Okay, that's a good point. Thank you. They are issues that I just wanted to make sure that I try understand all the different permutations. Thank you.
On the real estate transfer tax exemption bill, I'd like to get a little more clarity on how that works. Suppose two people come in and say, We want to transfer real estate from one of us to another of us, and they fill out a form, an affidavit of some kind and say, We're domestic partners. And then the transfer is made nontaxable?
As the ordinance is 359 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 drafted, they would be required to complete an affidavit or certification that indicated the relationship. We presently have a form, a certification form, that's used for the realty transfer tax, that lists the number of different types of the exclusions from the tax. And I would expect that if this ordinance were enacted, we would add an additional category to that certification form, and that is what would be used and be signed by both parties.
Is there length of time a domestic partnership or life partnership has to be in effect in order to be able to transfer for -- qualify for the real estate tax exemption?
Well, is there any length of time that the partnership, life partnership -- does the domestic partnership have to be in effect for any length of time in order to qualify for this transfer?
The amendment that's 360 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 proposed to the realty transfer tax ordinance 3 would invoke the same definition for a life partner as is included in the Fair Practices Ordinance. It references that.
The relationship would have to be in existence for six months. I believe that's -- Is that the answer to your question, Mr. President?
As I understand your question, the relationship would have to have been approved or certified -- whatever the proper term is -- by the Human Relations Commission after a filing with them of the life partnership. And in order to use the exclusion in the realty transfer tax, they would need to be included among those registered with the Human Relations Commission.
I don't understand that. I have to tell you, I do not understand 361 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that.
Mr. President, if I might. I believe your question relates to how long the relationship has to be in existence before they can qualify for the exemption.
I want to know how it works. There are two people who decide that they want to transfer property among and between them because they have a domestic or a life partnership. What happens?
They would have to file with the Human Relations Commission.
You can't say they would have to file. They would have had to file? Would it have had to be on file at the time that they --
So let me get this straight. If the bill is passed, the Human Relations Commission has to set up some kind of 362 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 registry because anybody who may want to transfer real estate in this way now has to go and register that domestic partnership so that at the time the transfer is getting ready to be made, it's already on file.
That's correct. The Human Relations Commission would administer the verification procedure and process. The Revenue Department would get that information, the verification, the actual confirmation that the relationship is, in fact, legitimate from the Human Relations Commission.
Well, I never seen -- I have been to a lot of real estate settlements. I have never seen the Revenue Department at any of them.
No. The form is filed with the Department of Records after the transfer takes place, but there is an opportunity to review and to confirm the information that's on the form.
Well, now, I do not wish to play lawyer here 'cause I am -- I'm just -- the last time I was at a settlement, the 363 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 settlement clerk from the title company made a judgment based on information that that title clerk had that this was a transaction that was exempt. The Revenue Department wasn't in it, they didn't go check anyplace with anybody. The title clerk had the information. Now, I need you to try this again.
Okay. As I indicated during my testimony, we generally do accept the information that's provided by the parties to the transfer when they describe the relationship that they have. If they indicate that they're --
When you say "we," the Revenue Department isn't there, it's the title clerk.
We audit or review the forms after the fact. And if there are any questions about the transfer that has taken place, if there is any reason to question that there was a related-party transfer that is covered by the existing code, that would be reviewed, and we will follow up in terms of enforcement and -- 364 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I thank you for that answer. It's irrelevant to my question. I want to try a lawyer here. Two people decide that they want to transfer this property. In order to transfer the property, whether it's a mortgage involved or it's not a mortgage involved, there's got to be -- there's a settlement, and they go to a settlement. And there is a title clerk, and the title clerk has the responsibility of conducting the transaction with the assistance of the lawyers. There is -- there are forms that the title clerk -- if it's a taxable transaction, the title clerk on the settlement sheet lists what the transfer tax is and writes out checks to the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the amount of the settlement the Revenue Department isn't even involved in it. I want to know how's the title clerk going to know? How is anybody going to know about this?
I guess I can only answer with a question. How do they know today 365 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that it's two brothers who are transferring the property. They accept the information that they are provided at the time of the settlement. It would be a similar situation here, that the two parties would indicate they were life partners.
This way, we at least have a way to go and check it. There would be a registration --
Ma'am, I'm not disputing what you say, and I agree with everything you say. It's just that what you're telling me is way further back in the transfer. I mean, the transfer was made, right? You check the -- well, if --
That's when it happens today too, under the existing exclusions in the Code. This would be no different.
The Revenue Department -- the Revenue Department never comes to settlements.
I'm not saying it's 366 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 at settlement; it's after the fact. We get the forms after they've been filed -- the title company files those forms with the Department of Records as part of the deed transfer.
Now we're getting on the same page. I'm asking you, how is the title clerk going to know anything about any of this?
They probably are accepting the word of the parties at the settlement table. We get those forms, we review them. In the case of the life-partner situation that's been proposed here, we at least, in reviewing a form that has an indication of a life partnership transfer, could go to the Human Relations Commission and see whether or not those two parties were in fact part of a life partnership that had been registered.
But won't there have been there have to be some mechanism whereby title clerks, and insurance companies and lawyers and all those people who do these transactions, won't they have to be able to know or verify? What will they do? 367 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
The form that we have now would be modified to include that relationship, and there would have to be additional information provided to them on how a life partnership was established. And I believe Stephanie has some additions.
Mr. President, an alternative way would simply be for the parties to produce the certificates that they will be issued by the Human Relations Commission. That will constitute also evidence that there is a legitimate relationship so that they can -- they can submit that information in connection with the settlement.
Look, I'm just trying to find out if this bill is passed, what is that going to mean to the City, what's it going to mean to the Human Relations Commission, what's it going to mean to the Revenue Department? Are we going to have to hire people to run around and check up on stuff? I just -- I mean, when we pass these bills, that can get complicated. It's always easy 368 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 to pass the bills and say, Well, you know, let's hope -- it's just a simple matter. You know, forms will have to be developed, notices will have to be gotten out to people, the procedures will have to be put in place, and then, you know there are going to have to be people to administer this program. This real estate transfer tax program is a program that's a Citywide program, that has nothing whatsoever to do with health benefits or anything else. So what we are doing is, just so we understand here what we're doing here is, we're providing a situation where every couple, same-sex, forms a domestic partnership, transfers that property. Now -- and that's got to be my -- and I need to ask the City Solicitor this question. Is it possible that heterosexual couples who want to transfer property among and between them can say, This is a form of discrimination. It is a form of discrimination based on marital status. You can't tax us, you can't charge us the transfer tax because the only reason why we're being required to pay the transfer tax is because 369 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 we're not a life partner, and we're not -- or we're not married, and that's a violation of the Fair Practices Act. You can't charge us any real estate transfer tax.
Mr. President, in response to your question, the short answer is yes, it is possible for opposite-sex unmarried couples to challenge the bill on a couple of different grounds. First, as a violation of equal protection. Secondly, it could also be challenged under the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. That requires taxes to be uniform upon the same class of subjects. While we believe that the bill may be defensible on both grounds, I certainly know that you are aware that these are novel issues, and it's impossible to predict with any certainty what a court might ultimately rule.
Well, let me ask the Revenue Department, if we were to get in, and I -- I'm not sure who would have standing to challenge any of this. I mean, if all of a sudden one day, 370 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 this bill passes and now, all of a sudden, you know, couples around the City are -- heterosexual couples are saying, You can't, you can't discriminate against me on the basis of marital status. We're not paying the tax. Who has standing to challenge that practice? I mean, is that -- I mean, do we end up in court? I mean, how does that become an issue that gets litigated?
If it's a uniformity challenge for this particular bill, then the claim would be brought by the taxpayer or any other party that claims they are aggrieved, which could possibly be --
Well, the tax is $500, $1,000, the taxpayer is going to have a right -- I mean, couldn't a court just say, You can't -- you don't have a standing? I mean, how's an individual taxpayer going to show that he or she is injured because the City waives or exempts this lone transaction from the real estate transfer tax?
Well, the challenge here would be in connection with 371 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 possible claims of unmarried heterosexual couples. For example, that claim that they have been discriminated against by virtue of the definition of "life partner." So, therefore, they could bring an equal protection challenge. They could certainly allege that they have been aggrieved --
I don't have any questions that if the heterosexual couple who have formed the domestic partnership that went down tried to register it, maybe it got registered and maybe it didn't, right, but they went, and then they wanted to transfer this property.
They wanted to transfer this property. If the Revenue Department, in conjunction with the title company, 372 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 and all those folks say, We're not going to exempt the transaction, you're not covered.
