financial hardships on employers. To the contrary, it is the denial of equal benefits to domestic partnerships that constitutes a hardship. Based on the experience of other municipalities and private employers, out-of-pocket costs will be relatively small given the overall benefits budget. We are aware that such practical considerations cannot be ignored. However, they must inevitably be weighed against the moral arguments for extending coverage. The arguments 133 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 for extending benefits on fairness grounds, the heavier the burden to show the practical considerations outweigh it. Were employers to pay a different cash salary to employees based on their sexual orientation would clearly violate current nondiscrimination policy. The effect of the current benefit system is on its face identical. Employee benefits are a form of compensation currently representing roughly 30 percent of total compensation. By providing benefits to married complies that are not available to unmarried employees living in domestic partnerships, the City therefore discriminates in compensation on the basis of sexual orientation and/or marital status. While we would strongly prefer more inclusive legislation that would provide domestic partner benefits to all employees, the narrower bills, as proposed, would redress the most egregious discrimination in the current benefits system, that faced by lesbian and gay people who do not have the option of legal marriage. A public registry system will be necessary to 134 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 implement any domestic partnership ordinance. Morality. The attacks on domestic are motivated by the desire to intrude religious principles into public policy in flagrant disregard for the Constitutional separation of church and state. (Applause.)
We believe that there is a strong claim on behalf of gay men and lesbians to have their long-term committed relationships treated with the same respect as marriage for purposes of employee benefits. First, we believe the City has already implicitly committed itself to treat domestic partnerships as equivalent to marriage for these purposes in the Fair Practices Act. While that act, as currently written, has no legal force in determining benefits policy, we believe it is significant moral force. If we conclude otherwise, we are, in effect, saying that while unmarried heterosexual, gay and lesbian employees are entitled to equal treatment and respect with married, the intimate long-term committed relationships they form are not. 135 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 At least in the case of gay and lesbian employees for whom such relationships are the core fact of group identity, we do not think it is a morally persuasive reading of the City's nondiscrimination policy. In the case of heterosexual partners who have the legal option to marry, the question is more complicated. We believe the argument for covering heterosexual partnerships, notwithstanding the availability of marriage, is for some heterosexual partners, the decision not to marry reflects a political or ideological opposition to marriage, not merely the absence of commitment. The argument that the City ought not to penalize such political or ideological convictions is reasonably powerful, but we believe that the argument that it ought not to penalize long-term relationships of those gay and lesbian employes who do not have the option to marry at all is much more compelling. Second, we think that redefining family for purposes of the benefits program, to include long-term committed domestic partnerships, 136 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 appropriately reflects the changing social reality and recognizes the diverse values of a pluralistic society. Here I would like to quote the Reverend Paul Washington: Can two persons of the same sex enter into a life of marriage? I would say they can. The day is not in the too-distant future that we will open our eyes to see that which today some cannot. There are still scales to be removed, and you and we have the burden of responsibility to remove them. End quote. (Applause.)
We condemn the hatemongering and intolerance of those who are using our lives as a platform for their agendas. We can only speculate about the role that the bigotry of politicians and church leaders has played in licensing and encouraging acts of discrimination and violence against lesbian and gay people. What is undeniable is their unforgivable betrayal of fundamental principles of justice and respect for the rights of all people. We will resist the efforts of opportunistic 137 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 politicians and preachers who wish to make the Bill of Rights a footnote to the Bible. (Applause.)
Finally, as I said here in 1993 and in 1996, and I hope I will not have to be back in a few years to say once again, the issue is one of fairness. Equal pay for equal work. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. At this time we will hear from Rabbi Sue Elwell. (Rabbi Elwell comes forward.)
President Street, members of the City Council, I am Rabbi Sue Levy Elwell. I serve as a Director of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the reformist movement of Jews in the United States and in the world. We are the largest denominational group of Jews in the world. And in America alone, I represent and we comprise, over one and a half million households. In the greater Philadelphia area we, have 21 congregations. 138 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am here today because we reformed Jews passionately believe that each human being is it created (Hebrew phrase) -- in God's image. Honoring the essential holiness and worth and dignity of every individual is why my movement supports bills such as these. (Applause.)
The Union of American Hebrew congregations has for decades provided moral leadership to the Jewish community and to our nation, recognizing our differences and diversity while acknowledging that we are one family equal before God. In this spirit, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations forcefully support monogamous domestic relationships of gay men and lesbians. Legal recognition of monogamous gay and lesbian relationships goes hand in hand with our congregational honoring of such couples. Together, state and synagogues, state and church, provide these men and women and their families with dignity and self-esteem. We, therefore, unequivocally support monogamous domestic relationships judicially and 139 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 statutorily, and now urge the City of Philadelphia to grant gay and lesbian the nondiscriminatory economic, legal, and social right equal to those under law enjoyed by monogamous heterosexual couples. These bills move our city in that direction. (Applause.)
We Jews have just completed recently the celebration of our holiday of Passover. The Passover seder teaches us to speak out against injustice. One of the retrains of the Passover seder is (Hebrew phrase) -- the time has come. So in support of these three bills, we reform Jews say (Hebrew phrase) -- the time has come to make provisions for all of our families, to share the basic rights that today only some of our families enjoy. (Hebrew phrase) -- the time has come to recognize the richness of the families who work in and give their best energies to this, our beloved City. (Hebrew phrase) -- the time has come to ensure justice for all people. These domestic 140 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 partnership bills represent that justice. (Hebrew phrase) -- the time has come. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. At this time, Council will stand in recess for 30 minutes. (Council stands in recess.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
This is a public hearing on the Council Committee of the Whole. I would appreciate very much if Councilmembers would please come to the chamber. We have another 60 or so witnesses, 70 witnesses, to hear. And I would appreciate very much if Councilmembers would come to the chamber. I would appreciate it very much if Councilmembers would come to the Council chamber. (Councilmembers come to Council chambers.)
This is a recessed hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 970745, 970749, 970750. Our next witness will be Andrew Park, 141 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Mr. Andrew Park. (Andrew Park comes forward.) (Applause.)
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Andrew Park. I'm the Executive Director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Law and Public Policy. I also testify on behalf of the Philadelphia Partnership Coalition. That group includes: POPEC, the Pride of Philadelphia Election Committee, several board members of which are in the audience today; The Liberty City Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club -- both of the cochairs are standing behind me; The Log Cabin Republicans of Philadelphia; And the Log Cabin Federation of Pennsylvania; And other groups who have given support to the Coalition. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of how he and his partner bought a house in West Philadelphia, though it was only put in his partner's name. The house was valued at $134,000, and they just busted themselves to make the mortgage payment. They are Town Watch leaders, neighborhood coordinators, very important civic leaders in West Philadelphia. Seven weeks ago, Alfonso's partner Joe died. And because the real estate transfer tax was too expensive, Alfonso is losing his home. Joe died without a will, and that house is going to Joe's mother, who is currently evicting Alfonso. In front of the packet, you have two statements of taxation: one that says "Tax Due - $2,680," and that's the tax that Alfonso could not pay to retain his home. The other is a dramatized but all-too-real example of what happens every day, where straight couples want to transfer half of their home to one another so that both of the names can be placed on the deed, and no tax is due. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 essentially a gay tax. And let me tell you, aside from the very tragic human effects of this transfer tax, there's another reason why you should pass the real estate transfer tax ordinance, and that's simply to modernize it. It should be clear that the real estate transfer tax was never meant to prevent a transfer or the tax a transfer between Jim and his partner Alfonso. We're seeking an exemption of a transfer between two people, both of whom already live together in a house which they pay for, and both of whom are financially interdependent. That's what a life partner is. As a matter of policy, the focus of the tax is arm's length transactions -- you know, the kind that we think of, commercial transactions, housing sales between two strangers with a broker. That's what the tax is focussed towards. And across the Commonwealth, exemptions have been given for transactions that are not arm's-length transactions. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 didn't take into account life partners, but today, in Philadelphia, people are coming out and forming interdependent relationships. We should have the operation of the transfer tax be in line with its intent. And that's all this bill would do, is simply continue the intent of the transfer tax to tax commercial and arm's-length transactions and to keep family-type transactions exempt. Now, this issue, of course, is unique to Philadelphia because we have a uniquely high transfer tax. We vie for the title of the highest transfer tax in the country. The other title we vie for is biggest city with no domestic partnership health benefits. In the past hundred years, we've seen two trends in the American workplace. One is an eradication of unfair working conditions. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Unfortunately, it remains legal, under State and federal law, to fire somebody because they're gay. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Second, we've seen a trend to increase the diverse means of compensating and retaining employees. We no longer assume that workers are the bread-winning males, with no child-care responsibilities in the family. We have the Family & Medical Leave Act, flex time, creative compensation packages, telecommuting. These all ways that the American workplace is competing for good workers. Benefits are a central part of this compensation.
According to the Society for Human Resource Management, benefits compromise about 40 percent of compensation. Since benefits are such a significant part of the modern workplace, a basic unfairness exists, and this is what it is: Workers in common law or a marital relationship are compensated more than those in same-sex relationships. Hinging benefits on marital or common law status puts gay and lesbian employees at a tremendous disadvantage. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 how important they are to the workforce. Thus, one standard of the American modern workplace to respond to this unfairness are domestic partnership programs. And these programs make sense. We've heard all kind of things about cost. S. 2 percent of the 95 million households consisted of 2 married living parents with their children. Millions of households consist of unmarried couples, millions of them same-sex couples, and many people need these benefits. These domestic partnership programs continue the American trend toward workplace fairness. Included in this blue packet also is pages and pages of cities and counties which have adopted domestic partnership programs. Hundreds and hundreds of employers are listed, and these are employers that you know. You have purchased products from these employers, you have them in your own, you've eaten food that has been produced, you've used services from these employers. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 you will see people that you know and employers that you're familiar with. Universities where you want your children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews to go. Thirteen percent of all firms of 200 or more employees offer health benefits to domestic partners of the same sex. And the bigger the employer and the more efficient the employer, that number goes up. Four employers with more than 5,000 employees, out of every employers now offers coverage to same-sex spousal equivalent. Domestic partnerships are becoming part of the fabric of the modern American workplace. And, you know, I think that private companies and some municipalities really do not care to make a moral statement. They care about fiscal responsibility, as should this City Council. They want a better bottom line, as should you. And in the private sector, even with this motivation, we see domestic partnership policies being added at a rate of one new company every three and a half days. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 programs because it makes sense. It's easy to attract good employees, even those who will not claim the benefits. And everybody will see the workplace as a more compassionate place and more welcoming. Health benefits are also, basically, a pretty cheap way to provide workers with something of value. World-class cities have these programs because it makes good policy sense. Citizens, voters, tourists, we all feel welcomed by cities with these policies because we know that city is welcoming and compassionate and recognizes the diversity of all of us. It is no coincidence -- and I have to state this with seriousness because yesterday, I just looked at The Advocate Magazine and saw pages and pages of advertisement for Philadelphia by the Convention and Visitors Bureau. This a national gay and lesbian magazine. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 rejected a gay rights bill. And we have seen that all across the country every time localities and municipalities consider measures like this. Believe me, the eyes of many in this country are on this City Council today to see if it will Cobb County or if it will join other cities and employers in the modern American workforce, to see if Philadelphia really thinks of itself as a world-class city and to see if it will continued in the direction of equity and fairness for all of its citizens. Thank you. )
My name is Jim Nolan. I am a lifelong resident of Philadelphia, and I am a retired psychotherapist and school teacher. I have been married for 48 years, and I am the father of 6 children and the grandfather of 13 children. 150 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I speak today as a veteran combat infantryman from the second World War, during which I was three times wounded and awarded a bronze star medal for valor as well as a combat infantryman badge which is a great honor among combat veterans. I am the Chaplain of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and a member of the Disabled Veterans of America. Also, I am the former Democratic Committeeman of some years' experience -- all, 12 of course, in the City of Philadelphia. 13 Additionally, I am a 42-year member of 14 the Knights of Columbus and a 38-year member of 15 the Fourth Degree Assembly, and a member of the 16 Philadelphia Chapter of the Knights of Columbus, 17 where I serve as the Chairman of Legislative 18 Committee for the 36 councils which make up the 19 Philadelphia Chapter. 20 In this latter capacity I represent 21 upwards of 40,000 fellow nights, their ladies, 22 other immediate members of their families. It is 23 for these 40,000 people that I am here to speak 24 today. My committee has carefully examined all 151 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of the bills to be brought before this Council today and we have come to a unanimous decision: Knights of Columbus stands unalterably and unequivocally opposed to any legislation that would weaken the bonds of marriage that have been the backbone -- (Applause.)
-- of this nation since its inception. The bills before this Council, in our view, constitute threats to the family, as we know it and love it. Therefore, on behalf of these 40,000 Knights of Columbus and their wives and children, I urge you Councilmembers to vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the family by voting no. 18 (Applause.)
In addition, I am also a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a Catholic organization devoted to the defense of the Catholics in this country, particularly the Pope. (Applause.)
I have here a short letter 152 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 from Tom O'Donnell, who is the President of Division No. 39, which is up on 7229 Tulip Street, in Northeast Philadelphia, and this is addressed to the Councilmembers. This is to advise you that the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Division No. 39, is opposed to the proposed legislation currently being debated in City Council regarding the so-called life partner domestic partner matter. As we understand, these ordinances would extend benefits traditionally reserved to married couples. Ordinances of this type are destructive to our City's moral and social structure because they undermine the importance of marriage, weaken the family, and ultimately harm society. While Catholic teaching calls us to love all human beings, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, nonetheless, this call in faith to love everyone does not include endorsing as public actions all relationships which will erode the very fabric of society. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is an organization of Catholic persons with Irish roots. 153 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 There were different divisions in the City of Philadelphia, with over 2,000 members. Division No. 39 has over 700 members and is unanimously opposed to this proposed legislation, and we respectfully request that you vote to oppose these bills. I thank you very much for your time, ladies and gentlemen. And God bless you all. (Applause.) (Jeers.)
A point of information. The Philadelphia County Board of the AOH has taken no position on these bills. The division that I am a member of, Division No. 87, has not voted, nor has any other division, with the exception of Division 39, voted to oppose these bills. Basically the AOH, on its county board level, has taken no position on the issue, for the record, sir. (Applause.)
Thank you. 154 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Denise Kulp. (Denise Kulp comes forward.)
My name is Denise Kulp, and I am the Cochair of Liberty City Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club. And I also, right now, want to thank all of these City Councilmembers who are here in the room, I appreciate your being here to be an audience to these important hearings. Previously, I was a legislative assistant to former Congressman Bob Edgar, of the Pennsylvania 7th Congressional District. And I was also the program director at Bread and Roses Community Fund, in Philadelphia. I was elected as a delegate to the 1996 Democratic Convention in Chicago, from the 2nd Congressional District. I own a home in Mt. Airy, with my partner of ten years. Currently, I serve as the Director of the Sexual Minority Youth Center of Greater Philadelphia, which provides GED classes and job training for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. I come before you today to express Liberty City's support for the life partnership 155 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 bills pending today. Liberty City's the largest, most active lesbian and gay political organization here in Philadelphia. Our membership includes lesbians, gay men, and straight supporters of all races. We make endorsements, work in campaigns, and are currently working to elect openly gay candidates as Democratic Committeepeople in wards throughout this City. We also work in favor of progressive legislation and against legislation that we view as aggressive or discriminatory. We have been particularly vocal in support of the legislation before us today. I would like to remind the Democratic members of Council that the Democratic party has an inclusive vision of who is part of the American family, and lesbians and gay men are members of that family. (Applause.)
The 1996 Democratic platform included support for domestic partnership legislation. The National Democratic Committee recently passed a resolution that called for 156 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 greater outreach to the gay and lesbian community, and assurances that lesbians and gay men would be represented in greater numbers at the next Democratic convention. Liberty City is especially concerned with passage of the proposed health benefits bill. One of the long-term goals of Liberty City, as a progressive Democratic organization, is full health care for every person, not limited by or based on employment or marriage. Life partnership legislation is a step towards that goal. The lesbian and gay community want the life partner legislation that would address the real needs of all people in this City, not just same-sex couples. We want life partnership legislation that would extend to all City workers, to grandmothers raising their grandchildren because the parents aren't unable to, to aunts and uncles raising their nieces and nephews, to a grown son or daughter who wants to care for a needy parent not yet protected by Medicare. And what I want is someone to explain to me how that is an attack on family values. 157 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
This is how domestic partnership legislation has been enacted in other cities -- in New York, in Seattle, in Washington, D.C. As a way to protect and assist people who need help, and this is how life partnership legislation should be seen in Philadelphia -- as a way to increase the number of people who receive vitally important health care coverage. Additionally, by extending health-care coverage to some key workers and their dependents and not to others, the City is engaging in discriminatory employment practices. If one worker's allowed to provide coverage to a spouse, denying this opportunity to other workers based on their sexual orientation, is discrimination. Philadelphia has a Fair Practices Act which prohibits discrimination in employment. Obviously, the pension bill, which would allow City employees to name whomever they like as their beneficiary would also go a long way towards ending discrimination against lesbian and gay workers. 158 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Domestic partnership benefits have been granted by major corporations in cities and small towns across the country to make it clear that lesbian and gay workers and citizens are valued businesses and to make it clear that these businesses and towns do not discriminate but, in fact, welcome diversity. Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., Durham, North Carolina, Seattle, Washington Detroit, Michigan just last week and Los Angeles, California all offered domestic partner benefits. At the Democratic Convention in Chicago, I met people from all over the state; labor leaders from Pittsburgh, old ladies from Erie, school teachers from Wilkes Barre, congressional candidates from Montgomery County, and state representatives from Lackawanna County. Now, I was wearing enough buttons that made it clear I was a lesbian. No one told me I didn't belong there. No one winced when I talked about lesbian and gay rights, and no one booed when President Clinton, in his acceptance speech, included lesbian and gay men as part of the fabric of America. 159 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am committed to the Democratic party because of its commitment to the poor, to working people, to people of color, to women, to a health-care system that covers everyone, and an end to discrimination against everyone, including lesbians and gay men. (Applause.)
I felt welcome in Chicago. Don't tell me that the city where I was born and baptized a Catholic, where I learned important job skills, where I work getting funds to grass-roots organizations, where I nursed my dying father in the dining room of our house along with my partner as he died from cancer, don't tell me that Philadelphia, my hometown, doesn't welcome me. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. (Applause.)
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
Excuse me one moment. 160 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 It's been a long walk. I have testimony to share. Would you like it, Mr. Street?
Well, we have tried not to restrict people. As Councilwoman Clark has said, your briefest message.
I had the pleasure of shaking Cardinal Bevilacqua's hand as he left after his 20-minute testimony this morning. We hope perhaps we will meet with the cardinal soon. I would like to begin -- and I am Rita Addessa. I'm Executive Director of the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, a civil and human rights organization that is celebrating or commemorating, depending upon one's point of view, 20 years of civil and human rights advocacy. The Task Force is the organization that lead in cooperation in Council the amendments to the Fair Practices Act in 1982, adding sexual orientation to that act, so we are pleased to be here today, 15 or 16 years later, still arguing 161 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 around the definition of what constitutes employment, the scope and range of employment rights. And I would like to in my testimony just share with you some useful remembrances, share some very brief background, and then share with you a review and analysis of the five bills before us, if I may. First, those remembrances. I'm sure I understand that the Chancellor spoke this morning. I'm sure he did share with you, but I will again, this wonderfully ovular quote from Braschi, in New York, a definition of family. And that is that the term "family" should not be rigidly restricted to those people who have formalized their relationship by obtaining, for example, a marriage certificate or an adoption order. It should not rest on fictitious legal distinctions or genetic history; but, instead, should find its foundation in the reality of family life. I also quote in this testimony, as we all recall, the Virginia Code, and contrast it to 162 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the still Penn DOMA, which is the code reading: All marriages between a white person and a colored person -- this is a quote -- shall be absolutely void, without any decree of divorce or other legal process. And in distinct contrast to, and the intersections between and among will be clear, Pennsylvania's version of DOMA which cites that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. I do not have to describe the extraordinary discrimination and violence that gay and lesbian people face. We've had that discussion many time before. I am focussing this discussion very narrowly on an marriage. And it is our position that as long as marriage exists an institution, then gay and lesbian people should have that right, but do not. Marriage -- (Applause.)
Marriage is a right and privilege reserved for heterosexual couples who do not have to promise to procreate children and do not have to promise to cohabitate. And attendant to marriage as, we all 163 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 know, is as wide a range of social, legal, and economic benefits which are denied systematically and to gay and to lesbian people; and, frankly, to non-gay people who live in couple relationships. Marital status -- and as long as marital status continues to drive workplace benefits where they exist -- account for 30 to 40 percent of an employee's compensation package. And of those various benefits, as each of us well know, health care, which is a privilege, not yet a universal entitlement, is particularly critical. Perhaps people have shared with you an analysis of Tom Coleman's work, who appeared before City Council last year. Tom noted that in Philadelphia, married-couple households only represent about 40 percent of all households, and we know from various census data that less than 30 percent of the nation's 91 million households represent the traditional definition of family -- two parents living with their children. It is time for this Philadelphia City Council to respect the family forms of this City, and to support Philadelphia's diverse families. (Applause.) 164 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
In many ways, we're arguing on moral grounds, and in many ways, we're arguing for simple economic equality within this narrow paradigm. It is not fair to ask people to work for unequal pay for equal or for comparable work. Even corporations, universities, and many municipalities, as you know, have extended domestic partnership benefits to both gay non-gay family units, and they have found nominal benefit cost increases. This has been a six-year protracted struggle, as I recall, has it not, Mr. President? And I think the time to vote is frankly now. Our review and analysis of the five bills -- I'm going to summarize very, very quickly. We prefer, without any question, Councilmember Ortiz et al.'s bill -- and the numbers elude me sometimes -- 970140. This is inclusive legislation. Is Bill No. 970140 still on the table, sir?
Wait a minute, wait 165 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 a minute, whoa, hold on -- no, it's off the table.
