Archive for Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Domestic partnership registry opens today
Same-sex couples hail recognition
Partners Jill Kuhnheim, left, and Theresa Shireman joke with their 2-year-old son, Julian, during dinner Tuesday night in their Lawrence home. Kuhnheim and Shireman, who have been in a 12-year relationship, say they plan to fill out an application for the city’s domestic partnership registry program that begins today.
August 1, 2007
Advertisement
Domestic registry to go live
The state's first registry for unmarried couples will go live online in Lawrence tomorrow. Gay and heterosexual couples can apply to the city's domestic partnership registry at www.lawrenceks.org. Enlarge video
Lori Messinger discusses Domestic Registry benefits
Hear Lori Messinger discuss what benefits she thinks the registry will provide.
Frank Reeb discusses Domestic Registry requirements
Frank Reeb, city clerk, discusses the requirements that must be met to be included on the city's domestic partnership registry.
Domestic partnership registry
Registry requirements
People can apply for the domestic partnership registry only online. The application form can be found at www.lawrenceks.org. There is a $75 fee that must be paid at the time of registration.
Among some of the requirements that must be met are:
- Must be age 18 or older.
- Both members of the partnership must be Lawrence residents and must have lived at least 60 consecutive days in Lawrence.
- Must share a residence and must both contribute to supporting the household.
- Neither member can be married or part of another domestic partnership.
Lori Messinger already feels like she is part of a true partnership.
Yes, it is with another woman, which in this state means it won’t be called a marriage. But don’t tell Messinger it is not a partnership. Not after her companion of 15 years, Boo Tyson, stood by her as Messinger’s father was dying. Not after Tyson moved not once, but twice, so Messinger could build her career as a social welfare professor. And not after they balance the checkbook each month. It sure feels like a partnership when they watch both of their salaries go to pay for their jointly owned Lawrence home.
“You know, we fight about money and all the other things people deal with in regular life,” Messinger said. “We’re partners of the same sex, but in every other aspect of our lives, we live a very normal family life.”
Today, Messinger won’t have to just feel that she’s in a partnership. She’ll be able to show it, too. That will be courtesy of a new card and certificate that city leaders will be issuing as part of a domestic partnership registry program, which is the first in the state.
The registry begins accepting applications today at www.lawrenceks.org.
Gay and lesbian couples across the city said it will be a special day for them. The registry is open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, but the registry particularly was pushed by homosexual couples because the Kansas constitution prohibits gay marriage.
“We want that piece of paper that says we’re being recognized, at least by the city of Lawrence,” said John P. Connolly, who is in a partnership with Steve Maceli. “It is just recognition. That is what we want. We’re a legitimate couple; we’re a committed couple.”
The registry doesn’t grant members of a domestic partnership the legal benefits that come with marriage. But supporters of the registry have said it will make it easier for employers to add domestic partners of their employees to the company’s health care plan. Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity.
Many couples on Tuesday, however, said the insurance issue was not why they were going to sign up for the registry. Several were employees of Kansas University, which does not offer domestic partner benefits, and nothing in the city ordinance requires companies or organizations to extend health benefits to domestic partners.
For those people, joining the registry is about much more than health benefits. It is about social change.
“There are a lot of (gay) people afraid of what society’s response will be to them,” said Kelly Barth, who has been in a 10-year partnership with Lisa Grossman. “I want people to begin to see and acknowledge people who are different than them and make that shift in their own mind.”
Messinger said she hopes the registry will provide a symbol of normalcy to same-sex partnerships.
“I think it would help younger people who are just realizing they are gay or lesbian to see that it is sort of normal. To see that there are a lot of gay and lesbian people out there and that we have good lives,” she said. “It allows us to be present in that way, and I think that is a good thing.”
Theresa Shireman said the registry more than anything else is a sign of what the city stands for.
“I think it is an important thing for Lawrence to do,” said Shireman, who is raising a son with her partner, Jill Kuhnheim. “We were at a position where we were thinking about moving into Kansas City. These kind of things make an important difference in our decision.
“It is really about the community saying we accept all different types of families here, and we value diversity.”