Right? I understand what happens with that. I mean, they just -- they just -- they're aggrieved because they had to pay the tax. The question is -- the question is, what happens if the Revenue Department decides Well, maybe they're right, let's exempt the transaction. Do they appeal to the Human Relations Commission? And does the Human Relation Commission say, Oh, this is -- this is discrimination on the basis of marital status? The Human Relation Commission says you have to give the exemption, right? And so now the people are happy, they got the exemption. Is that what happens here?
Your hypothetical starts with unmarried heterosexual couples who could not qualify for the exemption.
Let me try this again. 373 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Let me try this again. This bill passes, it gets wide publicity because everyone will be talking about it. And after this discussion, heterosexual showed up at other hearings and said we want the benefit too. Now, we've had that. Now, a heterosexual couple knows that there's a transfer they want to make, and it's a lot of money involved. I mean, it's anywhere from 500 to 2, 3,000 dollars. We don't know what the transfer tax is going to be. Our transfer tax is a high transfer tax. So they go down and they try to register 'cause they know -- because they have talked to a lawyer in this, to go down and try to register. They're not allowed to register, but they've made an effort to register. They go and they do the transaction. They want to transfer property. They make application at the settlement table for the exemption, right? The title company says, You can't get this exemption. 374 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 They talk to lawyers, they put off the -- they postpone the settlement, they delay it for 60 days. They run down to the Human Relations Commission, they file a complaint. Now, the complaint is sitting in front of Mr. Vaughan, right? He has to decide, What are we going to do here? The Human Relations Commission -- if the Human Relations Commission says it isn't discrimination, we know what they can do, they're aggrieved, they have to pay the tax. But if the Human Relation Commission says, Oh, the only reason why you have to pay the tax is because you're not married, that's discrimination on the basis of marital status. That violates the Fair Practices Act. You don't have to pay the tax, what happens then? Who can challenge any of that?
Mr. President, we might advise the Human Relations Commission that the complaint is not properly before it, there's no violation of the Fair Practices Ordinance 24 because of the scope of that ordinance deals with discrimination in employment practices, 375 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 discrimination in public accommodation, discrimination in housing, and I don't think it falls within any of those categories with regard to --
But you might not. I mean, you don't know what will happen. That's the bottom line.
And so if the City started being required -- if the City started being required to give those exemptions, do we have any idea what that could cost us?
I don't know how we would do that. We wouldn't have any idea how many transactions might be involved or the dollar value of each transaction.
Let me ask another question. What happens -- what happens if the -- if heterosexual couples just go down and start 376 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 trying to establish life partnerships with the view toward some of this other stuff? I mean, what would what -- would happen? How would that be handled? I don't know who to direct that question to. The City Solicitor. Everybody's -- we're handing this baby off here.
If heterosexual unmarried couples apply to the Human Relations Commission for verification, they would not qualify because they would not come within the definition of life partner, assuming the bill is enacted with the proposed amendments.
Could they challenge that in court. That determination?
Yes, Mr. President. They could claim that they have been discriminated against based on marital status, they could claim that they have been discriminated -- their Constitutional rights to equal protection have been violated. There are any number of possible claims or challenges that could be made.
All right. 377 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. Madame Solicitor, for many of the hypotheticals as laid out by the President with the unmarried heterosexual couple, would it be fair to say that one of the primary remedies to any of those situations is that they could avail themselves of the opportunity to just get married, and then they wouldn't time have to deal with any of these potential claims or problems under potential discrimination on marital status? (Applause.)
Councilman Nutter, certainly in connection with a possible equal protection challenge, the standard under Pennsylvania law is whether or not there is a, quote/unquote, rational basis for City Council's decision to treat same-sex life partners differently from opposite-sex unmarried couples. In defending against any potential challenge, we would certainly argue that there is a sufficient basis for different treatment since opposite-sex couples may marry and, therefore, are 378 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 not in need of legislative protection. (Applause.)
With regard to the real estate transfer tax proposed exemption -- and this is just more of the mechanics of how it works because I understood the question and the example as laid out by the President with regard to -- you're at settlement. Is it my understanding that there is a form that is -- if the two brothers or brother and sister or any of the presently covered people, if they claim that they are eligible for the exemption, as I recall seeing the form, there are at least a dozen specific categories for exemption. And the current form, I believe, has the last category technically is listed as "other." And is the common practice that it's the "other" box that gets checked, and then the two individuals write out on, I believe, two lines on that form what their claim of exemption is? Is that correct, Miss Kammerdeiner?
