Changing Families, Benefits

Cambridge resident Margaret Cerullo and her lover Marla Erlin share most of the usual parental concerns it comes to raising their two year old adopted daughter, sophie. Like other parents, they want to be actively involved in overseeing her education at the Cambridge public school she will attend.

Unlike heterosexual couples, through, Cerullo and Erlin will have to deal with an obstacle to participating fully and equally in Sophie's education. When Sophie goes to School, there is the chance that one of her mothers will not be recognized by the school as her parent because the women are not married. One could legally be prevented from signing Sophie out of school or attending parent-teacher conferences and open houses.

But that could change. Creole spoke last night at a meeting of the city's ordinance committee to express her support for a proposed law that would make their partnership legally binding in Cambridge. The ordinance would ensure that Sophia never hears that "one of us is not really her mother," Creole said.

Citing statistics that show only 25 percent by he traditional nuclear family, City Councilor Alice K. Wolf

introduced a "domestic partnership" ordinanceWednesday night. The law would make Cambridge thefirst city in Massachusetts to extend to unmarriedcouples some of the rights currently enjoyed by"traditional" families.

The law, many say, will allow 'nontraditionalfamilies," those headed by unmarried and/orhomosexual couples, "to live in dignity."

And both opponents and supporters of theproposed law say that the ordinance will mostlikely be approved on a five-to-four vote when theit reaches a meeting of the full City Council thisSeptember.

The bill was researched and written two yearsago under by a working group under the guidance ofthen-Mayor Wolf. It would allow unmarriedcouples--both heterosexual and homosexual--to gaina "domestic partnership" license from city hallfor the same fee as a marriage license.

Such a documents would allow non-biologicalparents access to the school records of thechildren of a domestic partner. Members of adomestic partnerships would be guaranteed theright to visit the other partner at Cambridgehospitals when access to him of her becomesrestricted to family members.

In addition, the ordinance would allowCambridge employees to enroll their domesticpartners in the city's health insurance programs.

Gay rights activists applaud the ordinance.

"To me the passage of the ordinance is a simplematter of economic equity and social justice,"said Sue Hyde, a member of the Cambridge gayrights group Lavender Alliance and the workinggroup which drafted the law.

"There's a high level of interaction that goeson between schools and parents," Hyde says. "It'sfundamentally impractical for a parent notinteract with the school system on behalf of [hisor her] children."

Although the school system has rarelymarginalized one of a child's parents, Hyde whoselover is expecting a baby in October, says the lawis necessary to safeguard her status as a parent.

"Some person might take it upon him or herselfthat I am not a parent but a problem," she said.

While no citizens spoke against the ordinanceWednesday night, the proposed law has generatedsubstantial controversy because of its provisionthat extends health benefits to domestic partners.

Supporters of the law say that it is only fairthat domestic partners of city employees get thesame health benefits currently provided to thespouses of heterosexual employees.

Thirty to 40 percent of city salaries arerepresented by these health benefits, says NancyM. Ryan, a member of the working group.

"So much compensation is contained in [thecity's] benefits package," says Hyde. "There's noreason not to extend those benefits to allemployees who have family obligations."

While she did not voice her opposition onWednesday night's meeting because she says shethought it would have been "a losing battle," CityCouncillor Sheila T. Russell worries that theextended benefits will cost the city too muchmoney.

Russell says that while many Cantabrigiansoppose the ordinance, no one attended Wednesday'smeeting to speak against it because they were"afraid of being accused of being homophobic."

"I hear them on the street," she says. "Thereare a lot of taxpayers who feel that it's a lot ofmoney to be expended on [extra] insurance benefitswhen regular city employees and retirees benefitsare [being cut]."

Health benefits for domestic partners violatethe religious freedom of tax payers who don't wantto "subsidize" behavior that they feel is immoral,says C. Joseph Doyle, executive director of theMassachusetts Chapter of the Catholic League for aReligious and Civil right, the organization whichhelped defeat a similar proposed ordinance inBoston.

