Ron@bbncca.ARPA (10/19/84)
This week's BOSTON PHOENIX (10/16/84) has a long article by Neil Miller
of GCN in its Lifestyle section ("Fair Share?", pp. 1,4-5,12) about ex-
tending insurance coverage and other employee benefits to "domestic
partners", including nonsexual partners such as dependent relatives, etc.
It describes an insurance company set up in 1980, Worker's Trust (Eugene,
OR), to provide just such coverage, and employers that offer its plans:
Village Voice in NYC, South End Press & GCN in Boston.
Two items especially surprised me: mainline insurance companies are
willing to extend coverage even to poorly-defined "domestic partners"
if legislators are firm about making it law, and politicians may reveal
themselves to be wimps when they oppose such extension. Attorney Matthew
Coles, who designed SF's proposed ordinance, persuaded major insurers to
back it when it seemed likely it would be approved. (Months ago, net.motss
discussed the ordinance's weaknesses.) Miller writes that Mayor Feinstein
vetoed it because of her "fear of political repercussions, particularly
in view of strong opposition to the plan from SF Archbishop John Quinn"
(p. 5)! If true, it's incredible. Feinstein isn't Catholic, has few
Catholic constituents (SF has been a notably irreligious town since at
least the 1849 Gold Rush, probably unique among US cities), has a great
many voters who'd've easily favored the ordinance (many singles, gays,
liberated couples, non-Christians, & generally tolerant people), & the
SF Archbishop is an anomaly if not a joke without the clout of other
urban prelates (the Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn film set in SF a few years
back savaged the "archbishop of SF" without compunction). It's absurd
to consider Quinn's opinions indicative of anything. The mayor's a
craven coward!
The article is well worth reading; it reveals how amenable many parties
are to extended coverage. The main obstacle is nervous politicians.
Cheers,
Ron Rizzo