On Aug. 29 the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court handed down a decision that struck down Philadelphia’s domestic-partnership law. I authored the original legislation that shaped the signed law and fought hard to have it passed by Philadelphia City Council. The seven-year struggle to have this needed legislation ended in victory in May 1998. With the recent ruling the struggle is now renewed.

When I came to Philadelphia City Council in 1984, I immediately began to review ways to improve the lives of all Philadelphians. One area of concern was the discrepancy in gay and lesbian Philadelphia city worker pay. After all, it is widely regarded that a worker's array of benefits is a substantial and important part of his or her pay package. It only seemed fair that it should include sharing benefits with loved ones. I saw this simply as an extension of my long-term participation in the civil rights movement.

I initially believed that the correct path was to create an all-inclusive bill, which I christened the "Aunt Tilly" bill. This bill would have extended benefits to a loved one that fit in a specific category. A city worker would have been able to designate a domestic partner of either gender or a family member dependent on the worker.

There are many households in the city that are creative by necessity. Many unmarried workers have dependent grandparents, nieces or nephews in their households. These are extended family situations that need to be and should be supported by extending a few basic worker benefits.

The bill also included the extension of benefits to unmarried partners of either gender. According to federal and state law, gay and lesbians are strictly forbidden to marry. There are also opposite gender couples that simply won't submit themselves to marriage.

The opponents of the current "struck down" legislation were as adamantly opposed to the "Aunt Tilly" bill as they were against the legislation that included only same-sex couples. At that time, for a variety of reasons (cost being the main one), many Council members believed that it was necessary to narrow the definition to only same-sex couples to make it passable in the legislature.

Remember, there was strong vocal opposition in City Council to all the various domestic partnership bills and the opponents fought successfully to keep them bottled up in committee. After six years of discussion, and political maneuvering that began in 1992, the logjam was finally broken when Councilmen Michael Nutter and Jim Kenney helped lead a supportive coalition. When passage was imminent and the coalition was poised to vote, only then did Council President John Street express support for the broader legislation. The law was enacted in May 1998.

But now in 2002, we face the Commonwealth Court decision. There are numerous reasons why the decision is flawed and outrageous. The legislation's intent was not to emulate or mimic marriage. In order for the city to compete for qualified employees, we absolutely must provide these types of benefits. Most large corporations and many smaller companies offer many of these benefits.

In the United States, 129 local governments and quasi-governments, 171 Fortune 500 companies, 168 colleges and universities, and 4,019 companies, unions, and nonprofits offer a version of domestic partnership benefits. In 2002, offering domestic partnership benefits is appropriate and expected.

The U.S. General Accounting Office counts 1,049 federal benefits, privileges, and responsibilities, rights that come with marriage. The disparity between what Philadelphia has provided and what the federal government equates as marriage is clear and distant. An unbiased observer would hardly view the ordinances as an attempt to legislate marriage.

Ironically, a few weeks ago the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of second-parent, same-sex adoptions. Now same-sex parents in Philadelphia will have the joy and work of raising children without even basic worker benefits.

We are already studying and formulating potential legislative remedies if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denies the appeal or rules in favor of striking down our legislation. I will not hesitate to fight in every way to make certain that Philadelphians don't lose these basic benefits.

Bear in mind, the opponents of the measures will never cease until everything remotely pro-gay is struck from the law books. They have fought tooth and nail against every basic attempt to protect gay and lesbian rights, even if they are as basic as workplace, housing and lodging protection. The opponents may guise their attacks in the sheep's clothing of "protecting the family," but their malicious bias is palpable.

The city's appeal must be immediate and vigorous. The best legal minds must be brought to the forefront to protect our citizens' rights and benefits.

Angel L. Ortiz is a Philadelphia City Councilman.If you would like to respond to this Slant or have one of your own (850 words), contact Howard Altman, City Paper executive editor, 123 Chestnut St., third floor, Phila., PA 19106 or e-mail altman@citypaper.net.