Archive for Saturday, December 23, 2006

An example of what the registry could look like

December 23, 2006


Details for how a domestic partnership registry would function in Lawrence haven't been determined, but here is how it has worked elsewhere.

¢ Both members of the partnership normally are required to go to a city office - such as the city clerk's office - to sign documents in front of a notary attesting that they are in domestic partnership.

¢ Basic requirements for a relationship to be deemed a domestic partnership usually include that both parties be age 18 or older, live together, have an exclusive and mutual relationship, share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent.

¢ Some communities simply allow couples to sign a sworn statement saying that they are in a domestic partnership. Others require proof of joint ownership of property or joint residency, such as utility bills that show both names, proof of joint bank accounts or other similar documents.

¢ Most programs include a filing fee to cover the costs the city has to administer the program.

¢ Some communities allow heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners if they are not married. Other communities, however, do not allow heterosexual couples to be part of the registry because there is no law prohibiting them from marrying.

¢ Most registries also have a process where couples can dissolve a domestic partnership.

In Iowa City, Iowa, the program has existed since 1994. City leaders there said that the registry - which currently has 67 couples - generally has been well received. But Dale Helling, an assistant city manager, said he couldn't say that the registry has resulted in significant changes in the community's culture.

"I think it is something that has had an obvious positive impact on those who use it," Helling said. "But for the rest of the community, it is just a routine thing that we have now. You really don't hear much in the community for or against it."


Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

This is SO gay! Sorry, someone had to say it.

SettingTheRecordStraight 11 years, 3 months ago

This is an awful idea for our city. I'm saddened to read this article.

Godot 11 years, 3 months ago

Why not just take advantage of existing law? Get a will and/or a trust, title property as joint tenants, establish a living will, a durable power of attorney, a medical power of attorney, have joint checking and savings accounts, take out life insurance and name the beneficiary of your choice, purchase your own health insurance, name the beneficiary of choice on your retirement account, and let your medical provider know, in writing, who, besides you, has access to your medical records.

Just like married folks do.


Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

Godot, because your idea does not pander to Gay Lesbian community in Lawrence just prior to the election, it will not be considered. This is despite the fact that the PLC's (Pandering Lawrence Coalition) DPR (Dumb Pandering Registery) accomplishes nothing and completely useless and your idea accomplishes something.

lorim139 11 years, 3 months ago


Just because you have a will, a medical power of attorney, or any other legal document does not mean that it will be honored by a court of law or a hospital, especially if you are in a same-sex couple. There are any number of stories where people thought they were protected and then found their best-laid plans ignored. The establishment of a recognized partnership makes a difference.

Also, not every job provides medical benefits!

Godot 11 years, 3 months ago

This benefits thing again.

I have a proposal that would solve a multitude of problems.

All employers, cease and desist in providing medical insurance as part of a wage or salary package. Add what you spend on the health insurance to their paychecks, and let them buy their own insurance, a policy they own and control.

Employees of the US, unite and demand your freedom from the yoke of benefits!

canyon_wren 11 years, 3 months ago

Godot, sounds like you have some good suggestions.

I certainly think that if this thing comes to be, it should be available for heterosexual couples who have been together for a while, otherwise it totally looks like it is "pandering to the gay community."

budwhysir 11 years, 3 months ago

We have an example of how this registry would look like??? Sounds like this has moved from an idea to a plan and will be set into action.

jonas 11 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by canyon_wren (anonymous) on December 24, 2006 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I certainly think that if this thing comes to be, it should be available for heterosexual couples who have been together for a while. . ."

What, marriage? Hey, do I have some good news for you!

canyon_wren 11 years, 2 months ago

Jonas--of course I am not referring to marriage. I believe (as you apparently do) that marriage is the "normal" way to go. I am just saying that IN FAIRNESS--if they do institute such an idea (and I am not expressing any approval of the idea), common-law marriages deserve the same sort of "break" that gay unions do. Please don't misunderstand my views on the subject! I totally oppose the idea of gay and lesbian "marriages" but if states want to come up with some sort of arrangement that allows "domestic partners"--whatever their sex--to share benefits, that doesn't bug me particularly.

However, I do think it is kind of stupid to do it at a local level--and is typical of Lawrence's need to look "sophisticated" in a supposedly "backward" state. Personally, I think Kansas is one of the more reasonable states in the Union, though I question the stand on teaching "Creation Science." Guess I am exposing myself to all manner of poster attacks, but maybe since it isthe day before Christmas, most people will be too busy to post!

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

I try not to define things by normal and abnormal, as it's based primarily on personal experience which is, of course, widely variant. Certainly I got married, and I got married in a heterosexual fashion, because I'm heterosexual and the thought of being sexually intimate with another hairy man gives me the heebie-jeebies, but I know, and have been good friends with, quite a number of gay and lesbian folk, who are, by and large, as nice of folk as their heterosexual counterparts, and my interaction with them has given me the belief that they did not choose their orientation any more than I did, which makes me believe that it's either natural, or the product of such subtle environmental factors as to not make any difference. Due to this, I believe that there is no reason to deny them anything, at least not on the state level.

However, I think part of this problem is simply the government taking on a role that it is not equipped for, and has no justification for attempting, that of moral arbiter. At it's basic level, a marriage is nothing more or less than a legal uniting of two people and their properties into one; giving your stuff to someone else, in other words, and letting them make decisions on your behalf. These things should be your to decide, the fact that we allow an overseeing agency to dictate who you can give your own stuff to is rediculous. Their only purpose should be recognizing the union and enforcing it, and if they allow it for one pair, then it should, really, work for all pairings. To be honest, if it would help matters come to fruition, I would let my marriage be turned into a civil union. Again to be honest, I would still call it a marriage, and my wife, my wife, but anyone else could call it whatever they wanted to.

Tychoman 11 years, 2 months ago

canyon_wren, nothing about this says it's limited to gay couples.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.