Supporters of the law say that it is only fairthat domestic partners of city employees get thesame health benefits currently provided to thespouses of heterosexual employees.

Thirty to 40 percent of city salaries arerepresented by these health benefits, says NancyM. Ryan, a member of the working group.

"So much compensation is contained in [thecity's] benefits package," says Hyde. "There's noreason not to extend those benefits to allemployees who have family obligations."

While she did not voice her opposition onWednesday night's meeting because she says shethought it would have been "a losing battle," CityCouncillor Sheila T. Russell worries that theextended benefits will cost the city too muchmoney.

Russell says that while many Cantabrigiansoppose the ordinance, no one attended Wednesday'smeeting to speak against it because they were"afraid of being accused of being homophobic."

"I hear them on the street," she says. "Thereare a lot of taxpayers who feel that it's a lot ofmoney to be expended on [extra] insurance benefitswhen regular city employees and retirees benefitsare [being cut]."

Health benefits for domestic partners violatethe religious freedom of tax payers who don't wantto "subsidize" behavior that they feel is immoral,says C. Joseph Doyle, executive director of theMassachusetts Chapter of the Catholic League for aReligious and Civil right, the organization whichhelped defeat a similar proposed ordinance inBoston.

Wolf counters that the extra cost, which isexpected to be between $300,000 and $500,000, willrepresent only a small percentage of the city's$25 million insurance budget.

Supporters also point out that not all domesticpartnerships will want to register with the cityand thus not all will ask for health benefits.

"There are people who might feel inhibited andmight be afraid of being identified by thecommunity and city hall as [homosexual]," saysArthur S. Lipkin '68, a Cambridge resident andgay activist. "There's an informal network ofgossip in the city."

And, Lipkin adds, "not every gay person in arelationship."

Lipkin says that he, however, is eager toregister with the city.

"I would hope to be the first in line," hesays.

Opponents of the bill maintain that it allowsuncommitted couples to take unfair advantage ofspecial privileges.

"I could go out and get a guy and say 'hey,let's be a couple and register at city hall,"Russell says.