"Are you prepared to make this country, this state, and this county welcoming to same-sex couples?" Same-sex couples have choices, as I pointed out to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on March 9th, 2003. The original draft of my remarks is below.

Good morning. My name is [xxxxx]. I have lived in Santa Cruz County for two and a half years.

I have in my hands a marriage certificate whose legal status is not in doubt. It's from the Province of Ontario, in Canada. Three different courts in three different provinces found that Canada's Charter of Rights compels recognition of same-sex marriage. The rulings were stayed, to give Canada's Federal Government time to craft a law. The kick came last June, when an appeals court forced the City of Toronto to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the Province of Ontario to register the marriages.

I grew up in Toronto, so I was proud to return there, with my sweetheart of 2 years, to be married. We were married in August, with my parents participating in the ceremony.

Now, I'm a dual citizen. I can move freely between Canada and the U.S. My husband is a U.S. citizen, but I could sponsor him tomorrow for permanent residency in Canada. That's one of the nice things about a legally valid marriage.

Those of you who know me from my transit advocacy work with the Metro Riders Union, and who have seen me at a Metro board meeting, know that I ask tough questions. So here's my tough question for the Board of Supervisors: Where should my husband and I make our future? Should we stay in the U.S., where we are "domestic partners" with minimal legal standing, or should we move to Canada, where we are a regular married couple? Are you prepared to make this country, this state, and this county welcoming to same-sex couples?

I am not so concerned about getting the county clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Hopefully he will change his mind and issue them of his own volition. I do hope that you sign-on to San Francisco's lawsuit.

I do care that you fight the constitutional amendment, because the text that's on the floor today would deny the "incidents of marriage" to same-sex couples. Even domestic partnership would go.

But what I really care about, at this moment, is that you fix local problems for same-sex couples. Here are two examples:

1. Let's say I own a home and add my domestic partner to the title. I have to pay the county several thousand dollars' worth of real estate transfer tax. Waive the transfer tax for domestic partners, just as you do for married couples.

2. Let's say I work for the county and enroll my domestic partner in the health insurance plan. I have to pay federal income tax on his health benefits. Add a top-up payment so that employer-paid health means the same thing for domestic partners as it does for married couples.

There are countless more examples. Fix them before you take up the marriage license issue. Send a firm message that Santa Cruz County treats same-sex couples equally.

Thank you.

Notes from after the hearing

Bradley of the local IndyMedia Cooperative was at the Board of Supervisors Meeting, taking lots of great pictures. In a separate discussion, Bradley has been criticized for posting the photos with a summary rather than a full article. Last fall, Bill Lovejoy of the Sentinel photographed my husband and me for a Sentinel story, and the three of us had a great conversation about news reporting. We bemoaned the lack of photos on the Sentinel Web site. We agreed that pictures can tell some stories better than words, and that more, not less, space should be devoted to visuals. I for one really appreciate Bradley's work!

During the public comment period for items not on the agenda, some very passionate county residents spoke out against roadside pesticide spraying. It sounded like a state-level (Caltrans) program, rather than a local one. I would encourage those speakers to approach individual County Supervisors for letters of support, and then to take the battle to the appropriate level of government.

In their first motion on the marriage issue, the Supervisors voted to write a letter to the County Clerk encouraging him to issue marriage licenses, etc., to same-sex couples. Supervisor Pirie was absent due to a family emergency. Only Supervisor Beautz voted no. I understood Supervisor Beautz's position and hope that other community members will recognize that she wanted to focus on substantive issues.

In their second motion, the Supervisors voted to join San Francisco's lawsuit over same-sex marriage and to oppose a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The vote was unanimous. Again, Supervisor Pirie was absent.

I later discovered that the County might already be providing the federal income tax top-up payment. Need to investigate. Incidentally, there are many non-obvious gaps in standard employer health plans, including non-coverage of the children of the domestic partner and the domestic partner's ineligibility for continuation of benefits under COBRA.

Also, be it known that I am treating the health benefits question as a fairness issue only (one class is covered so other similar classes should be covered). I am against employer health benefits and in favor of a single-payer system that provides coverage to all, regardless of employment status or relationship to an employee. The silly idea that employer health coverage solves problems is what got us here in the first place. Those who don't qualify for employer coverage now have very few options for individual insurance!