Domestic partners law under attack in S.F

Scan page 4

Right-wing forces in San Francisco have banded together to try and convince this city's voters to vote against Proposition S.

The Board of Supervisors' passage of a local domestic partners ordinance last June sowed great trepidation amidst these self-pro claimed moral leaders. They succeeded in having the issue placed on the ballot and hope to defeat this bill which they see as condoning "legally reprehensible sexual relationships" and "unnatural coupling."

The original efforts to stop the domestic partnership bill were spearheaded by local leaders of the anti-women Operation Rescue and Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Forum.

Recently, in some unspecified shakeup among the ranks of the bigots, two of the most conservative clergymen withdrew from the campaign. A group called San Franciscans for Common Sense, which is now running the anti-Prop. S efforts, has attempted to put some distance between themselves and statements like those quoted above, which will appear in the voter's handbook as the arguments against Prop. S.

According to the Sept. 9 San Francisco Independent, the Common Sense coalition feels this type of statement is inflammatory and bad for their credibility. They prefer offering phony arguments against the bill, including claims that passing the bill will entail large expenditures, higher taxes, and lead to litigations against the city.

Yet other supposedly more moderate religous leaders continue to rant and rave against the very idea of even partially legitimizing any relationship outside of traditional marriages.

In describing the cese position, the Rev. Robert McElroy said: "We don't believe the legitimate civil rights of the gay community extend to undermining the institution of marriage and the family. This ordinance gives marriage the same status as the most temporary of human relationships. It discriminates against married couples. When fully implemented, it will give domestic partners all the legal benefits of marriage and none of the responsibilities."

Limitations of Prop. S Unfortunately, contrary to the Rev. McElroy's opinion, passage of Prop. S will not give full rights to lesbian and gay couples— whom the Reverend apparently views as engaged in only temporary relationships. Nor will passage of the domestic partnership bill give full rights to the many heterosexual couples who don't choose to marry.

All the domestic partnership law would do is allow San Francisco adults who live together in committed relationships and agree to be responsible for each other's basic living expenses (such as food and housing) to register as domestic partners. Couples registering could do so by paying a nominal fee and filing with the county clerk or signing a statement in front of a notary.

Provisions for dissolution of partnerships are included. Specific effects of the ordinance's passage would allow domestic partners to visit each other in San Francisco hospitals, and city employees would be granted funeral leave if their domestic partner dies.

Domestic partnership as defined in the legislation will not confer the same rights as legal marriage. Domestic partners would still have to make out wills to entitle each other to any inheritances. Powers of attorney would still be needed to avoid having one partner being excluded from any role in decision-making if the other partner became incapacitated.

The stadium "tradeoff"

The current bill, with all of its limitations, is the culmination of years of effort by lesbian and gay activists. Despite the widely held vision of San Francisco as a mecca where lesbian and gay rights are a given, this is the 16th version of a domestic partnership law.

Meanwhile, city officials and other Democratic Party politicians want supporters of domestic partnership to jump through a few more hoops to win even the modest gains that passage of the ordinance will bring.

San Franciscans who go to the polls on Nov. 7 will also be faced with voting for or against a plan to erect a new baseball stadium. Mayor Art Agnos' office has sought to link these two disparate issues, pressuring supporters of Prop. S to endorse the stadium deal (which will appear on the ballot as Proposition P) as a tradeoff for political support for Prop. S.

The same politicians who can't find a way to expend city funds on health coverage for domestic partners, let alone for the poor and homeless who reside here, are expending major energy to garner support for the new stadium. The lion's share of the profits from the proposed stadium will find its way into the pockets of already wealthy investors, developers, and Bob Lurie, the multibillionaire owner of the San Francisco Giants baseball team.

Despite the limitations of Prop. S, activists correctly view the bill as a step forward. It will lay the basis for expanding the rights of domestic partners. These rights need to be expanded until all non-traditional family groups have the same rights as married couples.

"Yes on S" Campaign Manager Dick Pabich told Socialist Action that a wide spectrum of groups has come out in support of Prop. S. Volunteers are being organized to do phone-banking, streetcorner tabling, and other outreach work to get people out to the polls on Nov. 7. Socialist Action urges San Franciscans to vote "Yes on S."

and Fresno, Calif., where Terry was absent from the OR defense team, the anti-abortionists were convicted of misdemeanors. In Fresno, it took the jury less than 30 minutes to deliberate.

Unfortunately, the Los Angeles trial made a larger splash in the media. It had a negative effect on a related federal case in Los Angeles in which Judge A. Wallace Tashima backtracked on a civil rights law he had acknowledged three weeks earlier. Tashima now excluded the law, which federal courts in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and New York (just last month have used to protect women's rights.

The defeat suffered in both Los Angeles courts has given a green light to OR's terroristic methods. It raises the possibility that the police will be even slower and less likely to enforce the laws protecting women's access to clinics.

Supporters of women's rights must counter these developments by mobilizing large defense efforts at the clinics to ensure that OR can't get away with this setback to our rights.

In his closing trial arguments, Operation Rescue leader Randall Terry claimed he was following in the footsteps of "Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King.' " He reminded the jury of the time "when Blacks were relegated to the backs of buses and women had no right to vote."

But Terry's pretentions of being a civil rights fighter were given a blow on Sept. 13 when African America Women for Reproductive Rights, a coalition of major Black women's organizations, reinforced its support for abortion rights.

At the same time, many civil rights activists have signed a letter that states:

"Perhaps it is more accurate to compare OR demonstrations to the segregationists who fought desperately to block Black Americans from access to their rights. "-B.J.

The War on The War "XASY Against BAK#i Rights: How Abortion 810% ніO set 9h0 to Fight Rights 'Operation Rescue' and .. 69092฿2 the Right to Life' By Carole Seligman Price: $1.00 Mail order to: 3435 Army St., Rm.

308, San Francisco, CA 94110.