S.F. Supervisors OK ‘Domestic Partner’ Law

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed legislation Monday that officially recognizes gay, lesbian and unmarried heterosexual couples by offering them certificates similar to marriage licenses.

San Francisco thus joins three other California cities in officially acknowledging the legitimacy of people living together outside the bonds of a traditional marriage. San Francisco may also accord so-called “domestic partners” employed by the city health benefits traditionally reserved for husband and wife. The health measure will be decided later after study by a mayoral task force.

“San Francisco is doing something cities all around the country are going to emulate,” said Supervisor Harry Britt, an acknowledged homosexual and author of both measures.

Under the ordinance approved Monday, unmarried couples will be able to obtain certificates officially recognizing their relationship by publicly filing a declaration of domestic partnership with the city clerk’s office or privately with a notary public.

Domestic partners must not be married to other mates, must be at least 18 years old, must not be related in a way that would legally bar marriage and must share living expenses. A $35 filing fee will go toward administrative costs of providing the certificates.

The ordinance also grants domestic partners hospital visitation rights.

The supervisors passed a resolution authorizing the mayoral task force to develop a plan for city employees to claim their domestic partners as dependents on their health plans. At present, only the spouses of married city employees can be claimed as dependents.

The task force will have 90 days to recommend a plan for the city’s Health Service System, which manages the health benefits program. If the plan requires an increase in cost to the city, it will have to go before the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Britt has maintained that the addition of domestic partners would not result in additional costs to the city because it does not pay for the coverage of employee dependents now. Instead, insurance premiums for dependents are an employee responsibility.

San Francisco is the only city among the 10 largest in California that does not pay for the benefits offered to a worker’s spouse and dependents.

‘Little Real Benefits’

“It really creates very little real benefits,” Britt said. “But we’re doing a lot to recognize the fundamental problem of discrimination against these relationships.”

Supervisor Tom Hsieh cautioned the city against moving too quickly on securing health benefits for domestic partners.

“The insurance field is walking in a mine field. If we are not careful, we could lose our benefits or our insurance altogether,” Hsieh said.

In past discussions about domestic partnership, officials have expressed fears that the city’s insurance cost and tax bills may increase if health benefits are extended to gay partners of city employees in a city with a high incidence of AIDS.

Health Service System Director Randy Smith said there may be a slight increase in cost to the city, since it pays for coverage of dependents for 1,284 city-employed nurses. The city has paid for dependent coverage for nurses since the early 1980s to alleviate a nursing shortage.

Smith said the city’s 24,000 employees will face paying higher insurance premiums because uncertainty over the effect of the legislation will increase the risk of providing health coverage.

“There will be an increase in cost. But no one has put a dollar sign on it yet,” Smith said.

Officials from other cities where domestic partnership laws are in place say employee premiums should not be significantly affected.

In Berkeley, where a similar domestic partners ordinance has been in effect since 1985, there has been an insignificant increase in premiums, said Steve Replogole, Berkeley’s risk manager. To date, there have been 108 registrations, 85% of which are by heterosexuals.

Before San Francisco begins its program of issuing certificates for domestic partnerships, it must receive a second vote of approval from the Board of Supervisors and from Mayor Art Agnos. The mayor has said he looks forward to signing the legislation.

Earlier Proposal

In 1982, Britt proposed a similar ordinance that was passed by the board but was vetoed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who called the legislation “vague and unclear.” At that time, San Francisco would have been the first city to adopt laws recognizing domestic partnerships.

Since then, the cities of Berkeley, Santa Cruz and West Hollywood have adopted domestic partnership laws that extend health care benefits to those living with city employees.

Outside California, the city of Seattle’s Human Rights Department ruled several weeks ago that employers with more than four employees in a group health plan must allow employees to claim their unwed partners as dependents. The broad ruling would apply to private firms and the city government.

Because insurance companies and firms with large group health plans have threatened to take the city of Seattle to court, Seattle Mayor Charles Royer has suspended the effect of the ruling until the legal issues are adequately addressed.

Last week, Roman Catholic Archbishop John Quinn called San Francisco’s proposal a “serious blow to our society’s historic commitment to supporting and strengthening marriage and family life.”

Quinn said equating marriage with “even the most transient personal relationships” will lead to “serious negative consequences for the future of our entire society.”