From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: ne.motss,ne.politics
Subject: Cambridge, MA Ordinance Extends Benefits to City Workers' Partners
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:04:10
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: ne
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com


[without permission from the Boston Globe, 15 September
1992]

CAMBRIDGE -- The City Council, by a 5-4 vote, last night
passed the state's first domestic partnership ordinance,
which guarantees health insurance and other benefits to
domestic partners of city employees, regardless of sexual
preference, and to their minor children.

Nearly 20 communities around the country -- from Seattle to
Washington, D.C. -- have passed similar legislation.  A
domestic partnership bill was defeated in Boston in June but
is expected to be reintroduced in November.

Cambridge Councilor Alice K. Wolf, who introduced the
proposal, was visibly pleased by the vote.

"I'm thrilled it has passed.  It's a matter of equity and
justice well served by this ordinance.  We're recognizing
that all kinds of family structures should have support,"
said Wolf.

The new law calls for unmarried heteroseuxal, gay or lesbian
couples who wish to qualify for so-called spousal-equivalant
rights to file a "declaration of domestic partnership" with
the city clerk's office.  The declaration would cost the
couple $10, the same as a marriage license.  The clerk would
issue two wallet-sized cards certifying the couple's status.

Besides health insurance, the new law extends other benefits
and rights similar to those enjoyed by spouses, including
bereavement leave, the right to visit partners in Cambridge
jails and city-run hospitals, and access to the records of
partners' children who attend Cambridge schools.

Voting for the ordinance were Wollf, Mayor Kenneth E.
Reeves, Jonathan Myers, Frank Duehay, and Ed Cyr.  Opposed
were William H. Walsh, Sheila Russell, Timothy Toomey, and
Walter Sullivan.

"The domestic partnership legislation was long overdue in
Cambridge -- and in Massachusetts," said attorney Julia
Gregory, a member of an ad hoc committee that helped draft
the legislation.

Added Cambridge resident Ellen Zucker, president of the
Boston chapter of the National Organization for Women:  "We
have heard a lot about 'family values' this electoral year.
As we have listened to the rhetoric, we have had to wonder
about whose families is the present talking?  For many in
this country, the answer has been 'not mine.'  At least
here, we can say that Cambridge has moved beyond the
politics of exclusion."

Critics charge that the new ordinance, supported by the gay
and lesbian community, does not extend benefits to members
of all family arrangements.

"You should open the door to all types of nontraditional
famility in the city," said Walsh, adding that the measure
should be tabled until all family structures could be
included in the law.  Walsh and other councilors also
expressed concern over what the proposed law would cost the
city.

City Manager Robert W. Healy estimated that the new law
would cost the city about $325,000.

Responding to claims that the law does not go far enough,
Wolf said that a committee will meet later this week to
discuss expanding the alw's definition for other familly
configuarations, including adult children living with
parents and adults siblings who live together.

City employee Susan Weinstein, assistant counsel for the
Cambridge rent control board, who has a spousal equivalent,
expressed delight over the new law, but was concerned over
its federal tax implications.

"We've done what we could at the local level and now we'll
take the issue of the IRS's penalizing nontraditional
families to the federal level," said Weinstein.

The US tax code provides that employees who opt to include
their spousal equivalents on their health insurance face a
tax penalty.

According to tax specialists, the federal tax code states
that if an employer gives an employee anything of value,
such as a car or housing expenses, the dollar value must be
added to the employee's income and is subject to federal
income tax.  A special provision exempts the employee's
spouse and childern from a tax penalty.

Tax specialists point out that spousal equivalents cannot
qualify for the exemption, so the additional cost of adding
a spousal equivalent to the employee's health insurance
becomes taxable income to the employee.