And, as laid out by 379 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the President's example, the title company or the title clerk then takes that form and they do whatever it is they do with it, but eventually, it ends up over at Revenue. Is that correct?
And they actually collect the transfer tax on behalf of the Department of Revenue. The funds are turned over to us and deposited, and the forms are given to us for our review in the audit process.
And by your current audit process -- and I don't know -- when you say "audit," I don't know whether you mean you look at percent of the forms or you look at 100 19 percent of the forms, but whatever the number is, 20 if you're just trying to do a spot audit to kind of check people, if the person's, I believe again, signed the form and I believe it's listed that there are -- they could be charged with either unsworn falsification or sworn falsification subject to perjury if they sign the form 380 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 inappropriately, is that correct?
It basically says that under penalties of law, so that's basically correct.
And when you do your audit, if you found or had reason to believe or questioned what the nature of the relationship was and dug into it and made a determination that the people had signed falsely, what do you do? Or would you go after them for the now-falsely-claimed exemption and try to go back and collect the real estate transfer tax?
We would really two things. We would pursue the collection of the tax, and in consultation with the Law Department, determine whether there were any legal remedies that we wanted to pursue as a result of the falsification, but we would certainly pursue collection of the tax.
Okay. And under the proposal in front of us, if a person fills out the form and makes a claim based on life partnership, and the form gets sent in, you would then contact the Human Relations Commission to 381 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 ensure that they have a verification statement on file. And if they did not, similar to the current practice for all the covered people, you would go after them?
For falsely filing the document and you would seek payment of tax, is that correct?
Okay. I wanted to just ask one very brief question, and it goes back to -- strike that. Is it my understanding that with regard to this real estate transfer tax, and I think you may have answered it in some of the questions and answers with the President. Is it my understanding that you, because it is apparently considered to be somewhat de minimus, that you have not tried to calculate the total value of all of the exempt transactions under this program? Although I believe earlier in your 382 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 testimony, you may have tried to do some calculations on just the husband-wife type transfer. Is that right?
That's basically correct. We don't have complete statistics from the Department of Records on all of the exemptions that are approved right now. We only do it on a sampling basis. There's no system information available to us, but we have done a sampling of transactions, some 16,500 transactions, and have determined that it was a relatively small number of those transactions that were husband-wife transactions that were excluded from the tax. We think that the number of transfers between life partners would be an even smaller number than that. Though we have no real evidence to base that on, we think that that number would be small. And I guess really the only thing we could base that on is the number of people who have come forward on the health benefits side has been a small number. We think that we would see something similar to that.
Okay, thank you 383 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
To the City Solicitor, in the proposed amendment, in No. 6 2-A-5, it says the life partner -- under definition of life partnerships, it says, "Agree to share the common necessities of life and to be responsible for each other's common welfare." What does that mean?
The short answer to your question, Mr. President, is that it's not entirely clear from the language. It is expected that the Human Relations Commission would issue regulations. The regulations would set forth proof requirements that individuals seeking verification as life partners would have to submit to indicate that there is financial interdependence. (Applause.)
That could mean -- that could mean, for example, that the common necessities of life would involve sharing a residence, sharing medical expenses, sharing expenses for food. 384 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Does it give -- does that -- does that -- does that language give the right of one life partner to sue the other life partner for the common necessities of life and for their welfare? Does it raise any obligation of support?
The ordinance 9 itself does not create an obligation of support. The ordinance simply seeks verification from the parties that they have mutually agreed amongst themselves to share financial obligations and expenses.
But what I want to know is -- is it -- do you think as a result of two people entering into this arrangement, would it be possible for one person, as is the case with, I think, with common-law marriages for a person to petition a court for support on the basis of this provision?
Not on the basis of the ordinance. For example. If you look at the common-law spouse situation, there is a definition of "common-law spouse" under Pennsylvania law. To 385 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 the extent those parties seek remedies with regard to mutual obligations, they do so not because the Personnel Department requires them to submit a form indicating proof of financial interdependence. The same would be the case here.
