Committee Hearing, April 22, 1998

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. )

Thank you. Jim Nolan. (Jim Nolan comes forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

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.)

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

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.)

Rita Addessa. (Rita Addessa comes forward.)

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.

Good afternoon.

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?

Yes.

Am I allotted a specific amount of time, sir?

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?

Yes.

Great.

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.

I'm sorry?

No, it's off the table.

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.)

And what's the other witness's name?

Dabney Miller.

Dabney? Can you spell that.

Dabney, D-A-B-N-E-Y, Miller.

And you're with the Women's Law Project?

That's correct.

Thank you. Please proceed.

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.

Thank you. (Applause.)

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.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

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.)

Kali Morgan. Kali Morgan. (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.)

All right, Mr. Malagesi.

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.)

Marilyn Rivers. Marilyn Rivers. (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.)

Thank you very much. Darryl Mills. (Not present.)

Reverend Lou Temme, T-E-M-M-E. (Not present.)

Colleen O'Connell. (Not present.)

Travis Poe. (Not present.)

I think Marie Summers was already here to testify. Dr. Dan Gottlieb. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already testified.

David Garifo. (Not present.)

June Krebs, K-R-E-B-S. 201 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 (June Krebs comes forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

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.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

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

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

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.)

Beverly Scott. Beverly Scott. (Not present.)

Joseph Evans. (Not present.)

Eve St. Girard, PFFLAG. (Not present.)

Joe Ciavarella. (Joe Ciavarella comes forward.)

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.

Yes. My name is Rabbi Rebecca Alpert. (Applause.)

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.

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.)

Tim Schwarz. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already spoke.

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.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

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?

Yes.

Can we make sure that every Councilmember has the Council.

I believe they were delivered yesterday.

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.)