It's been on, it's been off, it's been off, it's been on, and I've gotten a little confused, but it is off, off the table.
I share that confusion. But let me share with you the disappearing bill. We strongly support that the legislation because it is, indeed, inclusive. We are concerned about gender-based Constitutional challenges, which we would find also, I must say, to be very ironic, because -- such a challenge would be ironic because sexual orientation discrimination against the gay and lesbian community is well-documented and remains legal in most states, including Pennsylvania. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 heterosexuals. This is still narrow, yes? But if you, as City Council, and the Mayor refuse to do that, then the least you can do is adopt with the amendment the bills: 970750, the Fair Practice Act amendment; 970749, the realty transfer tax; and 970745, the retirement system ordinance. But these changes, I think, will be absolutely essential, and I hope that you can make these amendments without too much delay and simply vote on these bills. The language of all of the proposed legislation is strikingly different from the Ortiz et al. legislation. It seems to protect men only. That would need to be corrected immediately so that the language is gender-neutral or that you say you want to protect men only, and then we will launch a gender-based constitutional challenge, I promise you. If it's Council's intent to extend these rights and benefits to gay and lesbian life partners and our families, as well as non-gay life partners and their families, I think it would be helpful if you said so. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I suppose there's been hot debate on the matter of the uniform public registry. It's absolutely necessary. How else would you implement the ordinance unless there is a public registry so that affidavits can be centrally to establish and dissolve such partnerships. And, also, I would like not to move back to another century. We need to avoid legitimizing gender discrimination, and it's not clear to me who entered a new BFOQ into the text of the new Fair Practices amendments, but the text of that exemption has to be qualified to say that said application is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this law. This BFOQ is at section 9-1103, Section 17 4(c)(1) one. If you don't do that, you will be enabling gender discrimination. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are clearly prohibited on the basis of life partnership as well as the traditional standard definitions of marital status. And I know controversial that this has also been controversial, but I do hope Council, at some point, will come to the realization that contract compliance is absolutely essential to expand the reach and the importance of this legislation. And I want noted in the record there is appended to my testimony a summary of this protracted unnecessary struggle for the 1992 new 1998 period. And, Mr. President, you talk about the disappearing bill. I talk about the endless game, this endless game that we have played for six years to reach what I consider and many people consider minimalist benefit extended to gay and lesbian, and, I would hope, to non-gay families as well. These are minimalist benefit. It is a small thing for you to do. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 extremely offensive -- never mind anti-gay and extremely anti-Semitic on their face -- I would remind us that this is the United States of America. And as imperfect as that may, this is still be purportedly to be a country that prides itself, at least theoretically, on pluralism and diversity. Theocracy has absolutely no place in the United States of America. )
We encourage you to support Philadelphia's diversity, our diverse families, to assure public registry, to delegitimize gender discrimination, to enable retired city workers to take advantage of this choice of beneficiary opportunity, and one day to assure contract compliance with the law. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Larry Frankel. (Larry Frankel comes forward.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 170 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Thank you, Mr. President. Just one item. There was material handed out just before, I believe, the 1 o'clock break, which is on each Councilmember's desk. It's a copy of one of the two opinions issued by the City Solicitor. Both opinions essentially say the same thing; they were just addressed to two different people. A complete copy of Chapter 9-1100, which is the Fair Practices Act in Philadelphia; a copy of a letter from Linda Seyda, our personnel director, as a follow-up to a previously-issued letter of about two weeks before then; and the amendments, as drafted by the Law Department for each of the three bills. Those amendments have been attached to the Solicitor's opinion that was distributed yesterday. But now they are in their own separate form and packaged with a very brief explanation of what those amendments are and what they do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Mr. Frankel, please identify yourself for the record. 171 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
My name is Larry Frankel. I'm the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. And here with me, as I testify is, Dabney Miller from the Women's Law Project. We promise to be very brief, Mr. President. (Applause.)
I have prepared testimony, which I will offer for the record. I will note just a couple points from that testimony. The ACLU is strongly supportive of the 172 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 legislation that would establish domestic partnerships and give recognition to them. I would note that both here in Philadelphia, across the street, and around the nation, the ACLU has thousands of happily-married members who understand that legal recognition of same-sex relationships will not undermine strength or validity of their marriages. (Applause.)
Now, frankly, I've been listening to the testimony here today, and I understand that some people feel that this is a threat to marriage. But we haven't heard any anecdotes, much less any facts and any statistics which indicate that anywhere domestic partnership benefits have been granted, that all of a sudden, there's an increase in divorce rates, with families, you know, being broken up, any kind of data that actually indicate there's any impact. In fact, I recall reading earlier this week that the rate of marriage in this country -- lawful marriage between heterosexual people -- has gone up, so I don't know how there's a claim that there's a threat to the family. 173 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 It just reminds me of testifying in Harrisburg a couple years ago on proposals to change the no-fault divorce laws, and people were claiming that the no-fault divorce laws caused rate of divorce to go up in Pennsylvania. Well, the data that was supplied indicated that in Pennsylvania, the rate of divorce increased faster in the decade before no-fault was enacted than in the decade after no-fault was enacted. These phenomena go on, but the law really doesn't change that. And without some facts or figures that show that there's been a threat, I don't think that there's been any evidence. And, in fact, one would suppose that the promotion of loving, stable relationships, regardless of the gender of the parties, really is something society benefits from in multiple ways and probably helps strengthen families in many regards. And, after all, I know many married people who consider the development of domestic partnerships to be a good phenomenon. After all, 174 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 they feel that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And they don't feel their marriages are weakened; they feel they are strengthened. (Applause.)
And it's stated in my testimony, but I'll just mention it briefly that we've looked at the issue of whether there's a Constitutional problem with just granting benefits to same-sex couples as opposed to couples of opposite gender as well as same sex. And we do not believe that there's a Constitutional problem, that the City could lawfully act to take one step at a time. Thank you very much.
My name is Dabney Miller. I'm the Associate Director of the Women's Law Project. I am here on behalf of the Women's Law Project to testify in support of the bills now before Philadelphia's City Council, which provide equity and benefits for lesbian and gay employees with domestic partners. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Since 1974, the Women's Law Project has been fighting to eradicate gender discrimination and to promote the rights of women in a range of areas. Issues on which we have focussed include reproductive rights, the new welfare restrictions, insurance discrimination, workplace equity, and numerous aspects of family law, including the rights of lesbian and gay parents. The intersection of lesbian and gay rights and workplace equity is what brings me here today. I will briefly highlight two important aspects of the bills before you, health insurance and pensions. First, provision of health insurance coverage to employees' dependents allows families to afford preventive health care, keeping them healthier and enabling them to avoid emergency care, which is far more costly. To limit such coverage only to people related by marriage is both counterproductive and fundamentally unfair. This is true as it applies both to the domestic partner of an employee and to any children in a family for whom the domestic partner and not the employee is the legal parent. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 These children deserve the same access to health care as their counterparts, with heterosexual married parents, already receive. Secondly, the right to select the beneficiary of one's pension is a fundamental matter of equity for workers. In particular, a lesbian or gay employee who has designated her or his life partner as the guardian of the employee's legal children should have the right to designate that partner as the beneficiary of a pension so as to assure the future support of the children in the event of the employee's death. Marriage should not be a prerequisite to such a critical protection of an employee's family. The Women's Law Project fully supports and indeed urges City Council to adopt the life partnership bills before it. The importance of fighting bigotry and discrimination against lesbian and gay employees and of providing equal benefits to all workers cannot be overstated. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 women and many minorities with regard to compensation, hiring, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment. Lesbian and gay employees have heretofore not been included in many of these legislative steps toward equity. Because women continue to earn less money than their male counterparts, workplace unfairness based on sexual orientation hits even harder on couples where both members are women. It is time to extend fundamental fairness to lesbian and gay employees. Providing workers in same-gender relationships with the same workplace benefits as those provided to workers in opposite-gender relationships will help reduce existing inequities in workplace benefit programs. Successful employers have begun to pay particular attention to recognizing needs and differences among workers and are seeking to fairly meet those needs. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 goals of businesses. Municipalities across the country as well as hundreds of employers, both large and small, including Penn as has been mentioned by many people today, have recognized the desirability of domestic partnership benefits programs. We ask the City Council to join these employers in adopting similarly workplace programs. Thank you.
Andrew S. Park. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already testified.
Oh, okay. Thom Nickels. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's no longer here. He had to leave.
Okay. Laura Tomassetti. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's not here.
Richard Liu, L-I-U. 179 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Richard L-I-U. (Not present.)
Suzanne Blanchard. (Suzanne Blanchard comes forward.) (Applause.)
Good afternoon. My name is Suzanne Blanchard. I'm an attorney in private practice, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and I live in Morrisville. I service elder for music and worship at the First Presbyterian Church of Stockton, New Jersey, and I am a member of the Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Concerns of the Presbyterians of New Brunswick. I am here to present testimony on behalf of attorney Thomas F. Coleman, Executive Director of the Family Diversity Project of Spectrum Institute, supporting a more inclusive approach to domestic partnership and family issues. You may recall that last year, Mr. Coleman conducted an informational briefing for City Councilmembers and staff, at the request of Councilman Angel Ortiz. Mr. Coleman is unable to be here in 180 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 person today because last night, he attended an evening session in the City Council in Oakland, California. At that meeting, the Council voted to end the restriction on domestic partnership medical benefits to gays only, and opened the program to all domestic partners, regardless of gender. (Applause.)
Mr. " You have copies of those on your desks, I believe. You'll find supporting documents in this pamphlet which reflect that, contrary to some of the testimony that you've heard here today, there is quite a wide diversity of views on family domestic partnership and marriage, both among people of faith and among gays and lesbians. It is not necessary for the Philadelphia City Council to engage in a religious debate over the domestic partnership bills being considered here today. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Looking west, to the city of Detroit, and even further west, to the state of California, the Council can find model programs that are immune from moral criticism because they are ethically and legally inclusive. Just two weeks ago, the Detroit City Council adopted a resolution to provide health benefits to extended family members of city employs. The measure did not spark a religious controversy because it used a broad definition that showed respect for family diversity by encompassing a wide variety of household relationships. Under the Detroit definition, which was modeled after the Bank of America new benefits program, an employee may designate one adult member of his or her household to receive health and other benefits, so long as the beneficiary is either, one, a spouse; or, two, a domestic partners of the same or opposite sex, as defined; or, three, a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, or adult child who is under age 65 and is a dependent of the employee, as defined by the IRS. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 received the blessing, so to speak, of San Francisco Archbishop William Levata. Since the Bank had copied and slightly refined the approach used by Catholic charities to comply with San Francisco's far-reaching domestic partnership law, the Catholic church had no 8 problem praising Bank of America's program. The current definition of "life partner" in the Philadelphia bills is narrow. And some religious leaders, such as Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua view them as an attempt to create a substitute form of local marriage for gay couples. This opposition should evaporate if the bills would protect a larger class of people, including unmarried senior citizens, who often live together for companionship, safety, and economic necessity. A group of 11 ministers in California -- Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian -- recently endorsed statewide legislation to make health coverage more available to domestic partners. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the modern family, which has been characterized as husband, wife, and children. The biblical concept centers around the obligation one has to one's household. The ministers pointed out that a biblical family includes persons related by blood or marriage, as well as unrelated persons who are members of the household. As a result, they told California's legislators, those who are living together in domestic partnerships are certainly one icon of what it means to be a family. The Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops in California said they would not oppose laws giving health benefits to domestic partners so long as the definition of domestic partnership is inclusive. Blood relatives are excluded, as they are from civil marriage, under the theory that marriage is a sexual relationship, the bishops oppose domestic partnership legislation. But if blood relatives can be domestic partners, the bishops would withdraw their objections. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 employee benefits. There's no need to worry. 4 percent as a result of its inclusive extended family benefits program. 4 percent included dependent blood relatives. And you'll find in your packet additional data supporting this from other domestic partner programs. A short historic anecdote provides an example of how the Catholic Church supports an inclusive definition of "family," at least when it's beneficial to the church.
In the late 1960s, a group of nuns wanted to live in a large house, in a single- family zone in Miami. The city objected because, since the nuns were not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, officials argued that they are not a family, as that term is commonly understood. Bishop Coleman F. Carroll sued the city. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 functions as a family unit, the law should consider its members to be a family, even though they are not related. The nuns were allowed to live together in harmony with others families in the neighborhood. )
Some 30 years later, the definition of "family" arises again -- only this time in Philadelphia. Limiting the definition of life partners to gay and lesbian couples has created unnecessary religious debate. If Councilmembers would broaden their vision and adopt a more inclusive Bank-of-America definition, opposition from certain clergy should disappear. National polls show that the public believes in equal pay for equal work. Most also believe that a family is a group people who love and care for each other, and not merely persons related by blood or marriage. While employees should receive health benefits for same-sex life partners, adopting a 186 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 broad definition that includes opposite-gender partners and dependent blood relatives would be morally just, politically prudent, and fiscally sound. Thank you.
Thank you very much. (Applause.) (Not present.) Excels not present.)
Richard Kirk. (Richard Kirk comes forward.) (Applause.)
Thank you. My name is Rich Kirk. I'm a manager of data processing at the Regional Insurance Veterans Affairs, here in the City of Philadelphia. I am a veteran. I served honorably in the U.S. Army, from 1968 to 1972. I live in West Philadelphia. For two years I served as Chairperson of the 18th Police District Advisory Council. I was elected to that post by an African-American majority of that organization. 187 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 For three years, I served as Vice President of the Spruce Hill Community Association. I'm a founder of the University City Community Council, which is an umbrella organization of those two groups and more 8 groups that work in the University City area. 9 I'm a member of Calvary United 10 Methodist Church. I serve on their Board of 11 Trustees. 12 I love my neighborhood because my 13 neighborhood is one of the most diverse and 14 vibrant neighborhoods in the United States of 15 America. 16 Let me say one more thing. My parents 17 were married for 65 years. So I fully, 18 unequivocally, completely, and openly support 19 heterosexual marriage. 20 (Laughter.) 21 (Applause.) 22
I have one major problem with the current domestic partnership bills before the City Council today. They aren't comprehensive and inclusive enough. I agree that these bills 188 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are minimalist, but I'm aware of nothing in any of them that represents anything other than equal protection under the laws. (Applause.)
Honorable Members of City Council, I'm here to tell you that this issue is not going to go away. If you do not pass these bills, we'll just be back with different and new bills faster than you can say "domestic partnership." (Applause.)
How much longer do we have to sit and argue these points? All of us -- all of us have more important things to do in our homes and in our communities. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Robert Malagesi, M-A-L-A-G-E-S-I. (John Malagesi comes forward.)
My name is Robert Malagesi. It's M-A-L-A-G-E-S-I. And thank you, 189 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Mr. President, for allowing me to speak, and Members of City Council. I don't have the skills and experience, as a lot of the other people that were here today. I'm just a simple person, but I believe that there's something within my heart that isn't right here, in other words. Not that it's not a love. I mean I love the people here, in other words, as brothers and sisters. But there is truth, and truth isn't subjective to be changed from moment to moment. When I read the introduction to the ordinance, to just go ahead and change definitions as become necessary just to suit doesn't seem right. I mean, there is objective truth. And truth is a person and, his name is Jesus Christ. (Applause.) (Jeers from the audience.)
And while I understand that -- I'm a single City employee also. And while I understand that the nature of these bills are for benefits, we must always look to the truth, and if I may just use like a simple analysis of things. 190 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 In different areas of our lives, if we need our cars fixed, we go to a mechanic. If we have legal trouble, we go to an attorney. And for issues of mortality, we go to the church. And while there is that separation of church and state, we must always use the gifts God has given to those who have that ability. And the ministers -- and Cardinal Bevilacqua and the ministers that spoke this morning truly are ministers of Christ, and administrators of the divine mysteries. And I want to encourage you to please listen to them and to what they say because, like I said, Mr. President, as I sit here, nervous, because I'm not used to this, but there's that honesty in my heart to please ask you an the Members of City Council really to consider this, because I see it as -- Philadelphia as being blessed in a lot of ways. And I really see that if this goes through, that it would begin the downfall of our City. Not to take anything away from them because it's -- (Applause.) 191 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Jeers from the audience.)
I encourage the Members of City Council. I mean, in reading the newspaper one time and seeing that your faith should not interfere with your job, but you're baptized into your faith and not baptized into job. And your faith should make you the person that you are within your job, use it for the betterment of society. And I guess that's it. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.) (Jeers from the audience.)
Thank you very much. John Culhane, C-U-L-H-A-N-E. (Not present.)
Dr. James Dougherty, D-O-U-G-H-E-R-T-Y. (Dr. James Dougherty comes forward.) (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. 192 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 President. My name is James E. Dougherty. I am a veteran, a lifelong resident of Philadelphia, a lifelong registered Democrat, and a professor emeritus of political science, having taught that subject at St. Joseph's University for 46 years. I will not make some of the arguments that have been made over and over again today. Those who favor this legislation do so in the name of equality and justice, arguing that they're being discriminated against. Those who oppose the legislation do so in the name of equality and justice and their religious beliefs, which we all have a right, as American citizens, to express clearly and openly in a Democratic society like this. I oppose any laws which discriminate against gays and lesbians or restrict their civil rights, but I do not believe that this is the issue here. I have no quarrel with any church or any business corporation that bestows employee rights upon domestic partners. But by defining "life partners" in a manner that excludes blood relationships -- that is, genuine traditional 193 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 family relationships, such as those between a mother and a daughter, a brother and another brother or sister, an aunt or a nephew, a grandson and an aged grandmother -- and by elevating non-family persons to family status, according to the traditional definition of "family," the proposed legislation is tantamount in its present form to reverse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. These ordinances would establish an equality with marriage which does contravene the long-standing tenets of our legal system. They violate the spirits of our law which prohibits or conferring or denying economic benefits and legal privileges apart from the traditional heterosexual marriage relationship, solely on the basis of sex and sexual preference. I urge the Council to consider carefully the serious dilemma which it faces. It can redesign the legislation to be fair to all genuine longtime life partners -- and in this regard, I'm in partial agreement with the next to the last speaker. It can carefully redefine "life 194 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 partner" to specify a period of time -- I don't think that is specified in the current definition -- and establish some kind of a limit on the amount of time involved, include dependent blood relatives and require perhaps some demonstration of actual economic dependency and need.
Sir, I don't want to interrupt your testimony except to say that there are those amendments that pretty much address the questions that you have just raised.
Thank you, Mr. President. But that, I think, would become eminently equitable. It will avoid the political controversy and social conflict that are bound to ensue from bestowing a special public tax-supported subsidy upon intellectuals -- upon homosexuals. (Jeers from the audience.)
Bringing legislation like this into a city council invariably exacerbates social tensions. And I don't think that most of the people gathered here today are interested in exacerbating social tensions. 195 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Granted, extending such benefits more inclusively will certainly increase the cost to the City and to business firms, if the legislation includes all businesses in the City. But real justice and equal treatment often do cost a lot more. On the other hand, the Council can pass the legislation in its present form of separate ordinances, crafted to circumvent our legal prohibitions against same-sex marriages. I think there is a strong possibility that the latter alternative will leave the City of Philadelphia open to court challenges on the grounds that the term "life partners" in the present legislation, as I've seen it, is defined much too narrowly for the benefit of a certain group, while excluding others in traditional family relationships whose needs are real and whose rights are being ignored. And I would call attention to the lawyers who are interested to the case of Moore versus Cleveland in the Supreme Court, 431-U.S.-494, in 1977. Thank you, President Street.
Thank you very much. 196 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
Jared Boigon, from the American Jewish Congress. (Jared Boigon comes forward.) (Applause.)
Mr. President, I have written copies of my testimony, which are being distributed to City Councilmembers now. Good afternoon. My name is Jared Boigon. I'm the Director of Programming for the American Jewish Congress, Pennsylvania Region. I'm here on behalf of the American Jewish Congress to submit testimony to the Philadelphia City Council regarding Bills 970745, 970749, and 970750, concerning the treatment of life partners under sections of City Code which govern City employee pensions, the realty transfer tax, and the Fair Practices Code. The American Jewish Congress, founded in 1918 by Rabbi Stephen Wise, Justice Louis Brandeis, and other distinguished Americans, specializes in combatting all forms of bigotry through law and legislation. Considered the legal voice of American 197 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Jewish community, we work to safeguard Jewish interests, protect basic freedoms enshrined in the American Bill of Rights, and to advance the security of Israel. The Pennsylvania Region boasts over 1100 active members, most of whom live and/or work in the City of Philadelphia. On April 30, 1995, the American Jewish Congress adopted the following resolution. The American Jewish Congress has established fundamental positions supporting equal rights, under law, and separation of church and state. As an expression of these positions the American Jewish Congress strongly supports ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Applause.)
Lesbian and gay couples have historically been denied the basic human right to civil legal recognition of their personal relationships on the same basis that heterosexual relationships are recognized in civil law. Partners in committed gay and lesbian relationships should be able to legally acknowledge their relationships and become eligible for spousal benefits, including health 198 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 care and survivor entitlements. Our legal system should not deny such couples equaling access to housing and public services, equal treatment under tax laws, equal ability to create families and raise children, and equal ability to participate in the full range of community transactions. And that's the national policy adopted by the American Jewish Congress three years ago, in 1995. (Applause.)
And we in the Pennsylvania Region, as well as our other regions around the 15 country, have worked actively to support it. Consistent with that national policy, we, therefore, support the concept of amending The Philadelphia City Code in the following respects: First, to permit life partners to be beneficiaries of pensions of City employees; Second, to permit the exclusions of transfers of real estate between life partners from the realty transfer tax; Third, to assure that life partners have the same right as others to secure health 199 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 insurance and other employment benefits; and Based on the amendments which are before City Council, which I have not seen, any other legislation which would extend benefits to life partners that City Council may see fit to consider today. We appreciate the concerns of segments of the religious community for the protection of the institution of marriage. However, we believe strongly that individual rights must be protected by the laws of our land. (Applause.)