All right. Now I would like for you to explain a little bit on this record, on , you say that the prohibition --
of the opinion you sent to me. In addition, the full scope of bill 970750 in its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status is not clear and would have to be clarified through complaints file by individuals before the Human Relations Commission. The bill prohibits any employer, including a private employer, from firing or hiring any individual on the basis of marital status or status as life partner. It also prohibits any employer, including a private employer, from discriminating against any individual on the basis of marital 386 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 status with respect to tenure promotions, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Can you explain what that means?
Yes, Mr. President, I can try to do that by way of example. We have spent some time discussing potential challenges that opposite-sex unmarried couples could assert by way of discrimination. Because the ordinance, as amended, prohibits any employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of marital status -- and that covers tenure, promotions, terms, conditions or privileges of employment -- conceivably, the Human Relations Commission could receive complaints from single individuals who may claim that by providing certain benefits or work assignments or special privileges only to married employees, that somehow these individuals have been discriminated on the basis of marital status. So the possible challenges are not limited to the universe of unmarried heterosexual couples.
So is it fair to say that marital status is now being set up under this 387 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 bill as something akin to a suspect classification in the sense that people now have a right, in a very general way, to look at everything that happens to them at the workplace and say, as people do, on the basis of age and other forms of discrimination, I think that supervisor discriminated against me on the basis of marital status. He favors the married people in the company, as opposed to the single people in the company. And could they then file a complaint and then subsequently a lawsuit and allege marriage discrimination because they say -- they allege that the supervisor favored married people over single people?
Mr. President, it is certainly possible that we will entertain similar complaints or complaints similar to those that we see in the context of racial discrimination or age discrimination. I hesitate only because I would be reluctant to use the phrase "suspect classification." I would agree with you to the extent 388 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 that I think we will see similar kinds of claims, whether it's from single individuals, divorced individuals. It could be based on perceived differences in treatment in employment practices. So the point simply being that we could certainly see the same kinds of claims, a panoply of claims, not simply limited to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Thank you very much. This Committee will stand in recess for ten minutes. (Committee stands in recess.) (Proceedings resume.)
Can I have your attention, please. This is a recessed hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole. We are continuing to take testimony on Bill No. 970745, 970749, 970750. Does any other Member of Council have other questions for any of the City witnesses at this time? (No questions.)
Okay. Pete 389 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Matthews. (Not present.)
Do I see a witness coming? (Nicole Burton comes forward.)
Council President Street, other Members of City Council, Mr. Matthews was unable to be here this evening. For the record, my name is Nicole Burton, AFSCME, District City Council 33.
This will be very, very brief. In reference to bills 970745, 970749, 970750, AFSCME District Council 33 is examining the possible economic effect of this legislation on or bargaining unit, specifically concerning health and welfare benefits. Taking into consideration the 390 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 reductions in health and welfare payments to our fund in recent years, we respectfully request these bills be tabled until their review and process can provide definitive number on how this legislation will affect our members. And that's all I have to say, and I have copies of this for Council.
My name is Charles Bradley. I want to thank you for allowing me to be here tonight. I'm glad everybody was able to stick around. 391 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
I'm sorry, Mr. Bradley, I'm going to have to ask you to speak much louder and much more directly into the microphone.