City commissioners approved the registry in late May after hearing large amounts of public comment both for and against the registry. Commissioners approved the registry on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Mike Amyx opposing it on grounds that it overstepped the city’s role.
31 July 2007 at 11:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
FormerCentralKansan (Anonymous) says…
Will they have a satellite office out at Riverfront Park in North Lawrence for all the perverts who infest that place. Don't ever bring your kids out there or run your dogs. That place is *crazy*!
31 July 2007 at 11:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wwwd (Anonymous) says…
FCK….who said anything about perverts?
31 July 2007 at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DonQuipunch (Anonymous) says…
Sick.
1 August 2007 at 12:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
I just want to encourage all of the poodles and mariposas to give the city the $75 for this. It will help to defray the costs of the inevitable losing legal battles.
1 August 2007 at 12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JHawker (Anonymous) says…
Lawrence is taking another step in the right direction :-)
1 August 2007 at 3:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Voice_of_Reason (Anonymous) says…
I suppose this means ol’ Freddie and his gaggle of cult members will be in town tomorrow… guess I’ll have to stop by Hyvee and see if they have any intelligently designed rotten tomatoes meant for the higher purpose of loading my water balloon sling shot and being hoisted into the heavens only to rain down upon the heads of the bible thumping, backwoods, buck tooth heathens.
1 August 2007 at 4:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
It could well be a step in the right direction. If those who sign up feel that way that is all that matters.
1 August 2007 at 5:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gabbo (Anonymous) says…
Congrats to all that benefit! Even if one opposes the 6th and Wackyness of the current commishes, it has to be on the record that the city of Lawrence was brought out of arrears in current public policy with this registry. If folks take care of each other, why should anybody give a damn about their private business?
1 August 2007 at 6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says…
It is a shame that folks who really want and need legal recognition for their relationships are being exploited by local feel-good politicians in this matter.
The registry in Lawrence will be found to be unconstitutional (Which it clearly is; go read the amendment!) and the cause will be set back for years.
This is not an issue in which peaceful and intentional violation of law will helpo achieve the goal but rather one in which such violations will serve only to reinforce and bolster the implementation of that law. There is the remotest possibility that the Lawrence registry might and I do mean MIGHT be used to mount a challenge to the basic constituionality of the amendment but in light of the clear intent of the law, whcih is to preclude such registries as this as well as all legal recognition of any kind for such relationships, as well as the fact that over 70% of registered voters in the state of Kansas approved the amnedment, such challenge is most likely to be unsuccessful.
When the registry is found to be unconstituional, the repercussions will be unimagineable.
Would it were otherwise but them is the FACTS folks anhd ya can't argue with the FACTS.
1 August 2007 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Well, Marion, ya gotta start somewhere. I think it is a good attempt, if nothing else.
1 August 2007 at 7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Marion:
It is not a fact that the ordinance is or will be found to be unconstitutional. It is your opinion. Here are some people who disagree with you.
1. Me.
2. The city attorney.
3. The attorney general of the state of Kansas.
4. A friend of mine who is a retired justice of the Kansas supreme court.
5. Rep. Lance Kinzer — who is no fan of the ordinance but who proposes a statutory remedy rather than a constitutional challenge.
1 August 2007 at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says…
Souki:
Go READ the amendment!
oh wait
here is the text and a link
READ it and you will see that both the intent and verbiage are crystal clear:
The text:
“(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”
The link (Scroll down; it's at the bottom!):
http://law.justia.com/kansas/constitutio…
1 August 2007 at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
juscin3 (Anonymous) says…
Thank you Marion!
1 August 2007 at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bytheway (Anonymous) says…
About time. Everyone deserves the right to be acknowledged no matter their orientation for the love they have for their partners. Stupid idiots who don't think people should have those kind of rights need to quit hiding behind their bible.
1 August 2007 at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
This registry, intended to legitimize homosexual behavior, is an embarrassment to the city.
1 August 2007 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
That's hilarious, Marion. You show us an obviously unconstitutional bit of verbiage and insinuate that any attempts get past such stupidity is absolutely hopeless.
We get it, already. Now go take a nap with your dogs!
1 August 2007 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offtotheright (Anonymous) says…
Hope this makes you all 'feel' good. That is what it is all about and all it's going to get ya.
1 August 2007 at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Decrying the bigoted beliefs of SOME Christians hardly counts as “Christian bashing”.
Been watching Papa Bear this morning, huh RT?
1 August 2007 at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
right_thinker
Perhaps people would not christian bash if christians didn't continually spew s h i t e to in their direction? We're all head butting, buttheaded hypocrites and are currently in the process of encouraging each other's anger. Great.
Some of us are willing to call a truce because we're so stupid as to believe that doing so won't deny us an eternal, heavenly afterlife.
1 August 2007 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
“legitimize homosexual behavior?”
If the government did it's job correctly, it shouldn't be bound by what some people think the Bible approves of. It should really think about what is fair or unfair to it's ENTIRE body of citizens.
It shouldn't matter whether you or I approve of homosexuality or whether the President approves of it. It should be EQUAL rights for all, no matter of sexual orientation, religion, etc…..
1 August 2007 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
Will this registry be published in the Journal World just like marriage licenses and divorces? I think it definitely should be public information. If you sign up it should be public information for everyone to view and be aware of.
1 August 2007 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
It should also be published in the paper when a name is withdrawn from this registry. It's only fair folks, we all need to know to make it official.
1 August 2007 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldgoof (Anonymous) says…
Marion: “The registry in Lawrence will be found to be unconstitutional (Which it clearly is; go read the amendment!) and the cause will be set back for years.”
. .
Marion's inability to interpret law, is here again revealed. (it clearly is)
1 August 2007 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
Mom of three, you are correct “equal rights for all” according to our laws!!!!!!!
Another smoke and mirror show on the path to try and legalize homosexuallity.
1 August 2007 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion - you've been pushing the same, tired line for some time. Give it up. Various persons (beside myself) have patiently explained why you are incorrect. Learn a little, okay?
1 August 2007 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
(Un)christian fear is so mind boggling! It flows into and through every aspect of their lives…so sad.
Keep keeping the world safe for God, guys. I'm sure it's much appreciated. What horrors would abound without y'all around to make the world a better place.
1 August 2007 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fdalpd (Anonymous) says…
I do not read anywhere in Article 15 sec. 16 of the KS Constitution that would cause this domestic partnership registry to be unconstitutional. The amendment states “marriage shall be a civil contract”, whereas the local ordinance explicitly states “registration pursuant to this Article creates no legal rights, other than the right to have the registered domestic partnership included in the City’s Domestic Partner Registry.” Law defines a basic contract as “a binding agreement between two or more persons that is enforceable by law.” Nowhere does Lawrence hold this ordinance to be anything more than just a way to inform the community.
I think what is more important is Lawrence looking past what the “state as a whole” believes is right (no pun intended). Even if this registry grants no legal rights to the participants it still allows Lawrence and the individuals to do what they feel is right.
This ordinance may get struck down, however, reading the amendment I don't feel the language is as clear as some people on this board made it out to be.
1 August 2007 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
“Gay and lesbian couples across the city said it will be a special day for them.”
Why is it such a special day if its supposed to be about health insurance? Unless of course people _feel_ it means more…
Marion said: “It is a shame that folks who really want and need legal recognition for their relationships are being exploited by local feel-good politicians in this matter.” Marion, you're completely correct. Its unfortunate that people realize that its you posting and just trying to be inflammatory, when in fact you've stated the crux of the problem with the registry: legal recognition.
I've said it countless times before, the intent was right, but the implementation wrong, and this will end up costing a lot of people a lot more than just money.
1 August 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
Awww, compmd. As a member of our great community I want to thank you SOOOO much for your Obvious concern and veiled threats.
1 August 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
bd, your post was unclear….
1 August 2007 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity.”
OK, name one.
Truth be told this creates no rights and no “contract” that can be enforced by a court between the two partners nor enforced against third parties. Completely and totally worthless.
1 August 2007 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
diggerpine (Anonymous) says…
My family has lived here 40 years. I hope this is Not what Lawrence will be known for. I also
think this registry should be published and updated.
1 August 2007 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ralph Reed (Ralph Reed) says…
Just a couple of things.
First, let's take religion out of the mix and look at this without those blinders. I've looked in several versions of the Bible at http://www.biblegateway.com/ and find no references to homosexuality. I can only find references to sodomites, which was applied to those who practiced ritual homosexuality. I might be wrong, but I don't think anything in the Bible applies here. Could it be just “man's interpretation” of the Bible? Maybe we should simply read what is said.
Second, as I see it this registry is not just a chink in the armor to forward the cause of legalizing homosexuality. I have heterosexual friends who are lifelong mates, with children, who pay horrible insurance costs because they're not married; not to mention not having other rights afforded family members. This registry should allow them to obtain family insurance rates instead of paying for one family (depending on who claims the child) and the other paying for a single policy.
1 August 2007 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
right_thinker says…
It's quite entertaining to see many valued LJW neighbors posting on (the other) thread that my right to gun ownership and use should be regulated and on (this) thread screaming bloody murder to have unfettered rights for gays.
Maybe it's just my twisted view of things, but does that seem strange to any of the other valued LJW neighbors?
––––—
No. It's all about unwaranted fear.
1 August 2007 at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
My partners, Lassie and Bambi's mother, and I wanna sign up so our lifestyle can be promoted. No open-minded, equal rights for all type of people, would oppose that, would they?
Where can I see a publicized, who's what, list?
1 August 2007 at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Why are christians so obsessed with having sex with animals?
1 August 2007 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
Official list of the profoundly idiotic: gr
1 August 2007 at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“OK, name one [Fortune 500 company offering domestic partner benefits].”
Here are the first 25 out of 268 Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits. Oh snap! Looks like the free market y'all fetishize has decreed that domestic partner benefits are essential to attracting and retaining the high-quality workers necessary to remain competitive in the 21st century.
How's that cognitive dissonance working for you?
3M Co.
Abbott Laboratories
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
Aetna Inc.
Affiliated Computer Services
Agilent Technologies Inc.
Allstate Corp., The
Altria Group, Inc.
Amazon.com Inc.
American Express Co.
American Family Insurance Group
American International Group Inc.
AmerisourceBergen Corp.
Amgen Inc.
AMR Corp. (American Airlines)
Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.
Aon Corp.
Apple Inc.
Applied Materials Inc.
Aramark Corp.
ArvinMeritor Inc.
Ashland Inc.
AT&T Inc.
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
Avaya Inc.
1 August 2007 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
***FormerCentralKansan (Anonymous) says…
Will they have a satellite office out at Riverfront Park in North Lawrence for all the perverts who infest that place. Don't ever bring your kids out there or run your dogs. That place is *crazy*!***
You have a valid point about the river front park's usage and safety. However what in the hell does it have to do with a domestic register or committed relationship?
This park is a meat market for anon sex, men hiding their secret life from their wives and families. But that makes the park similar to the meat market bars, gay or non-gay, not a commited relationship or attempt at one.
Anyone who so choses, regardless of thieir sexual involvement should be allowed to form a domestic partnership. It is simply a civil contract. Adult child and elderly parent, two elderly citizens, two friends of any gender need not explain their consensual relationship outside of the domestic contract to make the relationship valid.
1 August 2007 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Hskrchad (Anonymous) says…
Marion, I hate to confuse you with the facts but many will be shocked if the ordinance is found unconstitutional.
When examening a statute The Supreme Court applies the fundamental rules of statutory construction including the maxim of plain meaning i.e., The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. State v. Ruez-Rees Jr. Kan No. 95,056. Additionally, it is the role of the Supreme Court to construe a statute constitutional if possible.
In examening the Lawrene ordinance it's plain meaning is clear that the STATE shall not recognize a relationship outside of marriage (No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.). The Lawrence ordinance does not ask the state to recognize anything.
Additionally, Kansas cities and municipalities are afforded the constitutional protection of Home Rule. see Art. 12 Kan. Const. Specifically, Cities are hereby empowered to determine their local affairs and government. Art. 12 Kan. Const Sec. 5(a). Therefore the ordinance is clearly within the sound discretion of home rule.
Marion, do some research and consult a lawyer before entering a gun fight with a knife.
1 August 2007 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
I find it ridiculous that people associate the gay lifestyle with promiscuity.
I've actually witnessed that catholic-school girls are the most promiscuous; especially when they get out of catholic school.
1 August 2007 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
I love the LJWorld. They do not miss a beat. 400 posts over several days on this gay issue.
Marion: Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, I note that say you can't argue with facts but you only express your opinion that the amendment is unconstitutional. Until you are Chief Justice Marion, your opinion is not fact on this issue.
Right-thinker:
Christian bashing? Where is it in the above posts? Here, let me give ya some at least to the self righteous lot. Conservative self righteous Christians are destroying this country, this state, and the whole republican party. I could care less about the republican party because it so diluted and self absorbed with greedy moral pigs that I have nothing in common with it. But, destroying the country and the state is unacceptable. Why do you idiots focus only on the gays, the abortions, the bible, evolution and all that other nonsense? You should focus on the substantive issues affecting our country such as the war and winning it, the economy, education, health care. But, I guess you rather just be queer free then have a stable economy, good health care and world peace. Priorities, huh?
I think you protest too much about the gays right-thinker. But, do clean shaven men that are a little too clean and work out a little too much secretly turn you on? I think if the truth be known that you are really in denial and just completely gay.
1 August 2007 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
“I might be wrong, but I don't think anything in the Bible applies here. Could it be just “man's interpretation” of the Bible? Maybe we should simply read what is said.”
Great post. “Man's interpretation” is all anyone has. Christians seem to constantly twist the bible to fit their personal opinions.
1 August 2007 at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
“OK, name one [Fortune 500 company offering domestic partner benefits].”
As your reading comprehension seems to be lacking, I shall restate my challenge with emphasis on the part you conveniently left out….
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“Supporters said several Fortune 500 companies offer such coverage ****but require documentation of the partnership from a governmental entity.”****
OK, name one.
Truth be told this creates no rights and no “contract” that can be enforced by a court between the two partners nor enforced against third parties. Completely and totally worthless.
1 August 2007 at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bugmenot (Anonymous) says…
Why do people keep saying “road to legalizing homosexuality”? Homosexuality is already legal. Homosexual marriages aren't yet recognized in Kansas, but, good Lord, you can certainly legally be a homosexual.
1 August 2007 at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“DonQuipunch (Anonymous) says…
Sick.”
–––––––-
It's comments like this that give away the true motives of those against this registry.
It's not about a higher moral authority or protecting our moral fiber as a society.
It's about homophobia. Plain and simple.
1 August 2007 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?
1 August 2007 at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salamisang (Anonymous) says…
Why do you want a published list of people who register?
1 August 2007 at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
A published list will keep someone from signing up with multiple partners.
1 August 2007 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?”
Bewildering, isn't it, craigers? Don't even try to wrap your feeble, religiously-addled mind around it.
This is a step that brings the city more in line with the Constitution. As a strict constructionist, I take “equal protection” to mean just that, no exceptions or interpretations. As a strict constructionist, I also take “no establishment of religion” literally, period. No exceptions or interpretations.
It is fun to watch how uncomfortable fundie xtians are with the freedoms outlined in our Constitution.
1 August 2007 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salamisang (Anonymous) says…
Lot of Fortune 50 companies in Lawrence, right thinker?
1 August 2007 at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
This is a step in the right direction. We still have a long ways to go. In many ways, I see similarities in this to the entire racial struggle of the days of Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Slowly, but surely they are gaining the recognition and protection that they are rightfully entitled to.
1 August 2007 at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?”
–––––
Perhaps it's because they see the institution of marriage as a tool by the government meant to promote “social stability” through a specifc version of “family values”.
Or maybe they don't think it's anyone else's business who they are or aren't committed to in a loving relationship.
Just trying to open some closed minds.
1 August 2007 at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
This isn't progress, unless by “progress” you mean conferring no legal rights upon the registrants.
What is the effect of registering?
Registration creates no legal rights, other than the right to have the registered domestic partnership included in the City’s Domestic Partner Registry.
http://www.lawrenceks.org/adminservices/…
It is like a vanity license tag, worthless. Except with a vanity tag you get to drive your Volvo on the road for a year. A waste of time an money for all concerned….
1 August 2007 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Query: Can anyone who wants to see who has registered see/get a copy of the list under the Kansas Open Records Act? That Act create the presumption that all public records (one possessed by a unit of the government) are open unless some law specifically allows those records to be closed to the public. K.S.A. 45-221 lists the types of records that may be closed. See www.kslegislature.org for a copy of it. I don't see anything in there that specifically closes this type of record. Subsection (a)(30) might allow the registrant's home addresses to be closed. But that would not necessarily extend to their names and the fact they've registered. So, is there any other state law that allows the city to refuse to provide a copy of this list?
1 August 2007 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
That's fine, then stand your ground. I simply asked a question. People view marriage as a long term committment and those that are heterosexual couples that have children and love each other and don't want to get married are simply dancing around being committed till death do us part. Sorry but if you are in such loving relationship and have children, then get married. And if marriage is so “evil” then why are people trying so hard to attain it's benefits?
1 August 2007 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says…
BABBOY:
I am confident enough that I will be proven correct in my assertions that I will, at the time of the nullification of this registry, tell you exactly where the a** kissing line will start.
I may offer those in line a choice between kissing my Heinie A** and buying me a beer though.
This is a slam dunk, folks!
NO ONE; not a person, not a corporation, not an individual and most certainly not a city my recognise a contract which both goes against public policy AND is clearly in violation of the constitution.
Kansas has defined marriage as a contract and has prohibited the accoutrements of marriage from being assinged to any other contractural relationship. Most of the rights which are being sought are considered to be the accoutrements of benefits of the marital contract.
slam dunk!
They really sewed up this one when they wrote it!
Warsteiner Dunkel, Beck's Dark and Heineken are the preferred lables for those who do hot wish to engage in oral behaviour when I am proven right.
1 August 2007 at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
justthefacts, just read the FAQ …
Is a domestic partnership registration confidential?
No. When an application for Domestic Partnership Registration is filed with the City Clerk's Office, it becomes a public record pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act.
http://www.lawrenceks.org/adminservices/…
1 August 2007 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“
“Why does a heterosexual couple that has kids and is in a long-term committed relationship need the registry? Why don't you get married?”
Bewildering, isn't it, craigers? Don't even try to wrap your feeble, religiously-addled mind around it.
”
Well, with all the benefits of marriage, why wouldn't everyone who can get legally married, already be? Why are there so many “living in sin” if there is such an (tax) advantage to marriage. Kind of indicates it's a promotion of lifestyle rather than because of any “freedom” or “civil rights”.
1 August 2007 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Thanks S. That brings up the next question. Does anyone think that someone (like “Freddie”) might obtain this list and use it for “not so nice” reasons? Like picketing a home, or targeting individuals? If I were contemplating registering, I might think twice about doing so, for this reason.
1 August 2007 at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
right_thinker says…
An interesting link:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-v…
Leftie Spinmasters, start your engines!!! Blow it to pieces.
––-
ummm… That site is “spinning” so out of control that it will blow itSELF to pieces.
1 August 2007 at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…
We registered today! Here's our photo:
http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/un…
1 August 2007 at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
justthefacts,
Yes, let's let Freddie and the rest of the terrorists dictate innocent people's lives. Let's give up equal rights so people like Freddie can rule the country.
1 August 2007 at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“Does anyone think that someone (like “Freddie”) might obtain this list and use it for “not so nice” reasons?” I do.
1 August 2007 at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
See http://www.kscourts.org/ksag/opinions/20… for AG opinion on the constitutionality of the registry.
1 August 2007 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Warsteiner Dunkel, Beck's Dark and Heineken
Marion, seems we have the same taste in beers!