Wolf counters that the extra cost, which isexpected to be between $300,000 and $500,000, willrepresent only a small percentage of the city's$25 million insurance budget.

Supporters also point out that not all domesticpartnerships will want to register with the cityand thus not all will ask for health benefits.

"There are people who might feel inhibited andmight be afraid of being identified by thecommunity and city hall as [homosexual]," saysArthur S. Lipkin '68, a Cambridge resident andgay activist. "There's an informal network ofgossip in the city."

And, Lipkin adds, "not every gay person in arelationship."

Lipkin says that he, however, is eager toregister with the city.

"I would hope to be the first in line," hesays.

Opponents of the bill maintain that it allowsuncommitted couples to take unfair advantage ofspecial privileges.

"I could go out and get a guy and say 'hey,let's be a couple and register at city hall,"Russell says.

Supporters reply that abuse will most likely beminimal, since other cities that have enacteddomestic partnership laws have experienced littlesuch trouble.

George E. Benson, president of the Seattle citycouncil which passed a health benefits ordinancein 1990, says that "people have respected [theordinance]."

"Over-utilization is not a problem," he says.

City Councillor William H. Walsh raised anotherissue at Wednesday night's meeting, suggestingthat perhaps legislating the inclusion on onegroup of people in city benefit plans would simplyserve to exclude other groups.

"The problem is I think you cover everybody oryou cover nobody," says Walsh, who expressedconcern that the bill does not include othernon-traditional families, for instance those thatconsist of only siblings.

"You're creating another class of employees whodon't get benefits," Walsh says.

A dozen American cities have already adopteddomestic partnership ordinances. The Percentage ofemployees registering for domestic partnershipvaries from nearly 10 percent in Berkeley to lessthan one percent in neighboring San Francisco.

Berkeley, which was the first city to adoptsuch a law, also allows non-residents to registeras "domestic couples."

While Berkeley has the highest participationrate, Marc Slavin, spokesperson for Mayor LonniHancock says that "most of people who areparticipating are heterosexual."

But even if the highest participation comesfrom straight couples, the law is undeniablydesigned to primarily address the needs of gay menand lesbians. The city, they say, has beenignoring both their rights and reality for toolong.

"It is incumbent upon the City of Cambridge toenter in debate on behalf of families, not thefantasy families in the mind of Dan Quayle," Hydesays.CrimsonDavid E. RosenCouncillor ALICE K. WOLF (center) givestestimony at Wednesday's meeting

introduced a "domestic partnership" ordinanceWednesday night. The law would make Cambridge thefirst city in Massachusetts to extend to unmarriedcouples some of the rights currently enjoyed by"traditional" families.

The law, many say, will allow 'nontraditionalfamilies," those headed by unmarried and/orhomosexual couples, "to live in dignity."

And both opponents and supporters of theproposed law say that the ordinance will mostlikely be approved on a five-to-four vote when theit reaches a meeting of the full City Council thisSeptember.

The bill was researched and written two yearsago under by a working group under the guidance ofthen-Mayor Wolf. It would allow unmarriedcouples--both heterosexual and homosexual--to gaina "domestic partnership" license from city hallfor the same fee as a marriage license.

Such a documents would allow non-biologicalparents access to the school records of thechildren of a domestic partner. Members of adomestic partnerships would be guaranteed theright to visit the other partner at Cambridgehospitals when access to him of her becomesrestricted to family members.

In addition, the ordinance would allowCambridge employees to enroll their domesticpartners in the city's health insurance programs.

Gay rights activists applaud the ordinance.

"To me the passage of the ordinance is a simplematter of economic equity and social justice,"said Sue Hyde, a member of the Cambridge gayrights group Lavender Alliance and the workinggroup which drafted the law.

"There's a high level of interaction that goeson between schools and parents," Hyde says. "It'sfundamentally impractical for a parent notinteract with the school system on behalf of [hisor her] children."

Although the school system has rarelymarginalized one of a child's parents, Hyde whoselover is expecting a baby in October, says the lawis necessary to safeguard her status as a parent.