All right. I said my name is Charles Bradley. I'm not representing anyone but myself. I live in the 4th Councilmatic District of River Park, in West Philadelphia. Let me begin by stating I have never been nor have I associated with people affiliated with the Nazi party, skinheads militia or Ku Klux Klan. Q. Of 160 assumes I am not dumb. I may acquire a slight attitude when offended, but I have never been considered a cruel or mean person. I say this right off because homosexuals label, intimidate, and accuse anyone disagreeing with their terrorist requests as haters, bigots, idiots, or stupid. Once, not too long ago, I was a member of their ranks, but by the grace of the lord, my God, and the power of the Gospel, I no longer engage in such abominable behavior. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 happen. Just don't expect to hear if from your local gay or lesbian who's too busy believing a lie to admit the truth. Homosexuals play on people's emotions with their demands of equal rights, but they deceptively confuse the issues. On one hand, many of them disavow the existence of God due to their massive guilt burden, while, all the time, demanding legal rights to be married, which Webster's defines as the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. God created and sanctioned marriage, as stated in Genesis 2:24. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave onto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. And since God created man in his own image and explicitly told them to be fruitful and multiply, the big guy knew what he was doing. Many homosexuals treat the rally cry of Stonewall as the basis for their coming out of the closet en mass. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 now running things; it was the so-called dregs of society that the GUPPIES of today cringe at if they were allowed to mingle inside the Camac Street bars in Philadelphia. Stonewall rebellion was the result of government intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. So if homosexuals are adamant about policemen in their bedrooms in the sixties, why in the nineties are they inviting the tax man in their bedrooms, to monetarily reward them for their actions, to put a microscope on their lewd affairs? They holler equal rights, but the queens and kings of the movement rarely practice what they profess. They are liars and connivers. And I, like many people, find it very asinine to so passionately identify oneself with a sex act that is still illegal in several states. The phrase "domestic partnership" evokes in my mind the image of two amicable couples, such as Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton sharing the expenses of a rented cabin with their wives in the Poconos or in a condo at the shore. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 "marriage" is unjustified and should not even be considered a debate. The only reason homosexuals share household, or whatever else their choice may be, is because of their sexual desire to lust for each other; not to start a family, but to party like it's 1999 or to expensively increase the size of their wardrobes. God created everything in this earth to reproduce. And if something doesn't act according to His plan, they become extinct. Now, has anyone ever heard of the passenger pigeon? It's extinct. How about the Shakers, those pleasant and crafty people who possessed a life style of chastity, even within a marriage. The only thing they cranked out were the innovative household furniture that cost an arm and a leg, and that is their legacy, which isn't in God's plan. Marriage exemptions are not a right. But a benefit. Benefit applies to see people who qualify for special privileges due to special moral and social factors, such as senior citizens, veterans, children, and married heterosexual couples. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 provide for sexual deviants is a place to live and food to eat until their term of incarceration expires.
It is not cruel by any means to equate passing any of the domestic partnership bills with rewarding John Wayne Gacey or Jessie Timmendiquas, the molester of Megan Kanka. Please note, the distinction should not be missed in this analogy. This country is systematically reducing privileges of sexual deviants, not expanding them. Since the beginning of time until 30 or 40 years ago, a family consisted of a husband and wife and one or more child. It was considered abnormal to be a single parent unless you were widowed. Now in this new age of the nuclear family, single parenthood is the norm. And people look at married couples with children as union between Wonder Woman and Superman. You can get the conditions that prevail in our City today. The tolerance level of formerly scornful behavior is preposterous on their own, but to add to the moral confusion about right and wrong and extending benefits to a couple of men who refuse to naturally procreate is just irrational. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 To add to this already-enormous amount residual decay of the upheavals of the seventies by extending rights to people whose mock marriages typically do not last longer than the wedding cake in the freezer, this begs the question, who really benefits and who really loses? I know firsthand partnerships are a dime a dozen and worth less to these impulsive people than the caterer's invoice. Let me tell everyone a story or two of prisoners said to be executed based on tolerance and how tolerance is taken by some people. One was hauled out of cell by burly guards and hauled into a cauldron of boiling water. Severely scalded, he died within minutes. The other prisoner, handled by a different, by meeker group of guards was locked in a little white tile lining the walls. The prisoner thought he was being given a stay of execution, and four hours later, when a guard returned to retrieve the prisoner from his locked room, they opened the door, and the steam cleared. The prisoner's withered body lay on the floor in a ball. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 tossed into the boiling water. He only tolerated his execution easier. With all the new patterns of turmoil happening in the world today, many people are talking about this being the last days, the world, as we know it, ending. But let me remind you of what God said through his prophet Isaiah 400 years or more before the birth of Jesus. For the city stumbled and the nation is falling, because their tongues and their doings are against the Lord. To provoke the eyes of his glory. The look on their continence witnessed against them, and they declared their sin as Sodom. They do not hide it. Woe to their soul, for they have brought evil upon themselves. I ask City Council to defeat these bills. )
Douglas Powell. (Not present.) 398 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
My name is Anthony Marachi, and I am a lifelong citizen of Philadelphia. Good evening, President Street, Members of City Council, citizens of Philadelphia. I make my presence known here today for the sole purpose of voicing my opposition to the life partners bills. My goal here tonight is to convey to you the many reasons which will prove conclusively and beyond the shadow of a doubt the terrible ramifications and consequences which arise as a result of the promotion and practice of homosexuality. The clear and uncompromising position of the Catholic church with regard to homosexuality will also be reflected in my testimony. 399 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 I am of the firm testimony (sic) that if these bills become laws, that they would only hasten the rapid disintegration and destruction of our civilization, and ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race. (Laughter.)