Family religious values are, by nature, extremely personal and individual. We do not believe that any religious institution should seek to promulgate its particular viewpoint through governmental requirements. Therefore, we are not convinced by those opponents who simply oppose giving legal rights to life partners. Rabbi Hillel, one of our great scholars, one of the greatest scholars ever to study the Old Testament, is commonly quoted as having said that the entire Old Testament, the 200 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Torah, can be reduced to the precept, Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you. And that the rest is commentary. Thank you for your time. (Applause.)
I think Marie Summers was already here to testify. Dr. Dan Gottlieb. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already testified.
June Krebs, K-R-E-B-S. 201 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (June Krebs comes forward.)
I'm June Krebs, Chair of the Germantown Branch of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. I'm also a member of the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Society of Germantown. I'm a mother of six, none of whom is a homosexual, and I celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary this year. (Applause.)
I was raised in a truly multi-cultural neighborhood, in Mt. Airy. Our block began with a Unitarian family, Orthodox Jews, Quaker Pacifists, and several varieties of Christians. We were also mixed in race and age. And there were homosexuals. As kids, we felt safe in this neighborhood of cooperation. We ate in every kitchen, we played in each yard, and this was our family. (Applause.)
I later attended an 202 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 all-girls private school where women were in charge, some of whom were lesbians. It was an excellent school. We never asked whether women were entitled to be supervisors, to retire, and to receive full benefits. And I want to thank Mayor Rendell for his proclamation of several years ago which addressed this. No one can be without a safety net. No one should be, in this, the wealthiest country in the world. (Applause.)
I then attended the Philadelphia College of Art, which was attended by many gays and lesbians, openly and in your face, as they knew they would be employed in fields, fashion fields, which were dominated by gays. Their work was good. And today, we benefit from it. We benefit by the clothes we wear, by the graphic designs we see, and by the products we use every day. And, lastly, I grew up in a Unitarian Universalist Church where we were very carefully instructed in the dignity and worth of all people. (Applause.) 203 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I said "all people," not just those whose life-style pleased a particular religious denomination or a particular political party or a particular City Council. I thank you for receiving my testimony.
I'd like to make an announcement at this time. What we'd like to do now, we have several witnesses from the City who are here, and they have some fairly technical testimony to offer about how all this would work and what, if any, problems are associated with it. I have a strong preference to try to get on the record the witnesses who have come here today, which is the reason why we haven't heard them, and I appreciate their willingness to be a part of this hearing. There are people who take off work, who make special arrangements to testify. Our City witnesses, generally, have a lot more flexibility. So what we are trying to do is get all of the -- get as much of the public testimony as we can, and then we will shift and 204 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 get the testimony of the City witnesses, and then come back to the public witnesses. And I wanted to explain that there's some Councilmembers who have some questions for, you know, for the public witnesses -- the Finance Director, the Personnel Director, and people like that. I have a strong preference to try to get the general public on the record at this time. And so what I would like to do is plod along here with the general public until maybe about 4 o'clock, and then have the City witnesses for a while, and then come back to the general public. Right now, that's the plan. And unless any Councilmember has any problem with that, I'd like to continue on with the members of the general public. Thank you very much. Harry Byrne. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's not here.
He'll be here in ten minutes, Mr. President. He's on his way.
Rita Vitale, V-I-T-A-L-E. 205 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Not present.)
Christine McMenamin, M-C-M-E-N-A-M-I-N. (Christine McMenamin comes forward.)
My name is Christine McMenamin. I am the mother of three grown children and I am a citizen of Philadelphia, and I speak in that capacity. I'm also a graduate of Penn. I'm not sure God is, but I am. And I'm very happen to say that I am a graduate of Penn. It is a fact of anthropology that all that we know as culture has grown out of our human condition of interdependence. Our contemporary emphasis in this country on individual freedoms must always be seen in the context of the good of the group. Our individual freedoms are rooted in the truth that we need each other to survive as individuals and also as a human family. It takes both the male and the female genders to adequately reflect the fullness of humanity. (Applause.)
It is our blessing and 206 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 also our challenge that we, as men and women, need each other to grow fully and to provide for the future of our shared human race. Even more do our children need the presence, the clarity, and the interaction of male and female gifts to grow into human wholeness. Marriage of one man to one woman, like anything of value, requires respect, support, and protection from both the secular and the religious communities to survive in a society that challenges commitment of any kind. There is a saying that states, "the two things our children need most from us are roots and wings." As a woman, as a parent, and as a citizen of Philadelphia who lives in and loves the City, I ask you to give our children roots in law that affirms the respect that the marriage of one man to one woman deserves. (Applause.)
Marriage stands or falls on the commitment of the two persons involved and the support of the human community. Our children now, and yet to be born, ask you to 207 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 come alongside and strengthen in law the institution rooted so deeply in our human history. I ask you to vote no to the life partners bills before you. Marriage is not perfect, but it is the longest-standing and best option we have. In a matter so crucial, please don't settle for less than the best. Thank you. (Applause.)
David Acosta, A-C-O-S-T-A. (David Acosta comes forward.) (Applause.)
Good afternoon, President of City Council John Street, Members of City Council, and citizens of Philadelphia. My name is David Acosta. I am the Founder and the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Latino AIDS Education Initiative. It is a program in the City designed to educate the Latino sexual minority community around issues of HIV, AIDS, STDs, and other health-related matters. I am also a son, a brother, an uncle, 208 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and a member of multiple communities, all of which make up my definition of self. And I am here to request the passage of domestic partnership legislation. The issue before us is the recognition of domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples. The recognition of gay and lesbians unions is, sadly enough, seen by the church as a deliberate threat to their narrow and out-of-touch conception of the family; when, in truth, the landscape of America and of the American family has been slowly changing for the last seven years to accommodate new and more realistic family structures. These family structures, whether heterosexual, single-parent households, heterosexual non-married household, or same-sex couples speak to love, dignity, and respect, something which, sadly enough, the church has forgotten in its own bigoted and hateful attempt at holding on to medieval outdated concepts of what constitutes a family, as well as its hatred and contempt for other human beings like myself, who ask for nothing more and nothing less than to 209 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 be recognized as equal partners by a system into which we all pay taxes. (Applause.)
The erroneous and false notion that gay and lesbian couples earn higher incomes is nothing more than a misinformation campaign to divert the citizens of Philadelphia, by portraying us as radically different from the rest of the citizenry. Not all gay and lesbian people only fall into high-income brackets. Gay and lesbian people of color and blue-collar working whites do not earn high incomes. Furthermore, gay and lesbian people of color continue to experience the same hardships, both from within our community and outside of it, that communities of color have experienced in a polarized racist, sexist, classist, and heterosexist society. The reality is this: Not all gay and lesbian people are white, educated, and affluent. The majority of us are hard-working minimum-wage- earners who pay taxes into a system that belittles our experiences, persecutes us, excludes us, and 210 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 fails to recognize our financial contributions through taxes to the health, stability, and well-being of our city. (Applause.)
The reality is also that Latino and African-American reflect a wide diversity of family structures, many of them gay and lesbian, with individuals who are emotionally and economically committed to one another. Many are single-parent households and/or households with extended families. The truth of the matter is that the argument before us is not one of special rights or concessions. It is the ability to recognize that gay and lesbian people, regardless of economic status, have the right to create family structures based on love, caring, community, respect, and commitment to the health and well-being of our families, our city, our neighborhoods, and our fellow citizens. As taxpaying citizens, we ask for nothing more than that our elected officials extend to us the same courtesy, civility, or privilege, which are current law afford those whom 211 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the church allows to marry. Since our unions are excluded from such recognition, both religious and civic, it is up to our elected officials to recognize our financial contributions to our great City. We are not asking for special rights; we are asking that the State do what it supposed to do. We are asking you to do the right thing, the moral thing, the civil thing. Since the church won't do it, I am here to ask you, as elected officials, to honor an increasing concept in the foundation of this nation. Separate the interests of the church from those of the state, and pass domestic partnership legislation. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Linda Rhymm, District Council 47, is she here? (Linda Ryhm comes forward.)
Good afternoon, President Street and distinguished Councilmembers. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing. 212 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Since 1995, AFSCME District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund has provided same-sex domestic-partner health-care benefits. The Council has 4,400 active and retired members. To date, only members have 7 applied for same-sex domestic-partner health-care 8 benefits. This is less than 1 percent of our 9 covered members. 10 To be eligible for same-sex health care 11 benefits at D.C. 47, a certification of domestic 12 partner application must be completed. This 13 document is detailed and stringent, and it has a stringent criteria. D.C. 47 realizes that a great deal of myth and fictions exist regarding this issue. However, many health-care plans that offer the same benefits have very similar experiences, and an extremely low number of covered members apply. It also should be noted that other municipalities in California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and New York, among other states, also offer domestic- partner health benefits. The major health insurers in the 213 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Pennsylvania region, Independence Blue Cross, U.S. Health Care, Aetna, and Qual Med also offer same-sex domestic-partner health-care benefits. These huge insurers are the foremost experts on health care, and they offer the benefits, fully aware of the financial impact. We at District Council 47 offer this for our members, and we would like to see the City of Philadelphia offer it for their employees. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Harry Byrne, B-Y-R-N-E. (Harry Byrne comes forward.)
Good afternoon, President Street. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, and thank you to the other Members of City Council and guests today. My name is Harry Byrne, B-Y-R-N-E. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and have been since 1981. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 out, and also a copy of the remarks that I have prepared. I am currently a principal in the law firm of Dolchin, Slotkin & Todd, located at 2005 Market Street, in Philadelphia. Prior to that time, I was with the Philadelphia firm of Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley. And since 1981 to 1988, with the Philadelphia firm of Abrams & Lowenstein. I have, since 1981 concentrated my practice of law strictly in the area of family law, including topics like divorce, property distribution, support, custody, and related matters. I've been admitted to practice before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Although I am not here in any official capacity, I am currently the Articles and Comments Editor of the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer, a quarterly magazine published by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, with a circulation of approximately 2500. I am currently Secretary of the Family Law Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Prior to that time, I have held two different terms on the Section's Executive Counsel, and I have also chaired the Section Committees on custody, divorce and equitable distribution, and continuing education. I am a Member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Family Law Section and was Cochair of their Program and Continuing Legal Education Committee, from 1993 to 1995. I also served two terms on the Executive Counsel of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section. Previously, I have been appointed as a master pro tem to help resolve custody cases in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. That was a temporary volunteer appointment in 1995 and the beginning of 1996. Prior -- on another occasion, I served as a Volunteer Hearing Officer in the Court of Common Please of Philadelphia County to resolve child-custody matters. I have published articles in law journals, in the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 contributing author for textbooks by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. And in the last ten years, I have participated in no less than 30 seminars and lectures on topics on family law, in places like Toronto, Williamsburg, Washington, and throughout Pennsylvania. I am here today to indicate that my review of the life partner ordinances pending in City Council does not constitute a marriage relationship or a marriage and is not the equivalent of a marriage or a marriage relationship. " This is the legal definition. And marriage is distinguished from an agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life or until divorced, from the discharge to each other in the community of the legal duties incumbent on those whose association is founded on that distinction. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 proscribed by law, by which a man and woman capable of entering into such contract mutually engage with each other to live their lives, or until divorce, together in a state of union which ought to exist between husband and wife. The word also signifies the act, ceremony, or formal proceedings by which persons take each other for husband and wife. I've omitted the citation, but the quotation is from Black's Law Dictionary. In the treatise law of marriage and divorce in Pennsylvania, it's been said that the word "marriage," although frequently employed without nice discrimination as to its precise meaning, has a dual significance. In one sense, it is the act or ceremony by which a man and woman are joined together in wedlock. In another sense, it describes their status, which is created by that act.
Marriage is both a contract and a status. The contact of marriage is a threshold over which the parties reach the status of marriage. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the mere whim of the parties. It is no more a contract than fatherhood or sonship. Even the contract of marriage, because of its special character contract, is not governed entirely by law but is contract law, but is a contract sui generis. And that's a quotation from The Law of Marriage and Divorce in Pennsylvania, the well-known treatise by Friedman. While its historical origins are rooted in Ecclesiastical law, it has long been clear that marriage falls within the State's police power. It has been held to be of paramount State concern. Both the marriage contracts and the many characteristics of the marriage status are within the control and are governed by the State, and not under its police power. Pennsylvania recognizes two different kinds of marriages -- statutory or ceremonial marriage and common-law marriage; although one becomes married in a different way in a ceremonial as opposed to a common-law marriage, where one is just as married. And the conditions of the status of such marriage are the same. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The impediments, rights, and obligations of marriage apply equally to either kind of marriage ceremony. And under the law, one is simply married. In the case of Manfredes Estate, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed statutory and common-law marriages. The court noted that marriage in Pennsylvania is a civil contract by which a man and woman take each other for husband and wife. Two different kinds of marriages, ceremonial and common law. Ceremonial marriage is a wedding or marriage performed by a religious or civil authority, with the usual or customary ceremony or formalities. A common-law marriage is a marriage by the express agreement of the parties, without ceremony, and almost invariably without witnesses, by words not in futuro or postio but in presenti, uttered with the view and for the purpose of establishing the relationship of husband an wife. And the citation for that is the Knute case. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 legislature could choose to modify or abolish it, but it has not done so. While the common law of Pennsylvania continues to govern the applicable principles of common-law marriage, the ceremonial marriage is governed by statute, as set forth in Title 23. Now, the status of being married creates attendant rights and responsibilities between the marriage partners. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 alimony pendente lite, and other relief; Certain limited consent rights with respect to medical treatment for a spouse; Limited preferential treatment with respect to Pennsylvania and federal inheritance tax; Limited Internal Revenue preferential treatment with respect to dependency exemptions; Capital gains exclusions and other tax-related issues;. Limited COBRA rights with respect to applicable health insurance coverage eligibility; Limited preferences with respect to ERISA pension, beneficiary, and survivor benefits; And preferential treatment with respect to the tax-free transfer, incident to a divorce, of applicable retirement plans by way of a qualified domestic relations order. While some of the characteristic rights and obligations of the status of marriage are governed by federal law, most are governed by State law. Bill 970745 concerns pension ordinance 25 amendments. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 "beneficiary" to permit the designation of any person so designated as a beneficiary. The proposed amendments are not related to any issue remotely related to the question of marriage or marriage relationship. The ordinance 7 does not establish a priority for beneficiary or survivor purposes for a spouse or a former spouse whose marital property rights may not yet have been adjudicated.
This may present a conflict with certain portions of the 1980 Divorce Code with respect to marital property rights, as enunciated by the case law interpreting those rights. Bill 970749 deals with the Pennsylvania real estate transfer tax and the expansion of the classification of excluded transactions. The proposed amendment expands the class of excluded transactions to include transactions, quote, between any life partners, end quote. And then defines the term, quote, life partner, end quote. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 expanded definition of, quote, marital status period, end amendment quote. The amendment adds the term, quote, life partner to the already-named statuses of single, married, separated, divorced, and widowed. Since the definitions of life partner are identical in the two bills, they will be discussed together. The proposed definition is lengthy and involves no fewer than and possibly as many as 12 30 different criteria, some of which are objective 13 criteria, some of which appear to be subjective 14 criteria. 15 The proposed life partner definition does not provide a clear and simple bright-line test to determine those who fall within the life partner classification, nor does it provide any clear bright-line test for determining when one is no longer a life partner. The existing transfer tax exclusion is not limited to spouses, and the proposed legislation merely expands an already fairly broad category of exclusions. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 purpose of the real estate transfer tax, does not attempt to constitute the equivalent of a marriage or the equivalent of a marriage relationship. The life partner classification, for purposes of the Fair Practices, expands the marital status definition and includes that with a long list of existing prohibited classifications for race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, or handicap. Although included within the definition section under marital status, life partner does not constitute the state of being married any more than the already-existing classifications of being single or being divorced that constitute the state of being married. As previously noted, the power to regulate and control the marriage contract and the status of marriage rests solely with the legislature. The life partner classifications do not constitute or attempt to constitute a common-law marriage or a statutory ceremony marriage. Only the legislature can do this. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 itself create a duty to provide support or the right to seek support. It does not create a parallel classification to tenants by the entireties, it does not create any spousal estate rights or provide for any rights in the event of in testate succession. It does not create any limited testimonial privilege. It does not create any rights under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. It does not create any rights in so-called marital property or in a consequent equitable distribution of marital property. It does not create a parallel class of marital property. It does not create rights to seek alimony pendente lite, or alimony. It does not create any preference for life partners for Pennsylvania inheritance tax purposes or for federal inheritance tax purposes. It does not provide for any rights under federal law with respect to continuation of health insurance benefits under COBRA. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 It does not create any limited preference for capital gains tax treatment or for any other state or federal tax purpose. It does not create any beneficiary or survivor rights under the federal pension law for ERISA-type plans.
While some of the characteristics of the life partner might be definition in a separate lawsuit of the creation of certain private contract rights or certain private equitable claims between two individuals, those possible claims exist independent of whatever Council may or may not do with respect to these ordinances, and are grounded in existing theories of private contractual actions and private claims for equitable relief, under certain detrimental reliance or injustice enrichment theories. Such actions are already fairly common in the Courts of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and in the surrounding counties. For the foregoing reasons, the ordinances in question do not attempt to create -- do not create or attempt to create a marriage. Thank you very much. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Melina Naldo. (Melina Naldo comes forward). (Applause.)
Good afternoon, everybody, President Street, members of the City Council. I am here as a Regional Director for PFFLAG, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. (Applause.)
PFFLAG is a national organization, with a Chapter here in Philadelphia. PFFLAG offers support to families with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender members, and seeks to educate an ill-informed public an advocates for equal rights on behalf of our gay and lesbian loved ones. I am here as a lifelong devoted Catholic, who is greatly distressed to see a few in my own church using their time, considerable talent, and our collective treasure to discriminate against their fellow citizens who ask nothing more than to be treated fairly and live 228 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 their lives in peace. (Applause.)
We parishioners and taxpayers with homosexual children must pay the salaries, pensions, and benefit to those who would deny them to our children. (Applause.)
But, above all, I am here as a mother an grandmother to tell you how this affects me and my family, which includes a gay child. My family is not unique. It is estimated that one out of four families has a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender member. Someone you know is gay or lesbian, perhaps your own family member. Please understand that when you decide an issue concerning the lives of gay and lesbian citizens, you are affecting families like mine and those we love. As a mother of four children, I am naturally most concerned with the lives of our young people. Imagine the effect the atmosphere of hate and intolerance fostered by those who 229 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 oppose this legislation has on young people whose sexual identity is emerging as homosexual, not heterosexual. No wonder a recent study in Minnesota schools, 28.1 percent of gay and bisexual boys have attempted suicide -- 7 times the rate as for heterosexual boys. Public controversies like this send the message loud and clear to these children that they are worthless and unworthy of our protection. Thus these families are encouraged to reject them, and they are driven further away from their families, teachers, and clergy who should be their natural protectors. The Catholic bishops' recent wise and compassionate advice on the subject is welcome news for those who are concerned about gay and lesbian youth. I thank God that the sideshow of bigotry was not going on in a time and place when our son was struggling with his sexual identity, unbeknownst to my husband or me. As a parent, the other issue that concerns me is the safety of my son and other gay and lesbian people. A hate campaign like this 230 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 encourages violence against the demonized group. Violence-prone individuals take this as an open invitation to harass gays and lesbians, or even those whom they perceive to be gay or lesbian. Believe me, that when my son visits next month, I will worry more than usual about his safety. How curious that the opponent have seized upon this particular modest legislation to launch a moral crusade. Surely more compelling moral issues exist in our time than people of the same gender living in committed relationships. I wonder if people would have been bussed here today had we been discussing legislation to improve our schools, or helping those poor souls wandering our streets as we speak. (Applause.)
I asked this question before, and I will ask it again since no one has answered it, at least not to my satisfaction: How do these same-gender relationships threaten my marriage of 38 years? (Applause.)
The fact that their brother is gay, in a committed relationship for seven 231 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 years, eligible for domestic partnership benefits from the university which employs him has not deterred our three daughters from marrying. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
Now, the gentleman from the ACLU had it exactly right. I have the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer here before me with the banner headline, "Is That Love in the Air? More People Are Saying 'I do'." So certainly, marriage is doing very well. I guess these people just haven't heard about this domestic partnership legislation. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
The answer to my question may be that no one expects anyone to care if a marginalized and largely hidden group is discriminated against. Well, I am here to tell you today that there is a small but growing army of us who are sick and tired of the treatment of our gay and lesbian loved ones, and we aren't going to take it anymore. 232 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Standing ovation.)
We are sick and tired -- sick and tired of our beloved children used as pawns and scapegoats. Scapegoating unpopular minorities has a long and tragic history. This is nothing new. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson regularly use the, quote/unquote, homosexual menace in their fund-raising appeals. You may believe whatever you will about homosexuality, but you will not go unchallenged when you use the public domain to harass our children. Enough! (Applause.)
Let's get beyond the hysteria and rationally consider what is really going on here. You are being asked -- you, City Council, are being asked to deny benefits to a certain class of citizens, gays and lesbians living together a committed relationship because they love one another and want to establish a home together. They choose to form a family following their God-given nature. You are to single them out -- yet, everyone else, as long as he or she is 233 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 heterosexual and married, gets a pass. These heterosexuals can be unfaithful to their spouses, married and divorced a dozen times, deal drugs or be an ax murderer, and yet no 6 one is clamoring to deny them benefits. We do not impose our standard of mortality on any other group. (Applause.)
Please, please, I ask you, put an end to this circus, which is an embarrassment to this great City of Philadelphia, and pass this eminently fair legislation. In your heart, you know this is the right to go thing to do. (Applause.)
This legislation will pass. The march of history is ever toward equality and justice. My fervent hope today is that when my precious little grandchildren grow up, there will be no need for PFFLAG and certainly no need for a hearing to debate whether or not to pass legislation that will make the world a little more fairer for everyone. 234 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Standing ovation.)
I may be home in time for Wheel of Fortune. I'm here on behalf of myself, Joe Ciavarella. That's C-I-A-V-A-R-E-L-L-A. I'm a gay Catholic citizen of Philadelphia. I'm here with my partner of two years, Tim. (Applause.)
Thank you. I promise to be brief. Can you hear me okay? This is new to me. I just want to mention that when we came here this morning, before 12, we were approached by a representative of the gay 235 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 community who asked us please not to embrace; it was making members of the City Council uncomfortable. With all due respect, I'm not here to make anyone comfortable; I'm here to assert my right as a gay man. (Applause.)
I'd also like to address all those in relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual. The things that Tim Schwarz and I have been through, which includes the loss of my mother, a stroke by his mother, and Alzheimer's disease, the way we got through those things were pulling closer together. This is how we made it and this is how we'll continue to go.
(Asks to borrow reading glasses.) Unfortunately, being here, my eyes were dried out. Thank you very much. I speak to you on behalf of myself and also in dedication of my mother, who died two years ago. Dear City Council President and Councilmembers, I am here today to ask for your 236 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 support of the domestic partnership bills now being considered by City Council. It my hope that Philadelphia will require companies doing business in our city to provide health and insurance benefits for employees' life partners. I don't know if that's still up for review, but that's my wish. There are some people, particularly those in the Catholic Church, who believe that our gay and lesbian citizens should be denied the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples. They are afraid that it would somehow lead to the disintegration of marriage and the family. I am sadly reminded that this is the same Catholic Church that denied my mother access to the sacraments because she had divorced and remarried. In the eyes of this church, it would have been better for her to remain in a physically and emotionally abusive marriage or to struggle as a single parent. That to me is wrong. My partner Tim and I have been together for two years. In the fall of 1997, we had our union blessed in a ceremony held at a local 237 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Episcopalian Church. We now desire to have our union legally-recognized. But under current law, we cannot marry. Ironically, if I would be willing to undergo surgical alteration and legally change my sex, we could apply for a marriage license as a, quote, heterosexual couple. Is that correct? This would be somewhat like cutting off my penis to spite my face. (Laughter.)
It is my belief that passage of a domestic partnership bill in Philadelphia is a simple matter of justice and equality. (Applause.)
Again, it will help us to go one step closer to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and help balance the scale of equality for us and our gay and lesbian children. Thank you. (Applause.)
I am Tim Schwarz, Joe's partner. Thank you for letting me speak. 238 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 This is my first time at a political function. I must say, it's a bit longer than I thought it would be, but I will make this very brief. I just want to say that I have the most wonderful family in the world. A few days before my commitment ceremony to Joe, my dad pulled me aside and he said, Son, you know I have always accepted your union with Joe, and now I want you to know why I'm so grateful for it. When I was in my early 20s, I discovered that my own father was gay. I had always wondered why my parents were so distant with each other. It also probably explains why both of my parents were alcoholics. To my knowledge, my father never acted on his natural desires, but he was obviously miserable and died before his 50th birthday. I knew you were gay a long time ago, and I am so relieved that you did not choose the same path my father did. I am also part of the most wonderful church in the world. In 1992, I decided to end my studies as a Franciscan priest and resume my 239 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 career as a musician. The Franciscans remain some of my closest friends and spiritual advisors. When I left their community, they gave me their blessings and encouraged me to pursue my dream of meeting a lifelong. And, yes, they did know that it would be a male. Upon finding out that I had at last met someone that I wanted to share my life with, they praised God. Priests and pastors, both Catholic and Protestant, blessed my union with Joe. Many have said that they wished more heterosexual marriages had the love and commitment that we do. My family and my church have both supported my commitment to Joe. And now I ask that City Hall do the same. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Reverend Isaac Miller. (Reverend Isaac Miller and Rabbi Rebecca Alpert come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Isaac Miller, Pastor of the Church of the Advocate, in North Philadelphia. And with me is 240 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Rebecca Albert. And, hopefully, we can testify together. I'd just like to briefly, as pastor of a church, urge Council to vote affirmatively on the resolutions that are before you. There is no question about it that there are people in the religious community that would take a position that is different from the one that I would urge upon you. In my experience and in my opinion as pastor, however, it seems that there is a very definite need in the community that my church serves for us to struggle in any way possible to support loving and caring relationships. I am proud that at the Advocate, there are some who are in committed same-sex relationships, who embody in that relationship the kind of love and caring that the church hopes for and would urge for us all. There's no way in the world that same-sex committed relationships challenge the institution of marriage, challenge those of us who are committed to heterosexual marriage relationships. 241 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The church's business, it seems to me, is to encourage genuine love. And out of that spirit, I would ask that you vote affirmatively. Thank you. (Applause.)
President Street, this is not the first time I have come to City Council to present testimony.
I'm sorry, ma'am, please identify yourself for the record.
This is not the first time that I have come to City Council to present testimony in support of domestic partnership or life partnership legislation. The bills before you today are certainly more thoughtfully crafted than those of years before, but they should be. Since we had this conversation several years ago, almost every major municipality and many large corporations have adopted some form of domestic partnership legislation. 242 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 We have learned in the interim that domestic partnership legislation costs little and provides significant benefits for taxpayers and employees. What is news today is only that Philadelphia finds itself outside the main stream and much behind the times, the only major U.S. city that has failed to pass domestic partnership. I could speak to you again about the religious issues involved in this legislative initiative since I come here today not only as an open lesbian and former Cochair of the Mayor's Commission on Sexual Minorities, but also as an ordained Reconstructionist rabbi and professor of religion. I could tell you at length about the denominations, Christian and Jewish, who have come to embrace the gay men and lesbians in their midst about same-sex marriages heroically -- and I underline heroically -- performed by clergy of various groups around the country in defiance of outbursts and archaic laws that do not recognize the long-term committed relationships of two women or two women to one another. 243 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Or I could speak to you about the healthy children I and others have raised who, although avowedly heterosexual in their practice, proudly identify as members of gay and lesbian families. But this is not a conversation about religious beliefs, despite efforts to make it so. It's a conversation about expanding benefits for working people. This society has grown increasingly aware that it is unjust to provide pensions and health-care pensions to workers and tax breaks to individuals who are married that we deny to workers and citizens with identical living arrangements who are prohibited from getting married. I believe domestic partnership legislation is a first step towards recognizing the need for universal health care in our society and for benefits for all. And although it is only a first step, we in Philadelphia should get ourselves in sync with the rest of the cities and companies in the United States who have made this first step a 244 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 reality, pass this legislation, and then get on with our real business of providing education -- (Applause.)
-- housing, jobs, health care, and a safe environment for everyone, regardless of their marital status, sexual orientation, age, race, or religion. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Joseph Needham, N-E-E-D-H-A-M. (Joseph Needham comes forward.)
Thank you. My name is Joseph Needham, and I would like to preempt my remarks, which will -- my homily will only take about two minutes. I am not going to discuss other organizations; I do not represent any of them. I am here on my own accord for this moral issue. And I am disappointed that a lot of these tables are empty. We elect these officials to appear and listen to us, and they're walking around and 245 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 talking. I think when people, including myself. Present myself, I should be heard and not have a lot of walking around and talking. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Mr. President. This is an honor for me to be here. I'm a little nervous, so bear with me. I'd like -- as I come with a heavy heart, after reading The Inquirer of Monday, about the childish behavior and the politicking by a member of this City Council about a bill that will determine the morality of this City, and I think it might affect future travellers and conventions coming to this City. This bill, if signed, would disregard the natural law. Even animals do not mate with the same sex. (Applause.) (Jeering from the audience.)
To get on to marriage, which has been the topic of this discussion, it's evident that the people are not aware that a marriage is just a ceremony. The act of marriage is consummated by a male and female. That's 246 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 marriage. And I'm sure that members of this Council that are here understand and know that to be facts. As I said, it would only take two minutes, so I guess that will be it. Before closing, though, the money to fund this endeavor comes out of the pockets of the City -- the people of the City of Philadelphia. (Jeers from the audience.)
It would be two minutes if there was no interruptions. And it should be on the ballot in November, as all money matters are. I leave by quoting a commandment: "Honor your mother and father." Thank you. (Applause.)
Fernando Chang-Muy, please take the witness stand. (Kathy Barlow comes forward in place of Fernando Chang-Muy.) 247 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Fernando was here for most of the hour and asked me to speak in his place.
I need you to identify yourself for the record and say that slower.
I'm Kathy Barlow. I'm a resident of Germantown, and I'm presenting the testimony of Fernando Chang-Moy. Fernando apologizes for the need to leave the hearings. He very much wanted to give this testimony himself, but his daughter Isabella needed to go to the doctor because she has an ear infection. These are his remarks? I am here today, thanks to my upbringing and education in the Catholic Church, which taught me two important principles: that of charity and respect for other, and that of justice. At Corpus Christy Elementary School, the Sisters of the Order of St. Francis taught me that of the three -- faith, hope, and charity -- the most important is charity. That is respect and assistance to other. 248 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 At LaSalle High School, the Brothers of LaSalle continued to teach me the same principles with the community-service programs that the high school offered. At Loyola University in New Orleans and at Georgetown University, both Jesuit institutions, the Jesuits priests taught me about the primacy of justice through their teachings and their work in Latin America, especially in their liberation theology where Jesuit priests, some were even murdered because of their convictions of promoting justice to the under-represented. And I support this bill granting justice and recognizing equality to lesbian and gay people, not because of my Catholic school background, but because my partner and I have been a family for over 16 years. And one of the reasons we were attracted to each other was our strong desire to be nurturing parents. Our dream was fulfilled five years ago when we adopted a ten-month-old baby from Texas. She is now five years and three quarters old, as she says. Len and I have enrolled her in a Quaker 249 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 school where we hope she will learn some of the same values I learned in Catholic schools, plus some other values such as welcoming and even celebration of diversity, including sexual orientation. (Applause.)
Both Len and I are aware that this is not a democracy where there is a separation of church and state. The City is really a theocracy where the Church still rules. As such, I will not fight it but join it, and urge you, since you are held hostage to the teachings of the Church, to follow those teachings of the Church which call for equality, liberation, and justice, and vote for the domestic partnership act. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Joseph Evans. Joseph Evans. (Joseph Evans comes forward.)
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Hello, Council President and Members of City Council. 250 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 My name is Joseph Evans. I'm in support of the domestic partnership bill because discrimination against anybody is discrimination against all people. And it's a idea that's been long in coming and should have been done a long time ago. (Applause.)
In the meantime, I'd like to say that there have been some religious leaders and those to the far right who have made scripture that's been selective, if anything, and very inaccurate. And this scripture is like -- it's ineffective because it's contradictory and hypocrisy. And like I'd like to quote some scripture myself. Love thy neighbor, love thy neighbor. Do unto others as have others do unto you. Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. (Applause.)
And then also I'd like to say to one person that the one comment I heard that Adam and Eve, the original people, were the 251 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 first sinners as well. But then the first sin was committed by heterosexual people. (Laughter.)
And it's also true that Adam and Eve was also the only people on earth so they had nobody else but just themselves. There is no evidence that God hates homosexuals. God loves everybody. There is no 10 scripture in the Bible that says -- outright says that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by homosexuality, and I would like anybody to point out to me where it says that it was destroyed by homosexuality. Therefore the conclusion is that God hates homosexuals. That is a personal opinion. Like the other things I've heard today on this hearing has been personal opinions, not backed up by facts by those anti-domestic partnership people basically and almost conclusively. And, also, I would like to say too that people have used -- I have known for a fact that this will not bring about what I heard another speaker say. It will not bring about discord in the city or any other city by passage of this 252 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 domestic partnership bill. I've seen racists -- I know for a fact racists have used bigotry as a cover, they have used it as a cover and also as a cover for anti-Semitism. It's not fair to paint everybody as a racist people, and I know other people other than anti-gay people use it as a cover for their racism. But, basically, anti-gay people use it as a cover for their racism. And, therefore, passage of the bill for equal rights for homosexuals will in fact bring about more peace and equality in this country instead of less. (Applause.)
There are straight allies who support domestic partnership. I'm one of those straight allies. I support domestic partnership, and there have been other speakers at this hearing who have supported domestic partnership who are straight. So it's not like it's just a gay situation where only gays support it. There are a lot of straight supporters for this bill. (Applause.) 253 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And -- and also -- there's no way you could have any kind of equality for one person or one group without equality for the other. I've heard people say that they were born a certain color or a certain religion. But a person is not born a certain sexual orientation. Your sexual orientation is determined even while you're still a virgin. So, therefore, there is the fact that sexual orientation like race, class, religion is all connected. It's all the same. And anybody who says differently is not telling you like it is. (Applause.)
People have said that homosexuality is a sin, but they have no way they can say that conclusively. For instance, there are people who are fornicators, adulterers, rapists, murderers, liars, cheats, and pedophiles, and also those who are -- those who tell -- who drink who are also sinners. And, therefore, they are also sinners, but this is just identified, this is condoned by 254 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 these same hypocrites because these are supposedly heterosexual things. You will see heterosexual in nature, so therefore they condone 'em and they condemn homosexuality, but they condone those other things. (Applause.)
So I feel that passage of this domestic partnership bill is definitely long overdue and is something that will do more towards -- it won't destroy the family because when public transportation was invented, it did not stop people from buying cars. People still bought cars, and they still use cars, whether there is public transit or not. So there is no evidence that this will -- in fact, speakers for the pro-domestic partnership side have brought up evidence and good arguments that it will not destroy the family. So, in closing, I'd like to say don't be intimidated, vote your conscience, don't let anybody deter you for any reason, intimidate, threaten you, or try to scare you into not passing the domestic partnership legislation. Thank you. 255 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (Applause.)
Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the City witness to come forward -- oh, I'm sorry. There's one other witness that I need to get in here before the City witnesses. Reverend Dwight Lundgren. (Reverend Dwight Lundgren comes forward.)
I'm Reverend Dwight Lundgren from the first Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Councilman Street and other members of the City Council of Philadelphia, I won't be long at this. I want just to refer -- I've come to speak on behalf of the legislation and in support of it. And I simply want to refer to one of the findings in Bill 970181. It's a simple sentence. Not recognizing the existence, legitimacy, and importance to community stability of the non-traditional family relationships is not sound public policy. And I agree with that, and I think that's a simple statement of why these bills ought 256 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 to be passed. A society that is willing to accept the gifts, the skills the contributions and the acts of responsibility of a portion of its citizenry has the duty to show equity to them in terms of the benefits that the society affords. (Applause.)
I think that there are theological issues related to justice here, which are most pertinent to the passage of these bills. And my speech would be longer were it not for the fact that it followed the rabbi and the Episcopal priest who were more eloquent than I could ever by about the reasons why these bills should ought to be passed. So thank you for allowing me to speak. Once again, I am here to speak on behalf of passing these bills.
Can we now the City witnesses. (Panel of City witnesses comes forward.) 257 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
What I would like -- do all of you have your statements?
Can we make sure that every Councilmember has the Council.
Well, but that doesn't mean we have 'em. Sometimes we leave 'em places. Just make sure -- let's just distribute all the statements again. Make sure everybody has it. And I think what I'd like to do is just have all of the statements read and then open the floor up for questions of the witnesses, all of them sort of at the same time so that we can try to get through the City witnesses.
Let's do 'em in order. Mr. President, Members of Council I'll proceed. My name is Ben Hayllar. As the Director of Finance for the City, I serve as chairman of the Pension Board and am here to testify on Bill 24 No. 970745. With me is Jim Kidwell, who's the Program Administrator for the Pension Board. 258 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The bill before you simply extends the right of participants in the City pension to name any person as a beneficiary and survivor for their pension. Currently, only relatives by blood or marriage may be named as beneficiaries or survivors. However, that relationship can be a very distant cousin. Those folks that have opposed this bill 10 during the course of the day do not appear to have read it. Nowhere in the bill is the term "life partner" or "domestic partner" used. The bill simply recognizes that there are participants in the Philadelphia Pension Fund and Retirement System that have no relatives by blood or marriage. Under the current terms of the law, they are unable to name anyone as their beneficiary. In my time as chairman, we've had cases, one which dealt with -- which was quite sad. It was a City pensioner who had left her pension to a neighbor because she had no 23 relatives, and she was -- the neighbor was unable to claim that pension because the law did not provide for them. 259 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The amendment presented in the bill 3 recognizes that there are such people, that they're unable to name a family member as a beneficiary and allows them to direct their pension benefits to whomever they please. There has been some discussion today about costs. You have attached to my testimony the actuarial report on this bill that shows that there is no material cost in extending this benefit to our participants. One member of the Pension Board has written you a letter stating that he believed that it would be expensive, but you have both the actuarial report concerning this matter and a direct response to the Pension Board members' concerns showing that the costs are minimal. Under the current pension law, a participant has the right to simply have their entire pension paid to them for as long as they live. They also have the option of having their pension benefit expended beyond their life, into the life of their survivor beneficiary. In order to keep this option from costing the Pension Fund -- and ultimately the tax 260 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 payer -- additional money, the monthly pension payment to the participant and survivor is reduced by a formula that reflects the age of the participant and the beneficiary. The Pension Board has discussed this matter in some detail, and we believe Council should pass Bill No. 970745. Thank you. (Applause.)
President Street and Members of City Council, I am Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner, and I'm here to testify on Council Bill 970749 that would amend Chapter 15 19-1400 of The Philadelphia Code, to provide for an exclusion from the realty transfer tax for real estate transfers between life partners. At the present time, transfers of real estate between husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, grandparent and grandchild are excluded from the realty transfer tax. This ordinance would extend the exclusion of transfers -- to transfers between life partners. For purposes of this exclusion, the ordinance defines a "life partner" and 261 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 indicates that to use this exclusion, the parties to the transfer would be required to jointly sign a Philadelphia real estate transfer tax certification affidavit provided by the Department of Revenue. This affidavit would basically be an amended version of the current certification form that lists the various categories of exclusion from the realty transfer tax. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Department of Records processes the current certification forms and collects the realty transfer tax for revenue. Neither the Department of Records, nor the Department of Revenue are in a position to determine the accuracy of the relationship information provided on these certification forms. The Department of Revenue does review a cross section of the form as part of its audit process in order to determine whether the appropriate tax liability has been paid, or an appropriate exclusion identified on the form. The Department does not general audit the accuracy of the relationship information 262 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 presented in the form, but could and would do so if there were any reason to believe that the information provided was not correct. Annual statistics are not available for the certification forms processed by Records, so I cannot accurately report on the number and dollar value of the exclusions currently granted. However, Revenue has reviewed approximately 16,500 real estate transfers from five monthly periods between February of '95 and April of '97. Of these 16,500 transfers, approximately 4,200 of them were family transactions that were excluded from the tax. And of those, about 500 transactions were transfers between husband and wife. Those resulted in an exclusion of about $1.3 million in realty transfer tax. Adding another category of transactions to those that are already excluded from the tax will cost the City some revenue. However, at this time, we have no way to estimate the number of additional exclusion transactions that might occur each year or the value of these transactions. We 263 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 would assume, however, that that number of transfers -- that is transfers between life partners -- would be considerably lower than the number of related-party transactions that we currently experience. Revenue has some concerns about whether the definition of "life partner" that's used in the legislation has broader implications than intended. But I will defer to the City Solicitor on this issue, and I believe you've already received some information from her in that regard.
Good afternoon, Mr. President and Members of Council. I am Linda Seyda, Personnel Director of the City of Philadelphia. I am here today to present testimony on Bill No. 970750. This bill would amend the Fair Practices Ordinance by extending the provision of certain benefits to life partners. Under the proposed amendment, a life partner is defined as a person of the same gender, not related by blood, who meets stated criteria. As an employer, the amended ordinance would require the City of Philadelphia to offer medical 264 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and leave benefits to employees with same-sex life partners. As you may be aware, in 1996, Mayor Rendell signed an Executive Order and the Administrative Board approved policies extending these benefits to life partners of exempt employees in the executive branch of the government. Since January 1, 1997, 8 of approximately 500 employees covered by the Executive Order had applied for covered leave benefits. Of that number, 6 -- or approximately 1.2 percent -- have also requested the extension of medical benefits for a partner. Under the Executive Order and Administrative Board rules, to qualify for medical benefits, the employee must meet the eligibility and proof of interdependence requirements of both the employer and the health-care provider. Given the City' enrollment experience and the registration requirements of the current Executive Order, we would not expect a large number of employees to apply for life partner benefits under the amended ordinance. 265 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 For example, if we assume that 1.2 percent of the employees in the City-administered plan were to opt for life-partner coverage, the amended ordinance would affect about 100 employees. I do note that this does not include employees who would be covered if the ordinance is interpreted to include those in medical plans administered through the unions. Municipal governments that cover benefits for life partners include the cities of New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Seattle, San Francisco, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, are among a few. Locally, the University of Pennsylvania,, Bell Atlantic, and several smaller employers offer a life-partner benefit for their employees. This concludes my testimony I will turn the microphone over to Kevin Vaughan. (Applause.)
Good evening, Council President Street and Members of City Council. My name is Kevin Vaughan. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 gay man. I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. And I am here for the third time to speak in favor of domestic partner life partnership bills. I am here this evening to testify in support of bills 970750, 970745, and 970749, on behalf of the Administration, the Commission on Human Relations, and myself. The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations has been enforcing the City's Fair Practices Ordinance for more than 45 years. The Fair Practices Ordinance protects people's civil right on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation and disability in employment, housing, public accommodations, and the provision of City services. Presence of children, source of income, and marital status are also additional protected bases in housing. City Council has historically been sensitive and responsive to minority communities' needs to be protected from majority conventional norms. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 amended in the past to add protection for single parents, children, people with disabilities, older citizens, and women. In 1982, City Council amended the ordinance to include sexual orientation. We were one of the first cities in the country to do so. Since that time, gay and lesbian women have enjoyed the civil rights long denied them to work, live, and participate fully in the civil and commercial life of the City. Thousands and thousands of people's lives improved by that one piece of civil rights legislation. To the best of my knowledge, not one individual can say that they have had any rights taken away from them as a result of that bill. Today, City Council is once more reviewing the Fair Practices Ordinance, the retirement system ordinance, and the realty transfer tax, to determine whether vital benefits are being denied individuals who are in loving, committed, and long-term relationships, those in which people happen to be the same sex, with no 24 legal right to marry. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 covered under the sexual orientation provision of the Fair Practices Ordinance. Once again, the issue of fairness and equality presents itself. Should individuals be provided different and unequal benefits simply because of the gender of their loved ones? On behalf of the Administration, the Commission on Human Relations, and myself, the answer is no. 11 We are joined in that opinion by others who have already taken steps to acknowledge the rights of life partners. To date, a total of 64 states and municipalities have passed similar domestic-partnership laws, including the states of Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Vermont; and the cities of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Madison, Portland and Rochester. In Philadelphia, Mayor Rendell's Executive Order covers employees in the executive and administrative branches of government, and District Council 47 provides its members with domestic-partner benefits. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 insurance benefits, including Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and our own Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, and the University of Pennsylvania, my alma mater. A total of 229 private employers offer domestic-partnership benefits, including American Express, the American Friends Service Committee, Apple Computers, Border's Books, the Disney Corporation, Eastman Kodak, IBM, Knight-Ridder, Microsoft, New York Telephone Company and Time Warner. Why? They do so because federal law permits in private employers to set the level of benefits for their employees. They are governed by laws which exempt them in benefits issues from laws enacted by ordinance at a local level. These provisions, therefore, would not apply to private businesses in the City of Philadelphia.
These businesses have elected to add domestic partnership benefits anyway because these benefits have increased their ability to attract talented employees, and more importantly, because it is the right thing to do. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750
It is now time -- it is now time for Philadelphia to join the ranks of these world-class cities, states, and universities, and major corporations which have domestic partnership provisions for all of their employees. The demographics of the American home have shifted over the years, and the current legislation must be amended to protect the right of domestic partners. In asking Council to support this legislation, we are requesting that Bills 970749 and 97050 be amended to do include language that would make eligibility for life partnership enumerated in the Executive Order 296. This is the Executive Order which extended medical leave and benefits to life partners of civil service exempt employees in the executive branch of City government. Of course, the employee benefits provision of these bills would be limited in application to City of Philadelphia employees. Studies of cities with domestic partnership provisions have shown that the extra 271 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 cost of such benefits have been minimal. The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations is prepared to enforce these bills as they relate to the Fair Practices Ordinance, under current staffing and funding levels. Before I conclude, I'd just like to make some personal observations. And that is that -- and I worked in Council for six years. And that's about only a few less months than I've worked at the Commission on Human Relations. And I think in that time that I got to know the Councilmembers and to see them work together on legislation. I have a great and deep and abiding respect for this institution and the work that you do and the way in which you go about doing it. And I've grown to have faith in the ability of City Council to take on these hard issues and to make decisions that are going to be right for the people of this City. I count on you all to do that, and I count on you because of the people who I've grown to know in this Council and to have such deep and abiding respect. 272 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I was thinking earlier today of a meeting I had with former Councilman Blackwell, who was here earlier. I don't know if he's here now,, but in 1982, when the Fair Practices Ordinance was amended to include sexual orientation, I was not working here in Council, and I was organizing a small party of people to write postcards to City Council representatives urging them to support that bill. And Councilman Blackwell wrote me back a terrific letter saying that he would do that, and to thank me for my support for his position. And many years -- six years later, I had an opportunity to talk to him about some other things about political campaign for president. And as we were having this conversation, he said to me, You know, Kevin, your position is right, and time is on your side. I'm asking City Council to make this that time. I, therefore, urge you to recognize the civil rights and fairness of these domestic-partnership bills and to vote yes. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes 273 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to be able to ask these witnesses questions relative to the various bills, but I would like to be able to engage in discussion with them about the bills as they are proposed to be amended. So that at least for the record, with the government witnesses, we are not talking about something that is either not proposed or not relevant, should the bills be amended. So with that in mind, there is a proposed amendment to Bill No. 970745, and that reads: Re-number the new subsection of section 18 114.1 of the municipal retirement benefit plan 1987 ordinance that is added by Section 2 of the bill, comma, as follows. Strike the letter (d), replace with the letter (e), to then read any other person as designated by the employee. That is, Mr. President -- there was a technical drafting error, and the (e) should have been an (e), and it was printed as a (d). That is 274 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the only proposed amendment for that bill. With that amendment being read into the record and put forward, Mr. Hayllar, I would like to ask you and the other Pension Board representatives a question with regard to the current pension system and provision for designation by public employees. Again, this amendment is correcting a drafting error. Presently, a public employee has the right to give their benefits to a certainly category of people; is that correct?
And does that the category generally include either a spouse, dependent children, other children that may become dependent, or any other person that they are related to by blood or marriage?
Yes. Including an extremely distant cousin if documents can be produced showing that there is a relationship.
And under the current pension ordinance, is that employee required -- 275 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Excuse me, Councilman. I notice that a couple of Councilmembers are looking for this amendment -- frantically looking for the amendment.
The memos were distributed around about the 1 o'clock break. There's a cover sheet on them that says from myself to the Council President and all Members, amendments to Bills No. 970745, 970749, and 970750, dated April 22, 1998, with a very brief explanation of the individual amendments. They could also be found attached to the City Solicitor's opinion that was distributed yesterday, and we can get additional copies.
I was ably assisted so that now, I am on the right page.
Councilwoman Clark, look at Bill No. 970745, turn to the very last page. And on that page, you will see, at the top of the page, a (d) in parentheses. That (d), by this amendment, would be changed to (e) because it was a typographical -- 276 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Yeah. When the bill 7 was printed, there were two (d)'s, and one of them should have been an (e). It has now been called to your attention. Now the Councilman wishes to ask questions of the Pension Board representatives about this bill. But, in all fairness, he wanted to call to your attention that there was an amendment, no matter how insignificant, it's still an amendment.
Well, just to be technically correct, Mr. President, I didn't solely call it to the Members' attention to correct the misprinting of the (e) by way of the (d). The amendment is the underlying language that any other person is designated by the employee is the new (e).
Yes. And that's 277 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 what I want to talk about.
It is there. Mr. Hayllar, I think I was going to ask you, under the current pension ordinance, given the list of people that the public employee can give his or her pension to presently, is the public employee required to give the pension to any particular individual on the list of people that they can give the pension to today?
No. It has to be a blood relative or a relative by marriage.
They are not required to leave to any particular individual on the list.
And by this bill, the employee would have a larger universe of people that he or she could give their pension to that they earn. Is that correct? 278 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And do you know presently or have any information or does Mr. Kidwell have information regarding the current or historical practice of who public employees generally designate as their survivor?
The majority of pension survivors are the spouse of the participant.
Do you have any information as to what the numbers may be on there?
No, we don't. Mr. Kidwell informs me, since he works with this on a day-to-day basis, that it's well within the 90 percent of all pensions, the spouse is the survivor.
So upwards of 90 percent of current public employees choose to leave their pension to their surviving spouse, even though they are not required to?
And do you have any reason to believe that that practice would 279 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 significantly change as a result of this particular amendment to the Code?
Okay, thank you very much. I don't have any more questions on the pension bill, Mr. President. If you'll just allow me to go -- thank you. The second proposed amendment, and I'd like to be able to ask questions in this area, has to do with Bill No. 970749, the real estate transfer tax bill. It has been proposed that the bill be amended to read: Delete the last sentence of Section 19-1405, No. 6, of The Philadelphia Code, as amended by Section 1 of the bill, and add a new last sentence to read as follows: For purposes of this paragraph, comma, the term, quote/unquote, life partner shall mean a member of a life partnership that is verified pursuant to Section 22 9-1106, No. 2. Miss Kammerdiener, in your testimony, is it also correct that in addition to the individuals that were listed as being exempt from 280 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the real estate transfer tax, does that also include brother-in-law and sister-in-law?
Yes, it does. Right now the relationships by marriage are also included. I just didn't include them in the litany of the related-party transactions that are currently exempted from the tax.
So just again for the record, an individual can have a property transfer or a sale of property to his or her brother-in-law, and would that transaction be exempt from the real estate transfer tax?
And was it your testimony earlier that in any of those transactions, the Department of Revenue, nor the Department of Records requires or seeks any particular documentation as to the nature of the relationship between any of the parties who choose to sign the form and check the box, under penalty of perjury, that they are in fact eligible for the exemption of the real estate transfer tax based on those transactions. 281 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
The actual forms are filed with records, and -- so I don't have day-to-day oversight of that. But it's my understanding that they accept the information that is on the form. My staff does a review of forms and a spot-check audit and review. But, once again, they are looking primarily for other problems and other types of issues primarily related to the exclusions from tax that are not related-party transactions. There's some economic-development- related transactions or situations where there would be a -- two transfers.
And they're primarily commercial transactions as opposed to the residential.
And so under the proposed amendment, is it your understanding that if there were an application for an exemption by 282 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 life partners, they would, in fact, have to provide -- or there would actually be documentation available for either the Department of Records or the Department of Revenue to, in fact, check to verify the nature of the relationship between those two particular parties in that transaction.
If this proposed amendment were approved and the ordinance, as amended, were approved, that is correct. There would be more of a cross-check or an easier ability to check it because there would be on file 14 with the Human Relations Commission a life partnership certification, so there would be an easier cross-check. That doesn't mean that if we had a question about a related-party transaction now that we wouldn't or couldn't ask for that, but it's just not done on a case-by-case basis. And I would suspect that if someone signed the certification form, indicating that they had the life partnership certificate on file 24 with the Commission, we, in most cases, would not be going to the Commission case by case and 283 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 checking that. We would be accepting their statement.
I understand. But under these circumstances, you would virtually have almost instantaneous ability to verify what it is that these two individuals are claiming in terms of a tax exemption versus any of the other non-arm's-length transactions.
Correct. We would have an easier situation for verification.
Okay, all right. Thank you. Lastly, on Bill No. 970750, there are three proposed amendments, and I would just like to read them into the record. Amend Section 1 of the bill by inserting the following amendment to Section 19 9-11039, letter B of the Philadelphia Code immediately after the amendment to Section 9-1103, letter A, number 5. B. Exceptions. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 seniority system or any bona fide employee benefit plan such as retirement, comma, pension, comma, or insurance plan, comma, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Chapter, comma, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual, comma, and no such seniority system or employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual because of the age of such individual, comma, and no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to provide to the life partner of any employee any benefit that is provided to the dependent of any employee, period. The second proposed amendment to Bill 17 No. 970750 reads as follows: One, delete Section 9-1102, letter P, of The Philadelphia Code, as added by Section 1 of the bill, and add a new subsection, Section 9-1102 P to read as follows: Letter P. Life partner. A member of a life partnership that is verified pursuant to Section 9-11062, period. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the bill, add the following amendment to Section 3 9-1106 of the Philadelphia Code. Section 9-1106 of the Philadelphia Code. Section 9-1106, period. Administration and enforcement. Number 2, life partnerships, small letter a, definition. For the purposes of this chapter, comma, life partnership shall mean a long-term committed relationship between two unmarried individuals of the same gender who, small letter i, are at least years old and 12 competent to contract, semicolon, two small letter 13 i's, are not related to the other life partner by 14 blood in any way which would prohibit marriage in 15 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, semicolon. 16 Three small letter i, or the sole life partner of 17 the other person, semicolon. 18 Small Roman numeral iv, have not been a member of a different life partnership for the past 12 months, parentheses, unless the prior life partnership ended as a result of the death of the other life partner, close parentheses, semicolon. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 semicolon Small Roman numeral vi, share at least one residence with the other life partner, semicolon. And small Roman numeral vii, agree under penalty of law to notify the Commission of any change in the status of the life partnership. Letter B, verification. No life partnership shall be recognized as such under this Chapter unless the members of the life partnership have verified the life partnership by, colon. Small 1, filing with the Commission a verification statement, comma, in the form and manner required the Commission, which states, comma, on penalty of perjury, comma, that the life partnership meets all of the provisions of Section 18 9-1106, parenthesis 2 parenthesis, small a, semicolon. And small double letter i, filing with the Commission proof that the life partnership has been interdependent for at least six months prior to the date the verification statement is filed, comma, such proof to include at least three of the following. 6 assignment of a durable power of attorney or health-care power of attorney, period. Letter C, termination. Either life partner may terminate the life partnership by filing a sworn termination statement with the Commission, comma, in the form and manner required by the Commission, comma, stating that the life partnership is to be terminated, period . 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 is signed by both life partners, period.
If it is not signed by both life-partners, comma, the termination statement shall become effective 60, parenthesis, 60, parenthesis, date from the date proof as filed with the Commission that a copy of the termination statement was served, comma, either personally by certified or registered mail, comma, on the other life partner, period. The last amendment, number 3 to bill 11 970750. Number 1, amend section 1 of the bill by inserting following new subsection, Section 13 9-1103, letter C of The Philadelphia Code immediately after the amendment to Section 9-1103 letter A, parentheses 5. Letter C. Employee benefit. Nothing in this section shall apply with respect to employee benefits offered by an employer whose employee benefits plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, parentheses, quotations, ERISA, parentheses, comma, including, comma, but not limited to, comma, employ benefits that are part of a, quote/unquote, employee benefits plan as defined by ERISA. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Miss Seyda, the City of Philadelphia currently has, by Executive Order, a domestic partnership program; is that correct?
And are you the administrator or a participant in the administration of that program?
How many public employees are covered by the current Executive Order?
And just again for the record, do you know how many employees signed up for those benefits?
Yes. Eight employees signed up for the benefits. Of that eight, six also applied for health benefits, medical benefits, under the Executive Order.
How is the matter of unmarried heterosexual single employees handled with regard to health benefits in the City of Philadelphia? 290 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Under the City's health plans for heterosexual couples who are in a common-law marriage, they are eligible for coverage, and we do cover them.
They must file a notarized affidavit. They file it with us, we maintain it in our files, and we also provide it to the health-care provider.
So two unmarried heterosexual employees, if one is -- or if one unmarried heterosexual employee decides that they would like their cohabitating opposite-sex person to get health benefits, they come in, and both people agree to sign an affidavit. And at that point in time, the non-City employee cohabitating person is then granted health benefits; is that correct?
If they give us an affidavit and provide appropriate documentation that they are in a common-law marriage. We also advise them at that time that they will not be eligible to sign up another spouse unless they 291 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 provide with us documentation of a divorce. We recognize it as a formal marriage.
Is it your understanding that as a result of -- or should the bill be amended with the amendments, as read, that the extension of life-partner health benefits will only be for public employees?
That is my understanding based upon the City Solicitor's opinion that was provided to Council today -- or yesterday.
I asked Miss Seyda it was her understanding that if the bills are amended as the amendments were read that the provision of health benefits as a result of any changes in the Fair Practices Act would only require the City of Philadelphia to provide health benefits to life partners, as opposed to private employers.
I believe that was addressed in the City Solicitor's' opinion. And I believe that, in that opinion, she opined that the benefit would only apply to City employees. 292 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And is that primarily because, one, if a company has a defined benefit program, they are covered by ERISA, and the City of Philadelphia has no ability to override the ERISA provisions of any private employer?
Councilman may I interrupt you on that point? 'Cause I think that there may be a misunderstanding. It is my understanding that the City of Philadelphia or local governments are preempted only insofar as the benefits are covered by ERISA. If an employee decided to give benefits -- that are above and beyond anything covered by ERISA, then under the ordinance, that employer would be required to make those benefits available to life partners.
That would be correct. In my answer, I was addressing the medical benefits that we had mentioned.
Right. So to the extent that the employer's plan covers those things that are covered by ERISA, then there's 293 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 nothing that this Council can do by ordinance to interfere with that because we're preempted. But if, for example, an employer had eight or nine other benefits that it gave, then those benefits would be required under this ordinance to life partners.
That -- I would defer to the City Solicitor to respond to that.
Mr. President, a point of order, if I can provide any clarification. The amendment, as drafted, with the assistance of the Law Department was drafted in order to cover the non-ERISA-provided benefits that a company may provide. And that is the reason for the language at the end of the third amendment, letter C, employee benefits that reads including but not limited to employee benefits that are not part of an employee benefits plan as defined by ERISA.
So it's the intent of this amendment to limit any requirement that those benefits be extended be to the ERISA-covered benefits?
I need you to 294 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 restate the question.
I just want to make sure I understand that it the intent of this amendment --
The purpose of the amendment is to, one, recognize that the City cannot impose anything on private companies that have an ERISA plan.
But it is further amended to acknowledge that we do not want to impact on non-ERISA-covered benefits.
Also that the company would not have to provide those either. So this amendment takes away the concern the private employer may have about providing economic benefits, whether covered by ERISA or not.
I think I understand. 295 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Councilman, I'd just like to interrupt the hearing. I would like to have my staff notify the City Solicitor that we will need her here for questions after the break. Please proceed.
I think, Mr. President, for the individuals who are at the table -- the only other person I might potentially -- excuse me -- at least at the moment have additional questions for could be the City Solicitor, although any of my colleagues' questions might generate additional questions for these current witnesses. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just want to go over one issue that Councilman Nutter has raised with the Personnel Director. And I want to make sure that the record's clear and that we have an expanded discussion about this issue. 296 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Heterosexual -- non-married heterosexual couples who are City employees now, my understanding from your testimony and from what I have been able to gather, have basically three options in an effort to get their spouses or significant others medical benefits that are afforded to them by virtue of their bargaining under their contract as City employees. The first is going basically through a traditional marriage, where two individuals go into a synagogue, a church, or any other type of religious institution, with a license from the City and perform a marriage ceremony with a Justice-of-the-Peace or something like that. The second is simply getting a marriage certificate or a marriage license without ceremony. The third, as I understand your testimony, a simple declaration, without ceremony and without license, still affords the partner -- or now the spouse, the common-law spouse of the City employee full range of benefits that any other married couple would have. Is that accurate? 297 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
That is accurate. I mean, the state of Pennsylvania recognizes common-law marriage so that we do provide benefits for employees who give us an affidavit that they are in a common-law marriage. It is a legally-binding marriage.
Based on their affirmation and notarization of that affirmation.
Are there any other elements that need to be provided similar to what's outlined on the amendments that have been offered about joint ownership of property or joint ownership of automobile or bank accounts, life insurance, will, anything?
With the notarized statement, we also ask that they provide us with documentation of common ownership of property, ownership of motor vehicle, proof of joint bank accounts, credit, or joint tax returns.
They're all required as part of this notarized affidavit process of creating a marriage?
That's correct. 298 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And the City recognizes that and provides health benefits, pension benefits, bereavement benefits, family leave benefits, based on their say so.
So what is being proposed in these bills as it relates to pension, transfer tax, and health benefits is no different than what exists today despite a marriage ceremony, despite a license, a simple declaration of marriage or spousal relationship, what we are suggesting through these bills today is that we do the same thing for same-sex couples? Is there any difference that you can see other than the fact that the two people involved in these bills happen to be both men or both women?
Okay. And during the course of the recognition of the common-law relationship -- and I say this knowing the answer -- we do not require any proof of sexual activity or procreation or the desire to have children or 299 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 anything else of that nature.
No, we do not. So my question rhetorically is, with the exception of the sex of the individuals involved, what is the difference? And the issue is for me -- and just learning this through the course of this process -- is that a marriage in a church, synagogue, a Justice-of-the-Peace, a formal public declaration to the world that we are married or a marriage license around the corner here on the fourth floor are two steps that people take to create a family or a marriage. We don't even require that now of heterosexual couples. We have less of a standard, basically a declaration of spousal relationship is enough to get these people all the benefits we're talking about here for same-sex couples?
That is -- that is correct. There is also the -- in order to terminate the relationship, a formal divorce is required to a common-law marriage.
And the reason that 300 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 we cannot require that in the same-sex relationship is that the State does not recognize the relationship, therefore, it would no recognize the divorce proceeding, and a near affidavit of this union is what would be would be required to end, to terminate that relationship.
Mr. Hayllar, on the pension benefits, is it fair to say that as the law stands now, only relatives would be eligible for survivorship benefits?
I understand that. There must be people who are relatives of some kind, and it can go far as cousins.
Absolutely. It can be very distant cousins, if you can prove the relationship. And it can be by marriage as well as by blood.
Assuming no one else 301 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 is -- do these relatives have a right to claim these benefits if they're not a named beneficiary?
So even if this -- even under this bill, if no one is named, the benefits are lost?
The Board would ultimately decide if there was a claim, but the Board would probably rule that there's no claim,, there's no dependent, no survivor.
So even if this bill 17 were passed, if there were no one named and there was the death of the employee, the benefit would be lost.
It would go to the estate of the employee, basically, or some portion of it.
On that point, I believe the -- going to the State or lost benefit only comes as a result of their being no one in the pension code in categories, I believe, A, B, 302 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and C. In the survivorship section, there is a rank order.
In a death situation, where no one is named, the first person to get the benefit, I believe is the spouse. The second person to get the benefit is the child. And the third person, I believe, may be the parents. So if an employee dies and has not designated with the Board of Pension and Retirement who they want to get the benefit, there is a mechanism in a rank order for people to get benefits. I think the example that Mr. Hayllar laid out earlier a person that had --
So if you have no 23 relatives and if you haven't named anyone, even if this bill passes, it's still lost.
It goes to the estate of 303 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the deceased. If you have not named anyone -- if this passes and you have not named anyone --
Listen, I'm just trying to understand this just like everybody else. We are advised that if -- upon the death of the employee, and there's no named person, right? There's no named person.
Then there's a rank order in the Code which gives the priority to the survivors as to who gets this survivor benefit, right?
You're saying that if there's no living relative among that list, then whatever it is goes into the estate.
Let me ask Mr. Kidwell to try 'cause I'm obviously not explaining to your satisfaction. Mr. Kidwell deals with this every day and might be able to be a little more clear on it.
Mr. Kidwell, it's 304 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 your shot at this.
I will try. The question from Councilman Nutter dealt with the death of an employee.
You'll understand, most of us don't even want to even think about this.
That's right. I understand, but. . . We are dealing here with the death of an employee, okay. And under current pension ordinance, there is a rank order if an employee does not have a named beneficiary or a valid beneficiary.
Or if the beneficiary predeceases the employee, and then you have nothing, right, so you go to the rank.
We go to the rank. And first in line is a spouse, next in line is a child or children, and third in line is the parent. If there is no automatic A, B, C, then there is a death benefit that is due. That benefit become payable to the employee's estate. And it's a lump-sum payment consisting of the 305 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 employee's pension contributions.
And then what happens after that if there are no relatives?
Well, I would hope that employee had a will; in which case, he may have designated in that will who is to receive the proceeds of his pension benefits.
Well, if he did that, he probably would have had a beneficiary. This is a guy who had nothing.
Right. It seems to me then you lose it. And I raise that because it was mentioned earlier that, oh, if you don't have, you know, if you don't have a relative, then here's this person that, you know, can't leave this benefit to anybody. But the person could leave a benefit to somebody under the current code. I mean, if you didn't have a relative and if you had a will and if you -- couldn't you just make provision through that will?
Yes. The difference 306 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 would be that if there was a named beneficiary, the potential exists that beneficiary could receive a lifetime annuity.
I understand that. All I'm saying to you is, it is unfair to say that if a person doesn't have -- and inaccurate, if a person doesn't have a relative, a distant cousin or somebody, that person is unable to make provision for his or her pension survivorship benefits, because it sounds to me like all he has to do, if he thinks about it, and he says, Oh, well, you know, I don't have a relative, he just puts him in the will. I mean, am I understanding this?
I don't think the Pension Board has any control over that.
I understand. But the person can just put a will -- just have a will and leave it to that person, that neighbor that took care of him or whatever. 307 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 You know, in other words, you don't have -- there is a way to solve this problem without changing the pension ordinance if somebody believes that it's a problem that's worth solving. That's all I'm trying to establish. Is there any way -- because I get troubled when somebody says, there would be no way that a person would be able to make any provision for his or her survivor benefits if we don't pass this bill because there's no provision. But there is a way. It might be a little more difficult, but there is a way.
A point of information. The gentleman testifying now had indicated that there may be a problem if the pension benefits are disbursed through the method of a will, that there may be a loss of annuity, is that right?
But lump sum is a substantially reduced amount versus the amount than -- 308 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
But what this pension change would do now is allow the designated individual, who is not a spouse and who is not a blood relative, the opportunity for that annuity.
That's right. And what is also does is, it allows the employee to cut out the family, all of the family. It allows him to cut off the family. (Applause.)
Under the current ordinance, the family can't be cut out. If there are living family members, they have to get the pension. But under the new ordinance, anybody in the entire world could get the pension, anybody.
Just like in a 309 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 will. The same as in a will, right?
Councilman, I'm just trying to understand this. Under the current law, you would not be able to give the pension, to a non-relative over the wife, to a non-relative over the children, to a non-relative over the brothers and sisters, to a non-relative over any of those family members. If the bill passes, an employee would be able to cut out the family, the brothers, the children, and dependent children, and give it to a non-family member. And that's what it does.
Council President, you can do that now. That doesn't change, you can do that now.
How can you do it now? You can't do it now. Maybe you can do it now. Tell me how can do it now.
You'll get a chance. I want to clarify this. You'll get an opportunity to clarify. I want to make the record clear. People will do what they want to do 310 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 they want to do.
Well, the one way that it is possible now is by naming your estate as your beneficiary, which is a valid nomination. So, even if you did have a family member and perhaps you didn't want to leave your pension to that family member, you could name your estate. Again, I want to make sure that we're clear, that we're talking here about the death of an employee, and we haven't reached about what happens at the time of the employee's retirement, which is a little bit different.
I understand that. All I -- I just want the record to be clear because there have -- people have gone to some length to suggest that there's no protection now for the spouse or the children or the family members, but that a spouse and a child, independent children could be cut out. That may be true, but they'd have to be cut out for other family members. If this bill is approved in its current form, then that wife, that those dependent children, those cousins and nieces and nephews and all of those family members, all 311 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of them could be cut out completely, and some other non-family relatives, right -- in this case, we're thinking of a domestic partner or life partner, some other person could be put in there in place of those people.
All I want to know -- I just want to verify that that's the case. And I guess another follow-up question I'd like to ask is -- Mr. Hayllar told us of a situation of a person who couldn't -- who didn't have anybody to whom this employee could leave his or her survivor benefit.
We only know of it one time because it came before the board.
Yeah, because it came before the Board. But, clearly in the workforce of 30,000 people, people who do not have -- 312 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Clearly, in a workforce of 30,000 people, there are people who do not have relatives by blood or marriage.
And that's true, and that's all fair. But there is a way -- I mean, all the Board has to do is tell them what they have to do and then they's know how to get around that.
But the distinction is that the value of the death benefit is less than the value of the pension of the survivor.
Well, doesn't that depend on how long the person lives?
Mr. Hayllar, let's not confuse this. If a person takes survivor benefits, survivor benefits, and I want payments, when that person dies, don't the payments end? 313 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
So that if I have an option of taking lump sum of 2, $300,000 or taking the payments, the payments, depending upon the age of the survivor, the age of the survivor, you might want that lump sum as opposed to the payment. So it is unfair for you to say that the survivor payments are worth more than the lump sum. Because you don't know that because none of us knows how long we're going to live. Is that fair?
We're missing a distinction. I'm going to ask Mr. Kidwell to --
Yeah, maybe we are 'cause this is tough stuff. I don't know.
No. I just want to make sure that we understand that the value of the lump sum would only consist of an employee's pension contributions, which would be approximately, let's say, percent to percent of his City earnings. The additional death benefit is his 314 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 three-year average earnings, so the total lump sum benefit available would be the employee's pension contributions, plus his three-year average earnings. That would be the total lump sum benefit payable.
Whereas a lifetime annunity, generally the lifetime annuity that would be available after approximately two years, it would well exceed the lump-sum benefit.
Well, we don't know that now, do we? I mean, we just don't know how long that survivor will live. And, in some respects, it's a roll of the dice. In addition to which, isn't it fair to say that if you took the lump sum, you'd also be able to earn interest on it? I mean, you could invest it. There are other things you could do with it. I just -- I don't think this record ought to reflect a bias. And I regard the testimony that the lump sum is not worth what the payments are to be a bias, because we don't know what the payments will amount to. A person could 315 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 live for one month, a person could live for six months, a person could live for three years or ten years. You just don't know. Is that fair?
Well, your argument wants to suggest that the survivor lives a very short time; and our argument suggests that the survivor lives a longer time. The actuarial tables can tell you what the projected life of the survivor will be. So, I mean -- it's not generally -- and every year, it gets longer and longer.
Well, I understand you use actuarial tables for a bunch of purposes. But for purposes of this hearing, we do not know how long any individual survivor will last; and, therefore, it's a matter of choice on the survivor whether or not to take a lump sum.
I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Every year, it gets longer. The life of our retirees and survivors gets longer every year, we all know that. And what the danger is, if you just get the death benefit, you will run out of money 316 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 before run out of the life. With the pension and the survivorship, you will have the benefit until the survivor dies. That is a tremendous value compared to the death benefit.
I understand that, I understand that. But you still can't conclude one thing or the other. It's still a matter of probability.
And the probability every year is that the survivor will live longer.
Well, all of us are, hopefully, living longer and healthier.
And we would like to have them have a benefit every month up until the time they die.
What I would like to 317 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 do is recognize Councilman Ortiz for a clarifying point, and then I'd like to take a recess.
Excuse me. I'll announce the length of time of the recess.
I just want to make the point that in terms for the purposes of this legislation, when we speak about family, that a life partner becomes part of that family. So that if he's designated as such, you're not eliminating the aunts, uncles because, obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make it possible for a life partner to be able to get the pension. And so life partner becomes added, and the term "family" is in essence broadened to include that.
I have to tell you -- I have to tell you, it is my understanding that everything that you just said is basically 318 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 not true, and that "life partner" isn't mentioned in the pension ordinance, and that the only thing that the amendment does is to allow a person to name -- it adds to the list of names of anybody so that you can list all those other people.
But that has -- but "life partner" isn't in the pension bill.
I understand that. But in your presentation, you were saying that if this pension allows the elimination of the family,. Well, the individual can designate --
-- can designate the family. And at this time, your life partner can't be part of that family designation, so that a life partner can't be --
That's a very confusing statement, Councilman. That's inconsistent with what it is that's in the bill, and I'm afraid to let it go unchallenged because somebody will think that now life partners, the so-called life partner or domestic partner is in the list of people that are now eligible to 319 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 receive the survivorship rights, and that's not true. Councilman Nutter has explained that this bill only amends the bill so as to provide that the pensioner can now leave the survivor benefits to anybody else.
No, doesn't say "life partner." It's just anyone in addition to all of the other people that he has previously been eligible. Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. The primary purpose of this particular bill is to allow a public employee to give his or her earned pension to any person that they decide, outside of a now-constrained universe of people, spouse, children, dependent children, anyone else the person becomes responsible for, anyone that they are related to by blood or marriage. There is no distinction made in this amendment as to who that person may be, what the 320 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 nature of their relationship may be or anything else. It does not ask, it does not require. It only asks the person to designate someone. It could be anyone. It could be a next-door neighbor, it could be an old army buddy, it could be a person that -- well, it's not going to be Councilman Kenney, but it could be anybody that the person wishes to choose because some employees feel either constrained by the present list of designees, or, for some other reason, don't want to put down or can't put down the current list that is available. And that is the sum and substance of this particular bill. It does not make any definition or require you -- anyone to meet any particular test at all. It could include anyone. You and Councilman Ortiz at some level are saying similar things, different things. Anyone would qualify, under this particular bill.
That's right, but it's a little bit deceptive to say the life partner is now a part of the family because someone might erroneously conclude that the order 321 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 of family relationships that is already contained in the pension ordinance is now somehow supplemented with life partner. That's not in it.
It is not changed by life partner designation. The pension Board would not ask, it is not required, it does not show up anywhere. I mean I believe that this bill, quite frankly, had it been introduced at any other particular point in time, would not be the subject of much of the discussion that has taken place around it as a result of other bills, but that was that decision. The legislation says any other person as designated by the employee, period. No 17 qualifiers, no family person is put in a lesser position as a result of this particular amendment. There is no guarantee that the employee today, under the current pension system, will choose any particular person, but they are restrained from choosing people outside of the list.
That's true. Councilman, I would like at this time for this 322 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Committee to stand in recess until the 6:30. This Committee will stand in recess till 6:30. And we will need the City witnesses back at this time. (Recess taken at 5:44 p.m.) (Proceedings resume.)
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a recessed hearing the Council Committee of the Whole. We are taking testimony on three bills: Bill No. 970745, 970749, and 970750. At this time, I'd like to ask that the City witnesses resume the witness table. (City witnesses come forward.)
Is the City Solicitor available? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when we ended the hearing before the break, we were having -- or, I believe, finishing up a discussion about Bill No. 23 970745, which, of the three bills, one would think would be the least controversial and the easiest understood. It has also the simplest amendment. 323 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I want to make sure that the record is clear and that there is no lingering confusion about the intention of Bill No. 970745. Again, the amendment to this bill would read, "any other person as designated by the employee." And I'd like to go back, if at all possible, either to the pension people or possibly to the City Solicitor to make sure that all Members are clear that this bill creates no other distinction or definition or category for this any other person as designated by the employee. I'd like to make sure that this part of the record is a clear as the earlier part of the record was and then possibly became confused. Mr. Hayllar, the amendment to Bill 17 970745 creates a new category called "any other person that's designate by the employee." Is that correct.
And is there any distinction or definition created to identify who that person is, could be, would be, may be, or can be, under any circumstance?
No. It's a person chosen 324 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 by the participant, as their survivor.
And could this amendment provide the public employee who, by right and by their work, create a circumstance for that employee to give his or her pension to any individual they decide?
And under the present pension ordinance, that employee now has a right to give his or her pension to any person they determine as long as they are on a list that is contained within the Pension Code that lays out generally spouse, child or children, other dependents, or any person related to them by blood or marriage. Is that correct?
I didn't hear the question the same way you did. We heard it differently.
The current pension ordinance allows an employee to name anyone related to them by blood or marriage as a beneficiary.
And they are -- they must stay within that group of people today? 325 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
And they are not required to give any particular individual who fits that definition their pension today?
A public employee can give his or pension to anyone on that list of people, but they are not required to give it to any particular person on that list.
Okay, thank you. On that bill, yes, Mr. President, I'm finished.
So if the bill 24 passes as amended, anybody who now designates a pension survivor -- a person other than people who 326 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are on the list will be taking a family member off and putting someone else on.
You have the ability now to name a brother instead of a spouse.
So that there could be a situation where people now have family members who are their survivors. If the bill 12 passes, they can take those family members off and they can put non-families on to get their survivor benefits.
The difference is that they can take a family member off now and replace it with another family member -- a cousin, a--
Mr. Hayllar, I don't need you to rephrase my question. I just need you to answer my question, I just need you to answer my question.
I can ask my own clarifying questions. I just need you to answer 327 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 my questions. And the fact of matter that if this bill passes with the amendments, there will be people who will now have the opportunity and the right to take family members off, they could take a spouse off, they could take dependent children off, they could take cousins and nephews off, and they could put non-family members on. They cannot now do that.
The answer is yes, much as they can now by moving one family member to another.
All right, thank you. To the City Solicitor, what's the legal issue raised by our changing these -- the right to change the beneficiaries, to give -- to add additional survivors to the list of people that are eligible to get these rights?
For the record, this is Stephanie Franklin-Suber, City Solicitor. As I understand your question, Mr. President, please correct me if I'm wrong, you are asking if there's a legal reason -- 328 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Are there any legal issues raised by the potential adoption of this bill as amended, as proposed to be amended?
Mr. President, I have formal testimony available for Members of Council, if you like for me to distribute it. But the short answer to your question is that I see no legal reason why Council may not extend the class of pension beneficiaries to any person. Frankly, I think this broad approach avoids any issues that might be raised if only life partners were added to the list of beneficiaries. I also understand that there's been some concern with regard to the fact that the bill 18 will somehow divest spouses and children of existing rights. I believe --
I believe that has been covered. The only other legal issue that I would bring to Council's attention at this point would 329 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 be with respect to labor issues and possible implementation delay. The City may have an obligation to bargain with unions representing City employees before it can implement bill since it impacts on pension rights, which are a term and condition of employment. However, this would not preclude Council from enacting the bill.
Is there any other Councilmember that has any other question at this time? (No questions from other Councilmembers at this time.)
I would like for you to turn your attention to -- and I would like to make some references to the legal opinion that was issued to me, dated April 21, 1998. And I'd like for all of to us turn our attention -- do the members of the press have copies of this opinion? (Members of the press respond in the affirmative.)
Let's turn our 330 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 attention to . And at the bottom under deficiencies and definition life partners, there's a sentence that says since the definition of life partners is limited to same-sex couples only and an opposite-sex unmarried couple could challenge this bill, Bill 970750, as a violation of a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the laws. Then you say, however, the bill may be defensible, although it's a novel issue, and it's impossible to predict the outcome of any legal action. And I guess what I'd like for you to do -- it is my understanding, for example, that whereas the bill -- this bill provides, you know, same-sex benefits for life partners, those life partners have to be same sex, of course. And that it is possible that heterosexual life partners will go down and attempt to register and try to get the benefits. They would not be eligible for the benefits under the bill, and they could file -- they could challenge the bill? Is that correct?
Yes. 331 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Can you tell us what would happen if such a challenge -- I mean, roughly, what would happen? Although some of it is covered in the opinion. Who would make a determination that whether or not Bill 970750 and its application only to same-sex domestic partners was a violation of the bill and, therefore, could the Human Relations Commission or some other entity order domestic partnerships or same-sex partnership rights to opposite-sex domestic partners?
Mr. President, in response to your question, it would be up to the Human Relations Commission, and ultimately the courts, to determine whether or not there -- any of the employment practices are discriminatory on the part of a private employer.
I'm not talking about a private -- well, maybe I am talking about a private employer.
Mr. President, I apologize. I'm not following your question. If you could repeat it, please, I'll try to respond. You were on the Fair Practices Ordinance 332 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Amendment.
-- life partners are now entitled to the rights under the bill to get the health benefits.
Some opposite-sex domestic partnership or a person who is in an opposite-sex domestic partnerships says, Oh, this is -- I can't -- they go down and they register, they try to register, they to make application for the benefits. They get denied. You know, the personnel department, whoever has to do it, says, No, you're an opposite-sex unmarried couple and you got a domestic partnership, you're not covered. An appeal is taken to the Human Relations Commission, is that correct? 333 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Well, Mr. President, a couple of things could happen. First of all -- which is why I apologize for my confusion at your original question. In terms of a potential equal protection challenge, certainly that would be before the courts. And an unmarried opposite-sex couple could certainly challenge the bill as a violation of the Constitutional rights under --
I want to know if they would have to go to the Human Relations Commission first.
For an equal protection challenge? If it's an equal protection challenge, not necessarily. But for a claim of discrimination on the basis of marital status, which is a possibility, the couple would file a complaint with Human Relations Commission. And it would be up to the Commission to interpret the ordinance 22 and to determine full scope of what is meant by discrimination on the basis of marital status.
But would the Human Relations Commission have the discretion to say 334 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 it's discrimination and the City must give the same-sex benefits to opposite-sex couples under the ordinance?
Yes. The Human Relations Commission could make a determination that there was, in fact, discrimination on the basis of marital status. It could issue an order directing an employer to pay the benefits.
Yes. That order could then be appealed to Common Pleas Court.
The lawyer. If, in that case, it's the City, the City. The City could then appeal to Common Pleas Court and --
Now, let me get straight. City Council passes a bill, the Mayor signs the bill, somebody tries to get benefits under the bill, appeals to the Human Relations Committee -- Commission, which is the City. And then the Human Relations 335 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Commission, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor, would say, We think that the benefits should be given to heterosexual couples. And then the City is going to take an appeal from its order granting the benefits?
Mr. President, I am answering your question by saying that it certainly could happen, that is correct. In theory, the Human Relations Commission could, in fact, determine, based on its interpretation of the ordinance that there's been discrimination on the basis of marital status.
I accept that. So the Human Relations Commission orders heterosexual couples to have these rights.
Well, the Commission would be acting on that particular complaint involving those parties.
I understand that. And the Human Relations Commission could say, You have been discriminated against. You now -- the City is ordered to provide the benefits. I mean, wouldn't that be the order? I mean, wouldn't the Human Relations Commission be ordering -- 336 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Now, since the Human Relations Commission, in my judgment, is the City, since all of them were appointed by the Mayor, if the City decided not to appeal, who would have standing to appeal?
In that case, Mr. President, the parties that had filed the complaint, obviously, would have obtained the relief they sought. The City, as the employer, would obviously have standing to appeal. And if the City elects not to appeal, because you're dealing with a specific complaint at that point and not a challenge to the bill in its entirety, there would be no one else to have standing to appeal in that situation.
That's right. So that, one-at-a-time heterosexual couples could try to get the benefits, I guess the Personnel Department would deny them the benefits, they take an appeal to the Human Relations Commission. The 337 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Human Relations Commission could just grant them the benefits one at a time, and there's never anybody to appeal it. So if it's 10, 50, 100 -- so is it -- I mean, it just seems to me that there is a basic internal inconsistency in the bill when you say, We are only going to apply -- we are going to provide life partnership rights to same-sex couples at the same time you amend the provision in the bill which makes it illegal to discriminate against all of the other people who might want to have those benefits, and the only people who can say yea or nay is the Human Relations Commission, right, the Executive Director of which came here and testified in favor of the bills and has also said he essentially would like -- as a lot of other people did -- said that the bills should be broadened to include heterosexual couples. It seems to me that if this bill is passed, in advance, we know, based on your opinion and your testimony, right -- I mean, this is a bill that, in effect, is providing domestic partnership rights to same-sex as well as heterosexual couples, which might not offend some 338 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 people. You know, I mean, people could be all over the lot on it, but I think it's a serious, serious concern that we ought to have about what is the scope of the action that is being considered here.
Mr. President, if I might, I do think it's fair to point out that while -- while this appears to be an internal inconsistency, it may be possible to cure that with regard to the Human Relations Commission by amendment to the legislation. It would not obviate potential equal protection claims or potential Title 7 claims in the courts. But to the extent that there is a concern with regard to the Human Relations Commission, it may be possible to cure that with an amendment to the legislation.
Well, maybe, maybe, I don't know. I mean. That's really not my issue. My concern is that on the face of it, it appears that this bill is providing for one set of actions, but the reality is, we don't know what 339 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 could happen as a result of the passage of this bill. I mean, we could be in a position where any number of different couples -- well, let me pose this hypothetical. We aren't -- if this bill passes, the City is not going to be able to discriminate on the basis of marital status, is that correct?
Marital status. Suppose there was a person who had wanted to have more than one wife, and he says, I want to put this other person on my benefits, and I think I ought to be able to because to not let me do it is discriminating on the basis of marital status. Back to marital status. And I don't want to be discriminated on the basis of marital status. I mean, what happens?
The hypothetical is 340 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 -- the hypothetical is that you can't discriminate on the basis of marital status in any way, shape, or form.
A person comes and says, I want to have two spouses on the benefits. Is there any issue about whether or not there is discrimination on the basis of marital status? I just want to know how far it is we are opening up the door to potential challenges and to concerns about what is happening here.
Mr. President, I understand your concern. I think the hypothetical is somewhat problematic. I think the Law Department would advise that there's no problem there because it's illegal to have more than one spouse. (Applause.)