"Some person might take it upon him or herselfthat I am not a parent but a problem," she said.

While no citizens spoke against the ordinanceWednesday night, the proposed law has generatedsubstantial controversy because of its provisionthat extends health benefits to domestic partners.

Supporters of the law say that it is only fairthat domestic partners of city employees get thesame health benefits currently provided to thespouses of heterosexual employees.

Thirty to 40 percent of city salaries arerepresented by these health benefits, says NancyM. Ryan, a member of the working group.

"So much compensation is contained in [thecity's] benefits package," says Hyde. "There's noreason not to extend those benefits to allemployees who have family obligations."

While she did not voice her opposition onWednesday night's meeting because she says shethought it would have been "a losing battle," CityCouncillor Sheila T. Russell worries that theextended benefits will cost the city too muchmoney.

Russell says that while many Cantabrigiansoppose the ordinance, no one attended Wednesday'smeeting to speak against it because they were"afraid of being accused of being homophobic."

"I hear them on the street," she says. "Thereare a lot of taxpayers who feel that it's a lot ofmoney to be expended on [extra] insurance benefitswhen regular city employees and retirees benefitsare [being cut]."

Health benefits for domestic partners violatethe religious freedom of tax payers who don't wantto "subsidize" behavior that they feel is immoral,says C. Joseph Doyle, executive director of theMassachusetts Chapter of the Catholic League for aReligious and Civil right, the organization whichhelped defeat a similar proposed ordinance inBoston.

Wolf counters that the extra cost, which isexpected to be between $300,000 and $500,000, willrepresent only a small percentage of the city's$25 million insurance budget.

Supporters also point out that not all domesticpartnerships will want to register with the cityand thus not all will ask for health benefits.

"There are people who might feel inhibited andmight be afraid of being identified by thecommunity and city hall as [homosexual]," saysArthur S. Lipkin '68, a Cambridge resident andgay activist. "There's an informal network ofgossip in the city."

And, Lipkin adds, "not every gay person in arelationship."

Lipkin says that he, however, is eager toregister with the city.

"I would hope to be the first in line," hesays.

Opponents of the bill maintain that it allowsuncommitted couples to take unfair advantage ofspecial privileges.

"I could go out and get a guy and say 'hey,let's be a couple and register at city hall,"Russell says.

Supporters reply that abuse will most likely beminimal, since other cities that have enacteddomestic partnership laws have experienced littlesuch trouble.

George E. Benson, president of the Seattle citycouncil which passed a health benefits ordinancein 1990, says that "people have respected [theordinance]."

"Over-utilization is not a problem," he says.

City Councillor William H. Walsh raised anotherissue at Wednesday night's meeting, suggestingthat perhaps legislating the inclusion on onegroup of people in city benefit plans would simplyserve to exclude other groups.

"The problem is I think you cover everybody oryou cover nobody," says Walsh, who expressedconcern that the bill does not include othernon-traditional families, for instance those thatconsist of only siblings.

"You're creating another class of employees whodon't get benefits," Walsh says.

A dozen American cities have already adopteddomestic partnership ordinances. The Percentage ofemployees registering for domestic partnershipvaries from nearly 10 percent in Berkeley to lessthan one percent in neighboring San Francisco.

Berkeley, which was the first city to adoptsuch a law, also allows non-residents to registeras "domestic couples."

While Berkeley has the highest participationrate, Marc Slavin, spokesperson for Mayor LonniHancock says that "most of people who areparticipating are heterosexual."

But even if the highest participation comesfrom straight couples, the law is undeniablydesigned to primarily address the needs of gay menand lesbians. The city, they say, has beenignoring both their rights and reality for toolong.

"It is incumbent upon the City of Cambridge toenter in debate on behalf of families, not thefantasy families in the mind of Dan Quayle," Hydesays.CrimsonDavid E. RosenCouncillor ALICE K. WOLF (center) givestestimony at Wednesday's meeting