Sins of homosexuality cry to heaven for vengeance, as the Catholic Church teaches, not only because God has often and explicitly condemned them through his revelation in sacred scripture, but also because they are against the very law inscribed in the hearts of men, namely the natural law. What exactly is the natural law? you might ask. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, quote, natural law is nothing other than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law the, light of natural reason whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law is nothing else than the imprint on us of the divine life, closed quotes. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 quote, do good and avoid, evil closed quotes. It is called the natural law for three reasons. Number one, man is subject from it from the moment of birth. Number two, it contains from the very nature of man. I'm sorry -- excuse me. Number two, it contains only those precepts which are derived from the very nature of man. Number three, it can be grasped by the natural light of man's reason without the aid of human authority. Pope Leo XIII concisely summed this up in following words: Quote, the natural law is imprinted and engraved in the hearts of all men, closed quotes. Now, applying this to homosexual practices, we can clearly see that they are in no 19 way, quote, alternates, closed quotes, or even remotely normal, but rather gravely sinful, for they are grave perversions of nature. The reproductive organs have been given to men and women by nature in order to be used by one of each for the propagation of the human species. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 for an end other than that ordained by nature itself. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, quote, an act arising from deliberative reason which is not related to its due end has the character of something evil, close quotes. Herein lies the deviance of homosexual acts. The use of the reproductive mechanism, essentially good in marriage between man and woman, with the end of procreation in mind is terribly perverse and blatantly unnatural between members of the same sex. Homosexual activity, then, is both deviant and destructive. It undermines society itself by attacking its basic unit, the family. So while the souls of these poor sinners must be saved, their so-called, quote, life-style, closed quotes, and militant crusade to, quote, educate, closed quotes, and the public and liberate themselves must be forcefully condemned as contrary both member to nature and the author of that nature. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 malediction for those who practice this abomination. Quote, if anyone lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination. Let them be put to death, their blood be upon them, closed quotes. Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 13. As we can see here, God almighty himself is proscribing the death penalty for those who engage in homosexual activity. By doing so, he's equating homosexuality to murder. In a spiritual sense, a homosexual is a murderer, for he is murdering -- that is killing the soul of him with whom he is engaging in forbidden sexual relations. From the New Testament, quote, the men also having abandoned the natural use of the woman have burned in their lust one towards another. Men with men doing shameless things and receiving in themselves the fitting recompense of their perversity, closed quotes, Romans, Chapter 1, verse 27. There are many quotes in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. I would just give you a few of them. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 1 through 11. Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verses 22 through 25. Deuteronomy, Chapter 23, Verse 18. Judges, Chapter 19,, Verses 22 through 24. Three Kings, Chapter 14, Verse 24. Three Kings, Chapter 15, verse 12. Three Kings, Chapter 22, Verse 47. Four Kings, Chapter 24, Verse 7. Wisdom, Chapter 9 14, Verse 26 and 27. And in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, Verses 9 and 10. 1 Timothy, Chapter 1, 9.
2 Peter, Chapter 2, Verses 6 through 10. And Jude, Chapter 7, Verse 8. All of you who favor homosexuality should research these quotes for yourselves and see with your own eyes and read with your own lips God's revulsion for this abominable evil. I am firmly convinced that if Christians in the past had stood up against the practice and promotion of homosexuality along with other evils proposed for legislation, society today would not be so corrupt, and the human race would not be headed for extinction. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 have been successful in spreading their most abominable sins throughout this land of ours. America the beautiful has become America the Godless. What has become of our nation? We, as a nation, have become demoralized. We have lost the since of sin. How, how have we allowed this to happen? you might ask. I believe that there are various factors which have effected the erosion of the morals of the people of this country. First of all, by kicking God out of the public schools, out of the social institutions, out of the Council chambers, out of the homes, out of our own lives, man has become a depraved individual. Man without God, man without morals, is an animal. Are we better off today as a result of testing God out of the our society, or are we worse off? The answer is quite obvious. The dramatic increase of the crime rate has occurred as a result of the dethroning of God and of a disregard for his divine law. Where God does not reign, Satan takes the throne. 'S 970745, 970749, 970750 this is. All we have to do is look all around us. Evil is rampant everywhere.