Well -- well, you know, that's real easy to say, but I have a spouse and I want a domestic partner. I'm only asking. All you have to do is say it's not a problem. And if it isn't a problem, it isn't a problem.
If your question 341 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 is whether or not the City, as an employer, can extend benefits to life partners, then I believe that the answer to that question is yes. And under that circumstance, the individual presumably would not have a basis for claiming discrimination on the basis of marital status. If -- if your question goes to particular employment practices, beyond the extension of benefits, I think what you are concerned about are the types of claims that an individual may make because --
That's not what I'm concerned about. I'll get to that later.
I do have that concern, but I'm not going to yield -- I'm not going to take up all the time like this. I'll recognize Councilman Kenney at this point.
Thank you, Mr. President. As was testified to earlier, before you got here, the Personnel Director indicated that 342 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 there were opportunities for heterosexual couples outside the traditional route of marriage, i.e., religious or civil ceremony or simply the obtaining of a marriage license, that the option that those heterosexual couples also had was a simple declaration notarized and filed with the Personnel Office that they were in fact common-law spouse, and that that would enable those individuals to obtain the full range of benefits that any other married person under the City employ would have an opportunity to gain. Is the hypothetical or the situation that the Council President raised relative to two unmarried heterosexual persons; one, a city employee?
Claiming discrimination based on the Fair Practices Act that we are going to amend, could be cured by a simple registration and declaration of the partnership, which is available to them now. For example, if -- would you need to go to the Human Relations Commission or to the courts if the remedy -- if the remedy for that situation 343 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 was a simple notarized statement of commitment, which is what exists now for heterosexual unmarried couples?
Councilman Kenney, I will try to answer your question. There is a distinction between unmarried heterosexual couples that are legally common-law spouses and unmarried heterosexual couples that are not. So that not all unmarried heterosexual couples that cohabitate are common-law spouses. So there is a distinction in terms of that universe. If your question is whether or not some of the concerns with regard to the definition of "life partner" could be cured by some kind of verification process, the idea simply being, with marriage, you're issued a certificate of marriage, someone can check the relationship, when it started, when it ended, to ensure there's no abuse or fraud. The same with common-law spouses. They can get a certificate through personnel. You can verify the relationship. They have to provide proof that there is a relationship, and that 344 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 they're cohabiting and are financially interdependent.
Similar to what's being asked for in the registration process --
Correct. So I believe that the answer to your question generally is yes. And certain of the amendments, I understand, that are at least under discussion currently would address that issue in terms of simply verifying for the City's purposes to ensure that what you have is a mutually committed couple. While they may have philosophically elected not to hold themselves out as being married or have elected not to marry, they may be financially interdependent, they may be cohabiting, so in order to make sure that there's a legitimate relationship, you have a process.
Does the court take into consideration the need to impose a remedy when there are no other options for the people who 345 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are making the complaint? For example, is a potential remedy for the hypothetical that the president raised relative to being excluded from participating in these benefits, would a remedy be that they simply register with the Personnel Department that they have a committed relationship, that they share a bank account and car and house; and, in effect, are common-law husband and wife?
The short answer to your question really is no. 13 The definition of "common-law spouse," under Pennsylvania law is a marriage by the express agreement of the parties, without ceremony and almost invariably without a witness, by words uttered with a view and for the purpose of establishing the relationship for husband and wife.
As I started out, not all unmarried heterosexual couples would, A, choose to hold themselves out as being married and so, therefore, they wouldn't qualify as being 346 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 common-law spouses. Common-law spouses for purposes of our discussion are treated as spouses. So, yes, there are certain individuals that would fall into that category, but not all. And so because the definition of "life partner" is limited to same-sex couples, you still have that universe of individuals that they could not simply sign up with the Personnel Department using that affidavit. And they would not be included for purposes of this legislation and the extension into that.
But on the face of their relationship, life partners and common-law spouses are the same, by virtue of their relationship. They're a sharing, committed, economically-related, interrelated relationship. Why would an individual who refuses to acknowledge all of those factors in their relationship even need to be considered as domestic partners unless they really were? I mean, you have to cohabitate in the same residence, you have to share the day-to-day toils of life, you have to have shared bank 347 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 accounts and other types of things, you have to buy your groceries together. I mean, it's as ridiculous as two people living in two separate cities saying, Well, we're domestic partners. No, you're not. We don't live together, we don't do all the things that common-law spouses or domestic partners do. Now, you can argue that. But on the face of that, the court would say, Well, yeah, you really are domestic partners, even though you don't share any of those issues, you don't live together. I mean, basically, life partner and common-law spouse are basically the same.
Unfortunately, Councilman Kenney, they are not. Under Pennsylvania law -- and the real core of it here is State law -- the definition of "marriage" is very simple. It is a civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife. It's a statutory definition. Under Pennsylvania law, common-law spouses, it's the same, the distinction being that you have a union by ceremony and a union without 348 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 ceremony by express words of the parties holding themselves out as being married. If the definition of "life partner" is limited to same-sex couples, then you still have a universe of unmarried heterosexual couples that do not fall within the category of common-law spouses who --
Miss Suber, can we talk a little bit about dependents of partners. It is my understanding that if the bill, as amended, were passed, that the dependents of any of the partners that were eligible for coverage under the bill, those dependents would also be covered. So that if a male City employee had a domestic partner and that domestic partner had dependents, those dependents would now be covered; is that correct?
Mr. President, it is my understanding that is the intent. I believe 349 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that is, in fact, correct. It might be more appropriate for the Personnel Director to respond to the question.
To make sure that I understand your question, your question is, would dependents of a --
If I'm a City employee, and I'm single, and I put Councilman Nutter on my benefits, and he's got five children, right, and those five children don't have any coverage or anything, he comes on, the children come on; is that correct?
Just for the record. I knew you were going to have something for that record.
All right. I just thought it would be an interesting hypothetical to brighten up what's going to be a long night. 350 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Miss Seyda, I don't want you to say "in most cases." I want you to tell me what happens under the bill. An employee gets a domestic partner, that domestic partner has a bunch of kids. If the domestic partner goes on the benefits and the children, the dependents go on, I don't want to say "the children," 'cause it could be -- my understanding is it could be dependents other than just minor children, the dependents go on.
Dependents would be covered in the same way that they would be covered if it was a spouse.
All right. Now, is that what happens in private industry? Does anybody know what happens in private industry if the dependents -- if the life partner, not employee, has children, it is my understanding, and I'm not even sure where I got this from. It is my understanding that those children would be eligible for coverage but there would be a payment that would have to be made in order to get those 351 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 children coverage.
Well, it would depend upon the plan. I mean, it conceivably -- it could -- in a City-administered plan, there could be an additional cost involved too. It depends upon if the --
You mean to tell me if this bill passed and a life partner has dependents in one of our -- in our City-administered, in order for those dependents to be covered, there would be a premium that would have to be paid by the employee? Which one of our plans is that?
It would be -- the City's Blue Cross PPO Plan does have an employee contribution, and the employee would be responsible for paying whatever critics would apply in a marriage situation. The same rules -- the same rules would apply for a domestic-partner relationship as would apply to a marriage relationship.
And I just want to make sure I understand this. So that you could have -- we set up a situation where the City 352 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 employee has a domestic partner, that partner has children, whether or not there is anything -- any premium has to be paid or not, those dependents and children are covered. But under the amendment, in 61 days, they could all be off. It just takes 61 days to terminate a domestic partnership under the proposed amendment, is that correct? In 61 days?
Under the proposed amendment to the bill, it takes 61 days in order for a City employee to eliminate -- to change domestic partners or life partners, is that correct?
The proposed amendment was 60 days to terminate a relationship, yes.
So in 60 days, the relationship could be terminated, that life partner could be off, the dependents, the children of that life partner could be off. And then when could another life partner be put on the benefits, the next day?
No. I believe in the proposal, there is a waiting period, I believe 353 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 it's --
I believe the waiting period is one year, Mr. President.
So that under the proposed amendment, you could only have one domestic partner in any one year? Councilman Nutter, does anybody know? Is that the amendment?
It's proposed amendment number 2, number 2 under the definition under the definition of life partnership, Section 13 A, small Roman numeral iv, if they have not been a member of a different life partnership for the past 12 months, parentheses, unless the prior life partnership ended as a result of the death of the other life partner. Otherwise, there is a one-year waiting period, and also there is a requirement of at least a six-month proof of interdependence.
Is the six months added to the year, or can that be included within the year?
It's within the year. But you do have to wait a year. 354 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
So now how does that work? When the life partner is no longer covered the dependents are no longer covered?
Is it possible -- is it possible for -- is it possible for life partners -- well, no, I'll save that question. I see Councilman Kenney's light's on. Councilman Kenney.
I'd like to follow up on that line of questioning with two additional hypotheticals. An individual single person, heterosexual male, enters into a common-law registration process with a heterosexual female with four children, not his. Those children are covered by his employee plan? He is the employee.
If it's a common-law relationship, it is a marriage relationship, and the answer would be yes.
Yes. And if they absolve that relationship through divorce, those children are off, because they're not his kids. 355 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I would. . . I would defer to somebody who has a little more familiarity with family law than I do.
No, a single man enters into a common-law registration with a woman who has four children, none of them are his. They are on his health benefits as a City employee.
If that relationship absolved or dissolved by divorce, through divorce, those children are then off.
An additional situation, if an individual enters into a common-law registration relationship with an individual who's a heterosexual female, and the male is the employ, and they produce four children in that relationship, and then they divorce, those four children stay on, correct? They're his kids. 356 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 It would be --
That's dependent upon what the agreement was in the divorce in terms of which parent has responsibility for the medical coverage for the children would be. . .
No, not at all a custody in terms of who was legally responsible for providing those benefits.
In the first situation, where they're not his children, they came, they were existing before a common-law marriage. They are off.
They would be off because they were not his children before, they're not his children now.
If they are his children, dependent upon the agreement in the divorce, they could be on or off.
That is correct. 357 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
If he enters into another common-law relationship and had three more children and then dissolves that relationship, they could be on or off. I mean, basically, my point is, from a common law perspective and from a marriage perspective, we could go on hypothetical to a 20- or 25-children dependency on the City health benefits and other issues legally, as we stand now.
Well, the same rules apply for domestic partnership relationships as apply in a marriage relationship.
But in a same-sex domestic partnership relationship, you might only have one set of kids; you're not going to produce, unless something changed in biology that I don't know about. In that domestic partnership, even if there were existing children from another heterosexual relationship, that same-sex 358 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 relationship is not going to produce any additional dependents.
We were qualifying that be reference to artificial insemination.
Okay, that's a good point. Thank you. They are issues that I just wanted to make sure that I try understand all the different permutations. Thank you.
On the real estate transfer tax exemption bill, I'd like to get a little more clarity on how that works. Suppose two people come in and say, We want to transfer real estate from one of us to another of us, and they fill out a form, an affidavit of some kind and say, We're domestic partners. And then the transfer is made nontaxable?
As the ordinance is 359 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 drafted, they would be required to complete an affidavit or certification that indicated the relationship. We presently have a form, a certification form, that's used for the realty transfer tax, that lists the number of different types of the exclusions from the tax. And I would expect that if this ordinance were enacted, we would add an additional category to that certification form, and that is what would be used and be signed by both parties.
Is there length of time a domestic partnership or life partnership has to be in effect in order to be able to transfer for -- qualify for the real estate tax exemption?
Well, is there any length of time that the partnership, life partnership -- does the domestic partnership have to be in effect for any length of time in order to qualify for this transfer?
The amendment that's 360 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 proposed to the realty transfer tax ordinance 3 would invoke the same definition for a life partner as is included in the Fair Practices Ordinance. It references that.
The relationship would have to be in existence for six months. I believe that's -- Is that the answer to your question, Mr. President?
As I understand your question, the relationship would have to have been approved or certified -- whatever the proper term is -- by the Human Relations Commission after a filing with them of the life partnership. And in order to use the exclusion in the realty transfer tax, they would need to be included among those registered with the Human Relations Commission.
I don't understand that. I have to tell you, I do not understand 361 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that.
Mr. President, if I might. I believe your question relates to how long the relationship has to be in existence before they can qualify for the exemption.
I want to know how it works. There are two people who decide that they want to transfer property among and between them because they have a domestic or a life partnership. What happens?
They would have to file with the Human Relations Commission.
You can't say they would have to file. They would have had to file? Would it have had to be on file at the time that they --
So let me get this straight. If the bill is passed, the Human Relations Commission has to set up some kind of 362 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 registry because anybody who may want to transfer real estate in this way now has to go and register that domestic partnership so that at the time the transfer is getting ready to be made, it's already on file.
That's correct. The Human Relations Commission would administer the verification procedure and process. The Revenue Department would get that information, the verification, the actual confirmation that the relationship is, in fact, legitimate from the Human Relations Commission.
Well, I never seen -- I have been to a lot of real estate settlements. I have never seen the Revenue Department at any of them.
No. The form is filed with the Department of Records after the transfer takes place, but there is an opportunity to review and to confirm the information that's on the form.
Well, now, I do not wish to play lawyer here 'cause I am -- I'm just -- the last time I was at a settlement, the 363 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 settlement clerk from the title company made a judgment based on information that that title clerk had that this was a transaction that was exempt. The Revenue Department wasn't in it, they didn't go check anyplace with anybody. The title clerk had the information. Now, I need you to try this again.
Okay. As I indicated during my testimony, we generally do accept the information that's provided by the parties to the transfer when they describe the relationship that they have. If they indicate that they're --
When you say "we," the Revenue Department isn't there, it's the title clerk.
We audit or review the forms after the fact. And if there are any questions about the transfer that has taken place, if there is any reason to question that there was a related-party transfer that is covered by the existing code, that would be reviewed, and we will follow up in terms of enforcement and -- 364 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I thank you for that answer. It's irrelevant to my question. I want to try a lawyer here. Two people decide that they want to transfer this property. In order to transfer the property, whether it's a mortgage involved or it's not a mortgage involved, there's got to be -- there's a settlement, and they go to a settlement. And there is a title clerk, and the title clerk has the responsibility of conducting the transaction with the assistance of the lawyers. There is -- there are forms that the title clerk -- if it's a taxable transaction, the title clerk on the settlement sheet lists what the transfer tax is and writes out checks to the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the amount of the settlement the Revenue Department isn't even involved in it. I want to know how's the title clerk going to know? How is anybody going to know about this?
I guess I can only answer with a question. How do they know today 365 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that it's two brothers who are transferring the property. They accept the information that they are provided at the time of the settlement. It would be a similar situation here, that the two parties would indicate they were life partners.
This way, we at least have a way to go and check it. There would be a registration --
Ma'am, I'm not disputing what you say, and I agree with everything you say. It's just that what you're telling me is way further back in the transfer. I mean, the transfer was made, right? You check the -- well, if --
That's when it happens today too, under the existing exclusions in the Code. This would be no different.
The Revenue Department -- the Revenue Department never comes to settlements.
I'm not saying it's 366 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 at settlement; it's after the fact. We get the forms after they've been filed -- the title company files those forms with the Department of Records as part of the deed transfer.
Now we're getting on the same page. I'm asking you, how is the title clerk going to know anything about any of this?
They probably are accepting the word of the parties at the settlement table. We get those forms, we review them. In the case of the life-partner situation that's been proposed here, we at least, in reviewing a form that has an indication of a life partnership transfer, could go to the Human Relations Commission and see whether or not those two parties were in fact part of a life partnership that had been registered.
But won't there have been there have to be some mechanism whereby title clerks, and insurance companies and lawyers and all those people who do these transactions, won't they have to be able to know or verify? What will they do? 367 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
The form that we have now would be modified to include that relationship, and there would have to be additional information provided to them on how a life partnership was established. And I believe Stephanie has some additions.
Mr. President, an alternative way would simply be for the parties to produce the certificates that they will be issued by the Human Relations Commission. That will constitute also evidence that there is a legitimate relationship so that they can -- they can submit that information in connection with the settlement.
Look, I'm just trying to find out if this bill is passed, what is that going to mean to the City, what's it going to mean to the Human Relations Commission, what's it going to mean to the Revenue Department? Are we going to have to hire people to run around and check up on stuff? I just -- I mean, when we pass these bills, that can get complicated. It's always easy 368 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 to pass the bills and say, Well, you know, let's hope -- it's just a simple matter. You know, forms will have to be developed, notices will have to be gotten out to people, the procedures will have to be put in place, and then, you know there are going to have to be people to administer this program. This real estate transfer tax program is a program that's a Citywide program, that has nothing whatsoever to do with health benefits or anything else. So what we are doing is, just so we understand here what we're doing here is, we're providing a situation where every couple, same-sex, forms a domestic partnership, transfers that property. Now -- and that's got to be my -- and I need to ask the City Solicitor this question. Is it possible that heterosexual couples who want to transfer property among and between them can say, This is a form of discrimination. It is a form of discrimination based on marital status. You can't tax us, you can't charge us the transfer tax because the only reason why we're being required to pay the transfer tax is because 369 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 we're not a life partner, and we're not -- or we're not married, and that's a violation of the Fair Practices Act. You can't charge us any real estate transfer tax.
Mr. President, in response to your question, the short answer is yes, it is possible for opposite-sex unmarried couples to challenge the bill on a couple of different grounds. First, as a violation of equal protection. Secondly, it could also be challenged under the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. That requires taxes to be uniform upon the same class of subjects. While we believe that the bill may be defensible on both grounds, I certainly know that you are aware that these are novel issues, and it's impossible to predict with any certainty what a court might ultimately rule.
Well, let me ask the Revenue Department, if we were to get in, and I -- I'm not sure who would have standing to challenge any of this. I mean, if all of a sudden one day, 370 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 this bill passes and now, all of a sudden, you know, couples around the City are -- heterosexual couples are saying, You can't, you can't discriminate against me on the basis of marital status. We're not paying the tax. Who has standing to challenge that practice? I mean, is that -- I mean, do we end up in court? I mean, how does that become an issue that gets litigated?
If it's a uniformity challenge for this particular bill, then the claim would be brought by the taxpayer or any other party that claims they are aggrieved, which could possibly be --
Well, the tax is $500, $1,000, the taxpayer is going to have a right -- I mean, couldn't a court just say, You can't -- you don't have a standing? I mean, how's an individual taxpayer going to show that he or she is injured because the City waives or exempts this lone transaction from the real estate transfer tax?
Well, the challenge here would be in connection with 371 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 possible claims of unmarried heterosexual couples. For example, that claim that they have been discriminated against by virtue of the definition of "life partner." So, therefore, they could bring an equal protection challenge. They could certainly allege that they have been aggrieved --
I don't have any questions that if the heterosexual couple who have formed the domestic partnership that went down tried to register it, maybe it got registered and maybe it didn't, right, but they went, and then they wanted to transfer this property.
They wanted to transfer this property. If the Revenue Department, in conjunction with the title company, 372 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and all those folks say, We're not going to exempt the transaction, you're not covered.
Right? I understand what happens with that. I mean, they just -- they just -- they're aggrieved because they had to pay the tax. The question is -- the question is, what happens if the Revenue Department decides Well, maybe they're right, let's exempt the transaction. Do they appeal to the Human Relations Commission? And does the Human Relation Commission say, Oh, this is -- this is discrimination on the basis of marital status? The Human Relation Commission says you have to give the exemption, right? And so now the people are happy, they got the exemption. Is that what happens here?
Your hypothetical starts with unmarried heterosexual couples who could not qualify for the exemption.
Let me try this again. 373 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Let me try this again. This bill passes, it gets wide publicity because everyone will be talking about it. And after this discussion, heterosexual showed up at other hearings and said we want the benefit too. Now, we've had that. Now, a heterosexual couple knows that there's a transfer they want to make, and it's a lot of money involved. I mean, it's anywhere from 500 to 2, 3,000 dollars. We don't know what the transfer tax is going to be. Our transfer tax is a high transfer tax. So they go down and they try to register 'cause they know -- because they have talked to a lawyer in this, to go down and try to register. They're not allowed to register, but they've made an effort to register. They go and they do the transaction. They want to transfer property. They make application at the settlement table for the exemption, right? The title company says, You can't get this exemption. 374 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 They talk to lawyers, they put off the -- they postpone the settlement, they delay it for 60 days. They run down to the Human Relations Commission, they file a complaint. Now, the complaint is sitting in front of Mr. Vaughan, right? He has to decide, What are we going to do here? The Human Relations Commission -- if the Human Relations Commission says it isn't discrimination, we know what they can do, they're aggrieved, they have to pay the tax. But if the Human Relation Commission says, Oh, the only reason why you have to pay the tax is because you're not married, that's discrimination on the basis of marital status. That violates the Fair Practices Act. You don't have to pay the tax, what happens then? Who can challenge any of that?
Mr. President, we might advise the Human Relations Commission that the complaint is not properly before it, there's no violation of the Fair Practices Ordinance 24 because of the scope of that ordinance deals with discrimination in employment practices, 375 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 discrimination in public accommodation, discrimination in housing, and I don't think it falls within any of those categories with regard to --
But you might not. I mean, you don't know what will happen. That's the bottom line.
And so if the City started being required -- if the City started being required to give those exemptions, do we have any idea what that could cost us?
I don't know how we would do that. We wouldn't have any idea how many transactions might be involved or the dollar value of each transaction.
Let me ask another question. What happens -- what happens if the -- if heterosexual couples just go down and start 376 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 trying to establish life partnerships with the view toward some of this other stuff? I mean, what would what -- would happen? How would that be handled? I don't know who to direct that question to. The City Solicitor. Everybody's -- we're handing this baby off here.
If heterosexual unmarried couples apply to the Human Relations Commission for verification, they would not qualify because they would not come within the definition of life partner, assuming the bill is enacted with the proposed amendments.
Could they challenge that in court. That determination?
Yes, Mr. President. They could claim that they have been discriminated against based on marital status, they could claim that they have been discriminated -- their Constitutional rights to equal protection have been violated. There are any number of possible claims or challenges that could be made.
All right. 377 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. Madame Solicitor, for many of the hypotheticals as laid out by the President with the unmarried heterosexual couple, would it be fair to say that one of the primary remedies to any of those situations is that they could avail themselves of the opportunity to just get married, and then they wouldn't time have to deal with any of these potential claims or problems under potential discrimination on marital status? (Applause.)
Councilman Nutter, certainly in connection with a possible equal protection challenge, the standard under Pennsylvania law is whether or not there is a, quote/unquote, rational basis for City Council's decision to treat same-sex life partners differently from opposite-sex unmarried couples. In defending against any potential challenge, we would certainly argue that there is a sufficient basis for different treatment since opposite-sex couples may marry and, therefore, are 378 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 not in need of legislative protection. (Applause.)
With regard to the real estate transfer tax proposed exemption -- and this is just more of the mechanics of how it works because I understood the question and the example as laid out by the President with regard to -- you're at settlement. Is it my understanding that there is a form that is -- if the two brothers or brother and sister or any of the presently covered people, if they claim that they are eligible for the exemption, as I recall seeing the form, there are at least a dozen specific categories for exemption. And the current form, I believe, has the last category technically is listed as "other." And is the common practice that it's the "other" box that gets checked, and then the two individuals write out on, I believe, two lines on that form what their claim of exemption is? Is that correct, Miss Kammerdeiner?
And, as laid out by 379 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the President's example, the title company or the title clerk then takes that form and they do whatever it is they do with it, but eventually, it ends up over at Revenue. Is that correct?
And they actually collect the transfer tax on behalf of the Department of Revenue. The funds are turned over to us and deposited, and the forms are given to us for our review in the audit process.
And by your current audit process -- and I don't know -- when you say "audit," I don't know whether you mean you look at percent of the forms or you look at 100 19 percent of the forms, but whatever the number is, 20 if you're just trying to do a spot audit to kind of check people, if the person's, I believe again, signed the form and I believe it's listed that there are -- they could be charged with either unsworn falsification or sworn falsification subject to perjury if they sign the form 380 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 inappropriately, is that correct?
It basically says that under penalties of law, so that's basically correct.
And when you do your audit, if you found or had reason to believe or questioned what the nature of the relationship was and dug into it and made a determination that the people had signed falsely, what do you do? Or would you go after them for the now-falsely-claimed exemption and try to go back and collect the real estate transfer tax?
We would really two things. We would pursue the collection of the tax, and in consultation with the Law Department, determine whether there were any legal remedies that we wanted to pursue as a result of the falsification, but we would certainly pursue collection of the tax.
Okay. And under the proposal in front of us, if a person fills out the form and makes a claim based on life partnership, and the form gets sent in, you would then contact the Human Relations Commission to 381 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 ensure that they have a verification statement on file. And if they did not, similar to the current practice for all the covered people, you would go after them?
For falsely filing the document and you would seek payment of tax, is that correct?
Okay. I wanted to just ask one very brief question, and it goes back to -- strike that. Is it my understanding that with regard to this real estate transfer tax, and I think you may have answered it in some of the questions and answers with the President. Is it my understanding that you, because it is apparently considered to be somewhat de minimus, that you have not tried to calculate the total value of all of the exempt transactions under this program? Although I believe earlier in your 382 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 testimony, you may have tried to do some calculations on just the husband-wife type transfer. Is that right?
That's basically correct. We don't have complete statistics from the Department of Records on all of the exemptions that are approved right now. We only do it on a sampling basis. There's no system information available to us, but we have done a sampling of transactions, some 16,500 transactions, and have determined that it was a relatively small number of those transactions that were husband-wife transactions that were excluded from the tax. We think that the number of transfers between life partners would be an even smaller number than that. Though we have no real evidence to base that on, we think that that number would be small. And I guess really the only thing we could base that on is the number of people who have come forward on the health benefits side has been a small number. We think that we would see something similar to that.
Okay, thank you 383 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
To the City Solicitor, in the proposed amendment, in No. 6 2-A-5, it says the life partner -- under definition of life partnerships, it says, "Agree to share the common necessities of life and to be responsible for each other's common welfare." What does that mean?
The short answer to your question, Mr. President, is that it's not entirely clear from the language. It is expected that the Human Relations Commission would issue regulations. The regulations would set forth proof requirements that individuals seeking verification as life partners would have to submit to indicate that there is financial interdependence. (Applause.)
That could mean -- that could mean, for example, that the common necessities of life would involve sharing a residence, sharing medical expenses, sharing expenses for food. 384 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Does it give -- does that -- does that -- does that language give the right of one life partner to sue the other life partner for the common necessities of life and for their welfare? Does it raise any obligation of support?
The ordinance 9 itself does not create an obligation of support. The ordinance simply seeks verification from the parties that they have mutually agreed amongst themselves to share financial obligations and expenses.
But what I want to know is -- is it -- do you think as a result of two people entering into this arrangement, would it be possible for one person, as is the case with, I think, with common-law marriages for a person to petition a court for support on the basis of this provision?
Not on the basis of the ordinance. For example. If you look at the common-law spouse situation, there is a definition of "common-law spouse" under Pennsylvania law. To 385 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the extent those parties seek remedies with regard to mutual obligations, they do so not because the Personnel Department requires them to submit a form indicating proof of financial interdependence. The same would be the case here.
All right. Now I would like for you to explain a little bit on this record, on , you say that the prohibition --
of the opinion you sent to me. In addition, the full scope of bill 970750 in its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status is not clear and would have to be clarified through complaints file by individuals before the Human Relations Commission. The bill prohibits any employer, including a private employer, from firing or hiring any individual on the basis of marital status or status as life partner. It also prohibits any employer, including a private employer, from discriminating against any individual on the basis of marital 386 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 status with respect to tenure promotions, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Can you explain what that means?
Yes, Mr. President, I can try to do that by way of example. We have spent some time discussing potential challenges that opposite-sex unmarried couples could assert by way of discrimination. Because the ordinance, as amended, prohibits any employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of marital status -- and that covers tenure, promotions, terms, conditions or privileges of employment -- conceivably, the Human Relations Commission could receive complaints from single individuals who may claim that by providing certain benefits or work assignments or special privileges only to married employees, that somehow these individuals have been discriminated on the basis of marital status. So the possible challenges are not limited to the universe of unmarried heterosexual couples.
So is it fair to say that marital status is now being set up under this 387 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 bill as something akin to a suspect classification in the sense that people now have a right, in a very general way, to look at everything that happens to them at the workplace and say, as people do, on the basis of age and other forms of discrimination, I think that supervisor discriminated against me on the basis of marital status. He favors the married people in the company, as opposed to the single people in the company. And could they then file a complaint and then subsequently a lawsuit and allege marriage discrimination because they say -- they allege that the supervisor favored married people over single people?
Mr. President, it is certainly possible that we will entertain similar complaints or complaints similar to those that we see in the context of racial discrimination or age discrimination. I hesitate only because I would be reluctant to use the phrase "suspect classification." I would agree with you to the extent 388 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that I think we will see similar kinds of claims, whether it's from single individuals, divorced individuals. It could be based on perceived differences in treatment in employment practices. So the point simply being that we could certainly see the same kinds of claims, a panoply of claims, not simply limited to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Thank you very much. This Committee will stand in recess for ten minutes. (Committee stands in recess.) (Proceedings resume.)
Can I have your attention, please. This is a recessed hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole. We are continuing to take testimony on Bill No. 970745, 970749, 970750. Does any other Member of Council have other questions for any of the City witnesses at this time? (No questions.)
Okay. Pete 389 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Matthews. (Not present.)
Do I see a witness coming? (Nicole Burton comes forward.)
Council President Street, other Members of City Council, Mr. Matthews was unable to be here this evening. For the record, my name is Nicole Burton, AFSCME, District City Council 33.
This will be very, very brief. In reference to bills 970745, 970749, 970750, AFSCME District Council 33 is examining the possible economic effect of this legislation on or bargaining unit, specifically concerning health and welfare benefits. Taking into consideration the 390 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 reductions in health and welfare payments to our fund in recent years, we respectfully request these bills be tabled until their review and process can provide definitive number on how this legislation will affect our members. And that's all I have to say, and I have copies of this for Council.
My name is Charles Bradley. I want to thank you for allowing me to be here tonight. I'm glad everybody was able to stick around. 391 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I'm sorry, Mr. Bradley, I'm going to have to ask you to speak much louder and much more directly into the microphone.
All right. I said my name is Charles Bradley. I'm not representing anyone but myself. I live in the 4th Councilmatic District of River Park, in West Philadelphia. Let me begin by stating I have never been nor have I associated with people affiliated with the Nazi party, skinheads militia or Ku Klux Klan. Q. Of 160 assumes I am not dumb. I may acquire a slight attitude when offended, but I have never been considered a cruel or mean person. I say this right off because homosexuals label, intimidate, and accuse anyone disagreeing with their terrorist requests as haters, bigots, idiots, or stupid. Once, not too long ago, I was a member of their ranks, but by the grace of the lord, my God, and the power of the Gospel, I no longer engage in such abominable behavior. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 happen. Just don't expect to hear if from your local gay or lesbian who's too busy believing a lie to admit the truth. Homosexuals play on people's emotions with their demands of equal rights, but they deceptively confuse the issues. On one hand, many of them disavow the existence of God due to their massive guilt burden, while, all the time, demanding legal rights to be married, which Webster's defines as the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. God created and sanctioned marriage, as stated in Genesis 2:24. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave onto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. And since God created man in his own image and explicitly told them to be fruitful and multiply, the big guy knew what he was doing. Many homosexuals treat the rally cry of Stonewall as the basis for their coming out of the closet en mass. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 now running things; it was the so-called dregs of society that the GUPPIES of today cringe at if they were allowed to mingle inside the Camac Street bars in Philadelphia. Stonewall rebellion was the result of government intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. So if homosexuals are adamant about policemen in their bedrooms in the sixties, why in the nineties are they inviting the tax man in their bedrooms, to monetarily reward them for their actions, to put a microscope on their lewd affairs? They holler equal rights, but the queens and kings of the movement rarely practice what they profess. They are liars and connivers. And I, like many people, find it very asinine to so passionately identify oneself with a sex act that is still illegal in several states. The phrase "domestic partnership" evokes in my mind the image of two amicable couples, such as Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton sharing the expenses of a rented cabin with their wives in the Poconos or in a condo at the shore. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 "marriage" is unjustified and should not even be considered a debate. The only reason homosexuals share household, or whatever else their choice may be, is because of their sexual desire to lust for each other; not to start a family, but to party like it's 1999 or to expensively increase the size of their wardrobes. God created everything in this earth to reproduce. And if something doesn't act according to His plan, they become extinct. Now, has anyone ever heard of the passenger pigeon? It's extinct. How about the Shakers, those pleasant and crafty people who possessed a life style of chastity, even within a marriage. The only thing they cranked out were the innovative household furniture that cost an arm and a leg, and that is their legacy, which isn't in God's plan. Marriage exemptions are not a right. But a benefit. Benefit applies to see people who qualify for special privileges due to special moral and social factors, such as senior citizens, veterans, children, and married heterosexual couples. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 provide for sexual deviants is a place to live and food to eat until their term of incarceration expires.
It is not cruel by any means to equate passing any of the domestic partnership bills with rewarding John Wayne Gacey or Jessie Timmendiquas, the molester of Megan Kanka. Please note, the distinction should not be missed in this analogy. This country is systematically reducing privileges of sexual deviants, not expanding them. Since the beginning of time until 30 or 40 years ago, a family consisted of a husband and wife and one or more child. It was considered abnormal to be a single parent unless you were widowed. Now in this new age of the nuclear family, single parenthood is the norm. And people look at married couples with children as union between Wonder Woman and Superman. You can get the conditions that prevail in our City today. The tolerance level of formerly scornful behavior is preposterous on their own, but to add to the moral confusion about right and wrong and extending benefits to a couple of men who refuse to naturally procreate is just irrational. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 To add to this already-enormous amount residual decay of the upheavals of the seventies by extending rights to people whose mock marriages typically do not last longer than the wedding cake in the freezer, this begs the question, who really benefits and who really loses? I know firsthand partnerships are a dime a dozen and worth less to these impulsive people than the caterer's invoice. Let me tell everyone a story or two of prisoners said to be executed based on tolerance and how tolerance is taken by some people. One was hauled out of cell by burly guards and hauled into a cauldron of boiling water. Severely scalded, he died within minutes. The other prisoner, handled by a different, by meeker group of guards was locked in a little white tile lining the walls. The prisoner thought he was being given a stay of execution, and four hours later, when a guard returned to retrieve the prisoner from his locked room, they opened the door, and the steam cleared. The prisoner's withered body lay on the floor in a ball. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 tossed into the boiling water. He only tolerated his execution easier. With all the new patterns of turmoil happening in the world today, many people are talking about this being the last days, the world, as we know it, ending. But let me remind you of what God said through his prophet Isaiah 400 years or more before the birth of Jesus. For the city stumbled and the nation is falling, because their tongues and their doings are against the Lord. To provoke the eyes of his glory. The look on their continence witnessed against them, and they declared their sin as Sodom. They do not hide it. Woe to their soul, for they have brought evil upon themselves. I ask City Council to defeat these bills. )
Douglas Powell. (Not present.) 398 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
My name is Anthony Marachi, and I am a lifelong citizen of Philadelphia. Good evening, President Street, Members of City Council, citizens of Philadelphia. I make my presence known here today for the sole purpose of voicing my opposition to the life partners bills. My goal here tonight is to convey to you the many reasons which will prove conclusively and beyond the shadow of a doubt the terrible ramifications and consequences which arise as a result of the promotion and practice of homosexuality. The clear and uncompromising position of the Catholic church with regard to homosexuality will also be reflected in my testimony. 399 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am of the firm testimony (sic) that if these bills become laws, that they would only hasten the rapid disintegration and destruction of our civilization, and ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race. (Laughter.)
Sins of homosexuality cry to heaven for vengeance, as the Catholic Church teaches, not only because God has often and explicitly condemned them through his revelation in sacred scripture, but also because they are against the very law inscribed in the hearts of men, namely the natural law. What exactly is the natural law? you might ask. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, quote, natural law is nothing other than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law the, light of natural reason whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law is nothing else than the imprint on us of the divine life, closed quotes. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 quote, do good and avoid, evil closed quotes. It is called the natural law for three reasons. Number one, man is subject from it from the moment of birth. Number two, it contains from the very nature of man. I'm sorry -- excuse me. Number two, it contains only those precepts which are derived from the very nature of man. Number three, it can be grasped by the natural light of man's reason without the aid of human authority. Pope Leo XIII concisely summed this up in following words: Quote, the natural law is imprinted and engraved in the hearts of all men, closed quotes. Now, applying this to homosexual practices, we can clearly see that they are in no 19 way, quote, alternates, closed quotes, or even remotely normal, but rather gravely sinful, for they are grave perversions of nature. The reproductive organs have been given to men and women by nature in order to be used by one of each for the propagation of the human species. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 for an end other than that ordained by nature itself. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, quote, an act arising from deliberative reason which is not related to its due end has the character of something evil, close quotes. Herein lies the deviance of homosexual acts. The use of the reproductive mechanism, essentially good in marriage between man and woman, with the end of procreation in mind is terribly perverse and blatantly unnatural between members of the same sex. Homosexual activity, then, is both deviant and destructive. It undermines society itself by attacking its basic unit, the family. So while the souls of these poor sinners must be saved, their so-called, quote, life-style, closed quotes, and militant crusade to, quote, educate, closed quotes, and the public and liberate themselves must be forcefully condemned as contrary both member to nature and the author of that nature. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 malediction for those who practice this abomination. Quote, if anyone lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination. Let them be put to death, their blood be upon them, closed quotes. Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 13. As we can see here, God almighty himself is proscribing the death penalty for those who engage in homosexual activity. By doing so, he's equating homosexuality to murder. In a spiritual sense, a homosexual is a murderer, for he is murdering -- that is killing the soul of him with whom he is engaging in forbidden sexual relations. From the New Testament, quote, the men also having abandoned the natural use of the woman have burned in their lust one towards another. Men with men doing shameless things and receiving in themselves the fitting recompense of their perversity, closed quotes, Romans, Chapter 1, verse 27. There are many quotes in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. I would just give you a few of them. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 1 through 11. Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verses 22 through 25. Deuteronomy, Chapter 23, Verse 18. Judges, Chapter 19,, Verses 22 through 24. Three Kings, Chapter 14, Verse 24. Three Kings, Chapter 15, verse 12. Three Kings, Chapter 22, Verse 47. Four Kings, Chapter 24, Verse 7. Wisdom, Chapter 9 14, Verse 26 and 27. And in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, Verses 9 and 10. 1 Timothy, Chapter 1, 9.
2 Peter, Chapter 2, Verses 6 through 10. And Jude, Chapter 7, Verse 8. All of you who favor homosexuality should research these quotes for yourselves and see with your own eyes and read with your own lips God's revulsion for this abominable evil. I am firmly convinced that if Christians in the past had stood up against the practice and promotion of homosexuality along with other evils proposed for legislation, society today would not be so corrupt, and the human race would not be headed for extinction. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 have been successful in spreading their most abominable sins throughout this land of ours. America the beautiful has become America the Godless. What has become of our nation? We, as a nation, have become demoralized. We have lost the since of sin. How, how have we allowed this to happen? you might ask. I believe that there are various factors which have effected the erosion of the morals of the people of this country. First of all, by kicking God out of the public schools, out of the social institutions, out of the Council chambers, out of the homes, out of our own lives, man has become a depraved individual. Man without God, man without morals, is an animal. Are we better off today as a result of testing God out of the our society, or are we worse off? The answer is quite obvious. The dramatic increase of the crime rate has occurred as a result of the dethroning of God and of a disregard for his divine law. Where God does not reign, Satan takes the throne. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 this is. All we have to do is look all around us. Evil is rampant everywhere.
Mr. Marachi, we would appreciate it if you would summarize.
-- I would like to say that all legislators have a grave obligation to forbid the passage of any laws which would contribute to the corruption of a people. There is such a thing as moral absolutes, and if these must be -- and these must be adhered and conformed to if true peace and true justice is reign in our. Society God will not allow the sins of a nation to go unpunished. Thank you and God bless you all. (Applause.)
My name is Barbara 406 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 McDowell Dowdall. I am a lifelong resident of the City of Germantown. I am presently in the 13th Ward, 4th Division, 8th Councilmatic District. I want to summarize and say I am a straight surviving sister-in-law of a gay man. He was a wonderful brother to my husband, uncle to his nieces. He felt the opprobrium of his church, but he was still attached to his church in spite of the fact that it rejected him, the person that he was. My marriage was never, ever threatened by him. In fact, it was supported by him, and it has been supported by gay friends, neighbors. And I endorse the passage of at least three bills. (Applause.)
Tom Cardell. (Not present.) 407 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Is there anyone else here from Citizens for a Better Northeast? (No response.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on the bills? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Please come to the table and identify yourself. (Andrea Furtek comes forward.)
Hi, President Street. Good evening. The good news is I will be brief. My name is Andrea Furtek, and I'm a citizen of Philadelphia.
I am here as a citizen of Philadelphia and a seeker of truth and justice. I 408 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 do not claim to represent the truth, only to seek it so, therefore, I thank each of you for your thoughtful consideration of this testimony. The decision made here will have financial and moral implications for this City of Brotherly Love. The financial decision will impact our cultural definition of marriage and family. Although I cannot speak for God, God has revealed through nature that it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Raising that child is the work of family. It is not just a matter of genetics that a man and woman are needed; but rather, God has ordained, regardless of reproductive modality that it is maleness and femaleness that is needed for the care and support of that child. Since the conception of human life requires chromosomes from the man and 23 21 chromosomes from the woman, each human being is a 22 committed partnership of the union of male and 23 female. Since these financial decisions have moral implications, let us look to money for the 409 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 answer to this debate. "In God we trust" is printed on each piece of American currency so let us put our trust in God and invest in God's plan for creation, which is the eternal joining of the male and the female. It is imperative that our civil laws support natural laws. Therefore, I urge all Councilmembers to vote no for the partnership act. The only partnership that nature has ordained to be sexually creative and thereby create a family is that of a man and a woman. Our laws need to support that creative union. Vote no. 14 Thank you for your thoughtful attention. And to paraphrase Tiny Tim, may God bless us all, especially those that boo the loudest. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify? Is there anyone else to testify here this evening? Councilman Longstreth's light is flashing. I assume that that's a mistake. 410 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Council will stand at ease. (Council stands at ease.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Will Councilwoman Verna please approach the Chair. (Councilwoman Verna approaches the Chair.) Could I have your attention, please. May I have your attention, please. This brings us to the end of our public hearing. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. First bill for consideration will be Bill No. 97075 -- are we ready? 9707 -- are we ready? A quorum is present motions to bill -- amendments to Bill No. 970750. Yeah, 750.
I'd like to go in 411 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 order, I guess, Mr. President.
It doesn't really matter. I had them in my hand in this order. You wish for me to call them up in the order that they're listed on the notice? Oh, a technicality. Bill No. 970745. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Mr. President, I'm sorry if I missed this. We are in the public meeting now?
We are in public meeting. The Chair recognized you to move the amendment that's already been read into the record to Bill No. 970745.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment, as read in the public hearing, on Bill No. 970745. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. 412 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion to amend Bill No. 970749.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment as read in the record in the public hearing on Bill No. 970749. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on the proposed amendments, as read in the record, to Bill No. 970750.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the three amendments, amendment number 1, amendment number 2, and amendment number 3, as read into the record in the public hearing, on Bill No. 970750. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. And the amendments 413 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970745.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970745 be reported out of committee as a amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Then it is so ordered. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970749, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970749 be reported out of committee, as amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. 414 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970750.
I move that Bill 5 No. 970750 be reported out of committee, as amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. I'd like to thank everybody for spending the day with us. Have a good evening, whatever's left of it. (Applause.) (Adjourned at 10:01 p.m.) - - - 415 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 23, 1998 were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR