Domestic Partner Benefits Stir Controversy

Frederick T. Long is fed up.

The 71-year-old resident of South Boston does not want his tax dollars supporting people living together without the sanction of marriage.

Long speaks fondly about his nine children and 26 grandchildren and the importance of family relationships. He said a law sanctioning domestic partnership is an offense to those values.

According to the city of Boston, domestic partners are two adults who share living expenses, assume responsibility for the other's welfare, and are not married to anyone else.

When Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino issued an executive order that extended health benefits to these domestic partners, Long knew he had to fight back.

Benefits for domestic partners were approved in July by Boston lawmakers as a home rule petition. The move would have meant the municipalities had the right to choose whether to extend benefits to domestic partners, but Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed the measure.

Cellucci was ambivalent towards the proposal but ultimately thought it was not in line with bills passed in other cities, including Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia, which do not extend benefits to heterosexuals.

He said he would have signed a bill that extended benefits to homosexuals alone, but he said including heterosexuals "undermines strong marriages."

Cellucci vetoed the bill in July, but Menino implemented it by an executive order in August.

Several other cities in Massachusetts had passed similar laws without approval from the legislature, and members of Cellucci's legal team are researching their legality.

Long and nine other taxpayers requested an injunction against the executive order, and last Wednesday the motion was reviewed in court.

The plaintiffs in the case are supported by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Catholic Action league.

In a 90-minute hearing, lawyers from the Center for Law and Justice argued that the mayor had overstepped his power and

is in conflict with the regulations for health benefits in Massachusetts.

The defense argues that state law defines only a minimum standard for health benefits and the mayor is within his rights to allocate further city funds as he wishes.

But the courtroom discussion hides the actual concerns of the plaintiffs.

Tony R. Doherty, one of the plaintiffs and a resident of Jamaica Plain, said he could not understand the mayor's action and thought it was the result of political pressure.

"For 2000 years, we've lived under a Judeo-Christian ethic," Doherty said. "Everything we've believed in shouldn't change."

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, was also present at the hearing and said this law was an overwhelming burden on tax-payers.

Despite city officials' estimates that the law costs $200,000, Doyle said that it actually has the potential to cost up to $8 million.

Doyle said Menino's hasty implementation of the law suggests he does not have the interests of his constituents in mind.

"[Menino] is using tax dollars to reward a powerful special interest," he said.

After hearing both arguments, in court, Judge Charles Grabau said he would issue a decision, but that this case would likely be settled by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Doyle said he agreed the case would continue and he was confident that the views of the League's members would be heard

is in conflict with the regulations for health benefits in Massachusetts.

The defense argues that state law defines only a minimum standard for health benefits and the mayor is within his rights to allocate further city funds as he wishes.

But the courtroom discussion hides the actual concerns of the plaintiffs.

Tony R. Doherty, one of the plaintiffs and a resident of Jamaica Plain, said he could not understand the mayor's action and thought it was the result of political pressure.

"For 2000 years, we've lived under a Judeo-Christian ethic," Doherty said. "Everything we've believed in shouldn't change."

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, was also present at the hearing and said this law was an overwhelming burden on tax-payers.

Despite city officials' estimates that the law costs $200,000, Doyle said that it actually has the potential to cost up to $8 million.

Doyle said Menino's hasty implementation of the law suggests he does not have the interests of his constituents in mind.

"[Menino] is using tax dollars to reward a powerful special interest," he said.

After hearing both arguments, in court, Judge Charles Grabau said he would issue a decision, but that this case would likely be settled by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Doyle said he agreed the case would continue and he was confident that the views of the League's members would be heard