Mr. Marachi, we would appreciate it if you would summarize.
-- I would like to say that all legislators have a grave obligation to forbid the passage of any laws which would contribute to the corruption of a people. There is such a thing as moral absolutes, and if these must be -- and these must be adhered and conformed to if true peace and true justice is reign in our. Society God will not allow the sins of a nation to go unpunished. Thank you and God bless you all. (Applause.)
My name is Barbara 406 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 McDowell Dowdall. I am a lifelong resident of the City of Germantown. I am presently in the 13th Ward, 4th Division, 8th Councilmatic District. I want to summarize and say I am a straight surviving sister-in-law of a gay man. He was a wonderful brother to my husband, uncle to his nieces. He felt the opprobrium of his church, but he was still attached to his church in spite of the fact that it rejected him, the person that he was. My marriage was never, ever threatened by him. In fact, it was supported by him, and it has been supported by gay friends, neighbors. And I endorse the passage of at least three bills. (Applause.)
Tom Cardell. (Not present.) 407 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Is there anyone else here from Citizens for a Better Northeast? (No response.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on the bills? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Please come to the table and identify yourself. (Andrea Furtek comes forward.)
Hi, President Street. Good evening. The good news is I will be brief. My name is Andrea Furtek, and I'm a citizen of Philadelphia.
I am here as a citizen of Philadelphia and a seeker of truth and justice. I 408 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 do not claim to represent the truth, only to seek it so, therefore, I thank each of you for your thoughtful consideration of this testimony. The decision made here will have financial and moral implications for this City of Brotherly Love. The financial decision will impact our cultural definition of marriage and family. Although I cannot speak for God, God has revealed through nature that it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Raising that child is the work of family. It is not just a matter of genetics that a man and woman are needed; but rather, God has ordained, regardless of reproductive modality that it is maleness and femaleness that is needed for the care and support of that child. Since the conception of human life requires chromosomes from the man and 23 21 chromosomes from the woman, each human being is a 22 committed partnership of the union of male and 23 female. Since these financial decisions have moral implications, let us look to money for the 409 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 answer to this debate. "In God we trust" is printed on each piece of American currency so let us put our trust in God and invest in God's plan for creation, which is the eternal joining of the male and the female. It is imperative that our civil laws support natural laws. Therefore, I urge all Councilmembers to vote no for the partnership act. The only partnership that nature has ordained to be sexually creative and thereby create a family is that of a man and a woman. Our laws need to support that creative union. Vote no. 14 Thank you for your thoughtful attention. And to paraphrase Tiny Tim, may God bless us all, especially those that boo the loudest. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify? Is there anyone else to testify here this evening? Councilman Longstreth's light is flashing. I assume that that's a mistake. 410 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750
Council will stand at ease. (Council stands at ease.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Will Councilwoman Verna please approach the Chair. (Councilwoman Verna approaches the Chair.) Could I have your attention, please. May I have your attention, please. This brings us to the end of our public hearing. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. First bill for consideration will be Bill No. 97075 -- are we ready? 9707 -- are we ready? A quorum is present motions to bill -- amendments to Bill No. 970750. Yeah, 750.
I'd like to go in 411 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 order, I guess, Mr. President.
It doesn't really matter. I had them in my hand in this order. You wish for me to call them up in the order that they're listed on the notice? Oh, a technicality. Bill No. 970745. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Mr. President, I'm sorry if I missed this. We are in the public meeting now?
We are in public meeting. The Chair recognized you to move the amendment that's already been read into the record to Bill No. 970745.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment, as read in the public hearing, on Bill No. 970745. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. 412 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion to amend Bill No. 970749.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment as read in the record in the public hearing on Bill No. 970749. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on the proposed amendments, as read in the record, to Bill No. 970750.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the three amendments, amendment number 1, amendment number 2, and amendment number 3, as read into the record in the public hearing, on Bill No. 970750. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. And the amendments 413 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970745.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970745 be reported out of committee as a amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Then it is so ordered. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970749, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970749 be reported out of committee, as amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. 414 COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970750.
I move that Bill 5 No. 970750 be reported out of committee, as amended, without recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. I'd like to thank everybody for spending the day with us. Have a good evening, whatever's left of it. (Applause.) (Adjourned at 10:01 p.m.) - - - 415 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 23, 1998 were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 970745, 970749, 970750 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR