Chat about Lawrence's potential to enact a domestic partner registry
May 15, 2007
This chat has already taken place. Read the transcript below.
Maggie Childs of the Kansas Equality Coalition, one of the sponsors of a forum on May 4 to discuss issues related to the city of Lawrence's proposed domestic partner registry, will chat with readers at noon on Tuesday, May 15.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison issued a legal opinion recently that Lawrence's proposed domestic partnership registry wouldn't interfere with the state's amendment that bans gay marriage. The issue is pending with the City Commission.
Moderator:
Good afternoon. This is Dennis Anderson, managing editor of the Lawrence Journal-World. Our guest today is Maggie Childs of the Kansas Equality Coalition, one of the sponsors of a forum on May 4 to discuss issues related to the city of Lawrence's proposed domestic partner registry. Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison issued a legal opinion recently that Lawrence's proposed domestic partnership registry wouldn't interfere with the state's amendment that bans gay marriage. The issue is pending with the City Commission.
Moderator:
Welcome Maggie.
Maggie Childs:
Hi. I'll do my best to answer all your questions!
Do Kansas cities have the legal power/authority to force land-lords, employers, or other individuals or businesses to legally recognize same-couple relationships and/or require that such individuals or businesses treat those couples exactly the same as married heterosexual couples? If so, what gives cities that authority (the US Constitution, the KS Constitution, federal/state laws, etc.)?
If not, what legal impact does/will this registry actually have?
Or is/was it always intended merely as a symbolic gesture?
Maggie Childs:
A registry would not give the city that power.
Maggie Childs:
The registry will make it easy for employees to access the employee benefits that many companies already offer to the domestic partners of their employees.
It will also provide legal recognition of relationships that can now be miscontrued as roommate or housekeeper arrangements.
While it will serve to indicate the city's acceptance of diverse families, it is far more than a mere gesture.
If Lawrence does adopt this registry, will the rights it protects extend beyond the city limits? For example, if a partner is hospitalized in Kansas City or Overland Park, will the hospital be bound by the legal protections provided by the city of Lawrence?
Maggie Childs:
To Leslie: The registry as it is drafted provides no rights or responsibilities. It is up to employers and hospitals and other entitles, wherever they may be located, to chose to recognize domestic partnerships. The Kansas Equality Coalition intends to work to gain such recognition by hospitals, for example, once the registry is established.
Will passage of the domestic partner registry allow for two parent adoption? In other words, can one partner become the legal parent of the other partner's child?
Maggie Childs:
Adoption laws will not be affected by the registry.
Moderator:
Can you tell us about the Kansas Equality Coalition? What is the organization's mission?
Maggie Childs:
Our mission is to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity expression, and to ensure the dignity, safety and legal equality of all Kansans.
Maggie Childs:
KEC also worked to pass state legislation that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, but it stalled in the Senate. We'll work on that again next year.
Moderator:
Where is the support and opposition coming from to the city's proposed domestic partner registry?
Maggie Childs:
Support is coming from people who think a registry is a matter of fairness. Our supporters are gay and straight, young and old, religious and secular folk. Which City Commissioners have publicly given the registry their support? Which have publicly opposed it? What are the concerns being voiced by those who are not sure?
Maggie Childs:
Boog Highberger and Sue Hack have indicated their support. No commissioner has opposed it. Can my girlfriend and I get on the registry, even though we are heterosexual? Or is this only open to gay couples?
Maggie Childs:
The registry will be for any unmarried couple. It is as much for heterosexual couples as it is for same-sex couples. There are a lot of reasons why people who can get married, don't. For many people economic considerations make it counter-productive to marry. But they might still need the health insurance an employer offers to domestic partners or have other reasons to publicly declare that they are a couple/family.
Moderator:
How many couples in Lawrence do you think would sign up for a domestic partner registry?
Maggie Childs:
It's hard to predict the extent to which the registry will be used, but in Iowa City, which has a population of about 62,000, there are 72 couples on the registry at the moment.
Moderator:
What effect could a registry have on the business community?
Maggie Childs:
Businesses need to attract and retain the most talented and dedicated employees. Today such employees tend to look for communities that are open-minded. Economic growth is strongest in communities that have been able to attract members of what has been called the "creative class." One thing that the creative class uses to gauge the open-mindedness of a town is how it treats its lgbt community.
KEC was created in the fall of 2005 and consists of chapters in Lawrence, Wichita, Douglas County, Topeka, Salina, Manhattan, and Southwest Kansas.
We helped persuade Johnson County Community College to expand its aniti-discrimination protections; fought House Bill 2299 which would have banned domestic partnership registries all across Kansas; supported the anti-bullying bill that has become law, etc. For more information check out our website: www.kansasequalitycoaltion.org>
The only opppostion seems to be from those who believe homosexuality is immoral. But, as the Supreme Court said in 2003 in Lawrence (not KS) vs. Texas, "Moral disapproval of a group does not justify discrimination." The Catholic church opposes divorce, but divorce is legal.
Religious belief should guide one's life and moral choices, but it should not be used to shape public policy when it would impinge on the freedom of those who hold other religious beliefs.
Commissioners Amyx, Chestnut and Dever have indicated they are still studying the issue.
There has been concern about the cost: Fees would cover all costs.
There has been concern about potential liability for the city if anyone used the registry fraudulently: Lawyers have said there is virtually no likelihood of the city being held liable in such a case.
If we could open up our registry to couples across the state, I think a geat many couples would come to Lawrence from elsewhere in Kansas to get registered. Unfortunately, Attorney General Paul Morrison recommended that the Lawrence registry only be open to residents of Lawrence. This is because one major argument for the registry is the right of home rule, that is, cities have the right to govern their citizens as they see fit to the widest possible extent. Lawrence is home to a very diverse community, a community that voted 70-30% against the 2005 marriage amendment (which defined marriage as heterosexual, and prohibited the extension of the "rights and incidents" of marriage to anyone else).
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Sebelius to address Georgetown grads amid flap May 16, 2012 · 4 comments
- Lawmakers approve $700k for new arts commission May 16, 2012 · 2 comments
- Kansas may be conservative experiment May 16, 2012 · 74 comments
- Blog: Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible May 16, 2012 · 39 comments
- Border business raids cost Kansas City millions in taxes May 16, 2012 · 6 comments
- Group urges Brownback to veto bill aimed at Sharia law May 15, 2012 · 54 comments
- Bishop Seabury receives FEMA grant to build safe room May 16, 2012 · 9 comments
- Sound off: Can you tell us what the safest and the lawful use of a roundabout is for bicyclists and April 29, 2012 · 62 comments
- Republicans at war with each other over redistricting May 15, 2012 · 48 comments
- Blog: What About Bi-Sexuals, Mr. President? Where Is Their Right To Marriage? May 13, 2012 · 227 comments
- Vacation's over: Self refreshed, ready for 10th season at KU May 16, 2012
- Town Talk: County's chief building officer placed on administrative leave; city still waiting on financial numbers related to 9th and N.H. appeal; neighbors near proposed rec complex hire attorney May 16, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Kansas may be conservative experiment May 16, 2012
- Heard on the Hill: Regents to look at raising KU admission standards today; Missouri House passes amendment to spike KU plates; provost explains strategy for faculty, staff raises May 16, 2012
- KU proposes tuition hike of nearly 5 percent, effective next fall May 15, 2012
- Cardiologist — and many others — offer help to 11-year-old entrepreneur who fell victim to theft May 15, 2012
- Three KU professors awarded Fulbright grants May 16, 2012
- City Commission wants Taste Lounge's liquor license revoked May 16, 2012
- Coroner identifies deceased inmate at Douglas County Jail May 14, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
EastSideResident (anonymous) says…
Oops. I thought I was posting a question, not a comment. If my earlier thing comes up as a question, just ignore. Personally, I don't think the registry would take anything away from anyone. It's just a way to be fair and to allow both straight and same-sex couples access to benefits their employers already offer.
KU_cynic (anonymous) says…
Two observations:
First, the DPR seems to be very weak in that recognition of partner rights would still be voluntary by employers, landlords, etc. For example, I imagine that there would be many in the KU community that would like to press for DPR-recognition on campus, but that state law, regents' policy, and extremist politics would render that unlikely.
Second, the numbers from Iowa City (72 registered couples) suggest that this is small potatoes. Perhaps supporters of the DPR should consider encouraging legally married couples to sign up, too. There would be no additional benefits to such couples, but it would allow them to make a political statement in support of unmarried partnerships of others. Imagine if Lawrence could claim to have thousands of registered DPR couples, even if among them only a small number would be unmarried.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
It may seem "small potatoes" that only 72 couples registered in Iowa City, but it's not small potatoes to those 144 individuals.
abcdef1944 (anonymous) says…
Personally, I feel that we are bending the rules too much for people who choose a different lifestyle. I have insurance through my husband because we love and respect each other enough to enter into a marriage that was before God in a church. I feel that we all have the same rights, we just need to choose the way this country was once based on. If you want insurance, either get a job that provides it or get married. For those who are gay, sorry, but don't try to bend our rules to make your lifestyle convenient for you.
SouthernBelle (anonymous) says…
abcedf1944: Good for you. I hope you and you husband will be very happy.
However, I don't think anyone is trying to "bend the rules" to make lifestyle choices convenient. The "rules" as you call them, may be perfect for you, but not for your neighbor. This country is made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs. I don't believe one is superior over another and therefore should all be treated equally.
Souki (anonymous) says…
abcdef1944:
It sounds as if you think that employer-provided benefits, like health insurance, are part of what "this country...was based on." But they aren't. Employer-provided health benefits are a fairly new innovation, they have nothing to do with what this country was founded upon, and there are multiple other models for providing health care this country might (and one day probably will) adopt.
If your rule is that people who want health insurance should either get a job that provides it or get married, and your other rule is that only certain people can get married, then, based on your own religious beliefs, you're depriving others of an option available to you. Those are rules that deserve to be bent.
abcdef1944 (anonymous) says…
My husband and I are very happy, Thank you! But I still believe what I believe. Besides, they're not my rules, I didn't write them, I just live by them. They are the rules of ethics and morals. I'm tired of Christian beliefs being pushed down because we are stepping on toes. One Nation, under God! That's what this country was based on.
SloMo (anonymous) says…
....with liberty and justice for ALL!!!
abcdef1944 (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster.....???????????????
emfft (anonymous) says…
This country is based on freedom and the separation of church and state, not Christianity. If you would stop imposing your beliefs on others, no one would be trying to push them aside.