he question
of equal justice for all New Yorkers - regardless of race, nationality,
habitation, or sexual orientation - was the major focus of the last City
Council meeting.
Much of the time was devoted to the Equal Benefits Bill, which
requires that companies contracting with New York City for $100,000 or
more provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees, just
as they do to their employees’ spouses.
Three
of the people who worked hardest to bring this bill to fruition were its
author, Council Member Christine Quinn; Robert Jackson, Chair of the
City Council’s Contracts Committee; and Speaker Gifford Miller. They all
agreed strongly that this bill would, in Quinn’s words, "send a message
to taxpayers that when we use their money, we use it with a goal of
equality and full recognition of all people under the law."
Council
Member Philip Reed spoke passionately as an openly gay man. After
describing the "presumption of privileges" which his heterosexual
friends enjoy that are denied to him, he said, "I sit in this chamber
and serve 160,000 people just like every one of my colleagues. I work
just as hard as they do, but still I am a second-class citizen." He
urged his colleagues to take this step not just for him, but for the
hundreds of thousands of people who find themselves in a similar
situation. "We pay taxes to this city," he continued. "All we’re asking
for is the recognition of our family rights just as anyone would like to
see their families recognized."
Some councilmembers, such as Peter Vallone, Jr., opposed the bill not
because they were against domestic partner rights, but because the bill
doesn’t exempt religious institutions from compliance. "It forces
religious institutions to violate their beliefs," stated Vallone.
[columns/ad_middle.htm]
But
Council Member Lewis Fidler, who has often spoken up for the rights of
people to practice their religion as they see fit, countered that
sometimes important rights clash. He asked his colleagues to consider
the bill in the light of "What if someone wanted to do business with the
city but said, ‘We want to do business with you, but we don’t want to
extend the same benefits that we extend to our other employees to our
Jewish employees – or to our Italian employees or to people of color.’
Who would stand for that? I think the moral imperative here is very
clear."
As
many councilmembers explained their vote, it was obvious that the view
of those like Council Member Kendall Stewart prevailed. He said simply,
"I proudly vote aye on the Equal Benefits Bill because I see it strictly
as a matter of equal rights. I believe it would be discriminatory for us
not to extend to employees with domestic partners the same benefits that
are provided to employees with spouses."
When the votes were counted, the bill passed with 43 in favor, 5
against and 2 abstentions.
Two other important pieces of legislation concerning equal justice
were also passed in a voice vote.
Resolution
42 called upon the United States Congress to oppose President Bush’s
federal temporary guest worker program and to support comprehensive
immigration reform that includes permanent legalization and fair worker
protection for immigrants. Its prime sponsor, Council Member Miguel
Martinez, noted that the council has a responsibility to send a clear
message that it opposes any modern-day slavery where workers are
exploited and family unification is at risk. "We must support
legislation that will unite families, that will guarantee protection to
workers and guarantee permanent legalization," Martinez declared.
Resolution 274-A called upon United States Attorney General John
Ashcroft and the Department of Justice to reopen the case of Emmett
Till, in light of the discovery of new information, for a thorough and
complete investigation of his 1955 murder.
We are glad to report that only a few days after the meeting, the
Dept. of Justice did exactly that – reopened the case. Stated R.
Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, "This
brutal murder and grotesque miscarriage of justice outraged a nation and
helped galvanize support for the modern American civil rights movement.
We owe it to Emmett Till, and we owe it to ourselves, to see whether
after all these years some additional measure of justice remains
possible."
In
the final part of the meeting when new resolutions are introduced,
Council Member Margarita Lopez asked her colleagues to support her
legislation that would establish electronic benefit transfer cards,
which contain the cardholder’s name, photograph and other pertinent
information, as a valid form of ID fully recognized by the New York City
Police Department.
Lopez pointed out that homeless people have been increasingly
submitted to harassment because they don’t possess what is considered
valid identification, which can only be obtained by presenting a whole
array of other identification and the payment of $15. "The police
routinely stop them and ask for an ID with an address, but a homeless
person doesn’t have an address because they are homeless by definition!"
she stated emphatically. "But homeless people who are citizens already
have an identification in their hands that should be deemed sufficient
for ID purposes."
