Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: SF Domestic Partners Ordinance
Message-ID: <676@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 12:21:06 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.676
Posted: Tue Apr 17 12:21:06 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 07:29:30 EST
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 21

Half read your msges on this subj as they scrolled by in the digest.

The SF ord did not just extend protection to any old cohabitor.  You would
have been required to register your partnership.  And you couldn't change
partners more frequently than every six months.  (That is, after telling the
city you had dissolved a partnership, you'd have top wait six mo. before
you could file a new declaration.)

Given this, why would a (non-homophobe) oppose the ord?  We're barred from
marriage - that won't change any time soon, I don't think - so this is
an attempt to give us some of the benefits.  Why shouldn't we be able to
to get insurance benefits?  (Or for that matter, do a lot of other
things, like filing taxes and inheriting easily, which wouldn't be changed by
this ordinance.)
-------

Posted for bbncca!handel by bbncca!sdyer
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA