Archbishop Challenges S.F. Domestic Partners Law

This city’s new domestic partners ordinance has brought it into direct confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church, which says the regulation violates the church’s doctrine and moral code.

At a news conference Monday, Archbishop of San Francisco William Levada said he hopes that the city will find a way to continue funding Catholic Charities, the social welfare arm of the church that operates a myriad of services for San Francisco’s poor and needy.

But Levada also said that he believes that the ordinance, passed in November, violates the church’s constitutional rights and would not withstand a court challenge.

“I am not a person who likes to litigate, and I am not anxious to pursue that course,” Levada said. But “the heart of this problem” is an effort “to force a church to adopt a policy on the basis of activity which is contrary to its moral code,” he said.

After Levada’s news conference, a spokesman for Mayor Willie Brown said that he is determined that all city contractors will comply with the ordinance, which requires them to extend spousal benefits to the domestic partners of employees by June 1.

“The mayor is always willing to talk to the archbishop,” said P.J. Johnston. “But there will be no exemptions.”

At issue is the November action of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors--the first of its kind in the nation--requiring that any company or nonprofit organization doing business with the city offer domestic partner benefits.

While the move has generally been accepted by thousands of companies contracting with the city, United Airlines and the Catholic Church have raised objections.

In a letter sent to Brown on Dec. 20, Levada asked that Catholic Charities, the church’s social welfare arm, be exempted. The organization, with 280 local employees, provides food, shelter, counseling and other services to thousands of poor or sick San Franciscans, including HIV and AIDS patients.

About $5.6 million, or 40% of Catholic Charities’ local budget, is funded by the city and supports 14 programs, Levada said.

The archdiocese still hopes to persuade the city to exempt Catholic Charities from the domestic partners ordinance, he said. But if no compromise is possible, church leaders may challenge the ordinance in court on constitutional grounds, the archbishop said.

“I am encouraged to think that with responsible and respectful dialogue, we will be able to achieve a satisfactory solution,” Levada said.

But the city also has been unable to reach agreement with United Airlines, which in September negotiated a 25-year lease with San Francisco for a new flight kitchen and an equipment repair facility at San Francisco International Airport. United Airlines is the largest lessee at the airport.

The Board of Supervisors has delayed signing the lease, hoping to persuade United to include a commitment that it will work toward extending benefits to domestic partners throughout its nationwide labor force of 86,000 people. United said the lease should be signed without changes.

Levada’s dispute with the city became public in January, after his letter to Brown was leaked to the press.

At the time, the mayor said Catholic Charities was not a church and accused Levada of injecting religious doctrine into a governmental issue.

Levada expressed regret Monday that Brown has not yet met with him and that the issue has caused such a furor in the city, where gay activists have denounced Levada’s position.

After Levada’s letter was made public, several Catholic members of the board of directors for Leland House, a new, 45-bed facility for AIDs patients built by Catholic Charities and scheduled to open Feb. 8, resigned in protest.

Among those who resigned was Leslie Katz, a lesbian member of the Board of Supervisors. Katz said Monday that she believes that Levada is willing to work out an agreement with city officials.

“We cannot have a religious exemption. That violates the Constitution,” she said. Though not specific about the terms of a possible compromise, she said, “I have no doubt that we will be able to reach some sort of resolution . . . that would not require the church to compromise its principles and not require us to violate the law.”

Levada insisted that his stance is not aimed at the gay community.

“I am not anti-gay,” the archbishop said. “Many of the Catholics of this city are gay or lesbian citizens. They are welcome in our churches.”

But gay activists have cited the fact that before Levada arrived in San Francisco, and before he served as archbishop of Portland, Ore., he served for six years on the church’s theological watchdog agency, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--which issued one of the church’s most uncompromising statements about gay relationships in 1986.

Homosexual actions are “intrinsically disordered,” the congregation said, urging bishops to oppose any laws that would grant homosexuals special rights.

Among laws to be opposed, the congregation said, are those that “confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment.”

Levada’s request for an exemption from the San Francisco ordinance is certain to enjoy wide support among fellow bishops, a spokesman for Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said in Los Angeles.

“When these kinds of issues come up, the concern of the church always is what reflection is this going to have on marriage and family life,” said Father Gregory Coiro, Mahony’s spokesman.

Curtius reported from San Francisco and Stammer from Los Angeles.