City Hall
Domestic partnership registry moves ahead
Commission stops short of approval but agrees to seek legal opinion from attorney general on program
January 10, 2007
Advertisement
Barring any legal hurdles from the state, Lawrence is poised to become the first city in Kansas to legally recognize gay partnerships.
A majority of commissioners Tuesday night said they would support a program that would create a domestic partnership registry to provide legal recognition to gay couples who are barred by state law from marrying.
“I think this is an idea that doesn’t hurt anyone,” City Commissioner Boog Highberger said after hearing a half-dozen people speak in favor of the program and no one who opposed it.
But commissioners stopped short of formally approving the idea, which also would allow heterosexual couples who choose not to marry to register. Instead, they asked staff members to seek an opinion from new Attorney General Paul Morrison to determine whether the registry would violate a Kansas constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.
Supporters pleased
Supporters of the registry, though, left City Hall pleased. Several said the fact no one came to the meeting to speak against the proposal showed Lawrence had become more open-minded about the issue of sexual orientation.
The registry is the first major issue dealing with gay rights since 1995 when the city passed an ordinance — despite outcries from an organized opposition group — that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“I think maybe people are recognizing that we are not a threat to anyone, and they realize that most of us are just regular guys and gals who want to live our lives and love who we love,” said Maggie Childs, who is gay and the leader of a local group that is supporting the registry.
The domestic partnership registry would not automatically grant the legal rights that married couples have to gay or lesbian couples. The registry also would not automatically require the city or private employers to begin offering health care benefits to employees’ domestic partners as granted for spouses.
But supporters of the ordinance said the registry, which would be run by the city clerk’s office, would help people involved in a domestic partnership provide the necessary documentation to show to employers who willingly offer health insurance benefits to partners of employees.
Domestic Partnerships Registry
- 6News video: Commission moves toward domestic registry (01-09-07)
- BLOG: The Lawrence City Commission debates the domestic partnership registry (01-09-07)
- Domestic partnership registry would be 1st in state (01-08-07)
- City Commission agenda for 01-09-07
- City Hall staff report on domestic partnership registration
- City of Boulder's Domestic Partnership Registration Program
- An example of what the registry could look like (12-23-06)
- Domestic partner registery considered (12-22-06)
- Lawmakers approve bill to legalize civil unions (12-15-06)
- Brownback: Judge should avoid gay marriage cases (12-09-06)
- Gay marriage ban goes to high court (12-01-06)
Bruce Ney, a Lawrence resident who is gay, told commissioners that he is employed by AT&T, which requires documentation from a government to prove that a domestic partnership exists before it will extend family benefits.
Other speakers said there were several Fortune 500 companies operating in Lawrence that offer the benefits to people who can show they’re in a partnership.
Details to come
City Commissioner David Schauner, who earlier this week said he hadn’t formed an opinion on the issue, said the number of large companies offering benefits to domestic partners swayed him.
“It seems shortsighted to deny those folks a benefit that their employers are willingly offering,” Schauner said.
Details of a Lawrence registry would have to be developed by the city. The program likely would include a fee to cover its costs. It also would include specific requirements on what type of proof must be shown by a couple before they are considered domestic partners.
Schauner, Highberger and Commissioner Mike Rundle all said they supported creating the registry. Mayor Mike Amyx stopped short of that. He said the idea made some sense but wanted to hear from the attorney general’s office before making a decision.
“I think we need to find out how broad of authority we have,” Amyx said.
Commissioner Sue Hack was absent.
Commissioners did say they were not interested in requiring employers to begin offering health benefits to domestic partners.
‘Welcome and anti-discrimination’
Rundle, who brought the issue to the commission, said he viewed it as “simply an extension of that sense of welcome and anti-discrimination” that the city has been promoting since it approved the ordinance in 1995 banning discrimination in matters of employment or housing based on sexual orientation.
Commissioners also didn’t discuss whether the city should change its policy on offering benefits to the domestic partners of employees. Currently, the city does not do so. Several commissioners predicted the city would request information on that subject if a domestic registry is put in place.
City Manager David Corliss said he would have a conversation soon with the attorney general’s office to determine how long it might take to receive an opinion on the matter.
City staff members have been doing research on the legality of such a registry, which has been used in several Midwest cities. Staff members said it was difficult to determine whether a Kansas court would find it legal given that the law had never been tested in the state.
“If it is drafted carefully, I believe it could withstand a challenge,” said Toni Wheeler, the city’s interim director of legal services.
10 January 2007 at 7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offtotheright (Anonymous) says…
Oh brother!
10 January 2007 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
commuter (Anonymous) says…
What does the city do?
I see the city being more restrictive to businesses.
Great. I wonder if Lawrence will be able to attract more larger compnaies because this oridnance will be in place?
10 January 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chzypoof1 (Anonymous) says…
This is SO great for Lawrence!! It will bring in more business, and attract better paying jobs. Heck, we might even just scrap the SLT, create more greenspace, and outlaw gasoline all too!!!
Oh wait, this is just a registry to keep track of all the “partnerships” in our city.
It amazes me that when we, as a society, don't want to be racist/discriminate….we single people out for special treatment. Amazing…..
10 January 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Open record question; Can anyone who wants go and get a copy of this register, once it's available?
10 January 2007 at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
I am just waiting for someone with a religious viewpoint to come in and fire away on this topic…
If you are gay/lesbian, great, allow them to file for 'common law' or 'partnership' status. Let them get healthcare, benefits and perks of married people. Just because someone has different beliefs or feelings doesn't mean that thier vote/ideas or [gasp] money doesn't count. My guess is there is someone, somewhere sitting in an office that wants to know the population % of gays/lesbians in the city/county. Why? For what reason? Is it still so big of a deal that prejudices overrule the opportunity of minority group to be included like everyone else?
10 January 2007 at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hammysammy (Anonymous) says…
dambuzdo Not all gay people are liberal. Look at Cheney's daughter. All gay people being gay would indicate that homosexuality is a choice, which is isn't. Dambudzo, your argument is completely senseless. I guess no liberal people would like to to be on the social security list, or be able to vote, since those are both government lists, or be able to attend public institutions such as KU.
10 January 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hammysammy (Anonymous) says…
All gays being liberal i meant. Hee hee.
10 January 2007 at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ceallach (Anonymous) says…
I find it difficult to believe that one decision by a city government can accomplish relationship equity within our population. The proposal is not what it appears to be, and this article makes it sound soooo simple.
There are many laws currently in place regarding spousal responsibilities within a marriage contract. It seems to me a single registry would be insufficient.
Example: how would one, upon dissolving a registered partnership, change their registry? If the registry is not changed, is the person still responsible for the registered partner? Is there any sense of responsibility and/or commitment to support the partner in any way? Will not this simple process will become extremely complicated and confusing without initial guidelines/statutes/etc.
This IS a big deal. The proposal and it's future complications should be given very serious consideration before acceptance.
10 January 2007 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
rubix, to quote Commissioner Rundle, this is about “non-gay” unions, as well. This is a work-around the marriage statutes for couples who find them too restrictive.
10 January 2007 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offtotheright (Anonymous) says…
Leave it to the grocery clerk, he'll come up with a plan!
10 January 2007 at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
Will the registered partners be able to change a partner at will?
Short term?
Long term?
Rotation?
10 January 2007 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
While there are still details to be ironed out, I think this is a step in the right direction.
It seems to me that all American citizens have the right to “pursue happiness” in a variety of ways, including forming committed relationships.
Denying some of these citizens the benefits that other receive based simply on the gender of the people involved is clearly unfair.
If having this documentation will allow more unmarried couples to receive benefits, great!
I might, if I were gay/lesbian, be concerned about having my name on a list that could be used against me, however.
10 January 2007 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Attorney Schauner, perhaps you should investigate the type of proof large companies require to establish the “domestic partner” relationship before you use that as an excuse to establish this ordinance. Providing proof of joint bank accounts and joint residency over a certain period of time is not onerous.
10 January 2007 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rubix (Anonymous) says…
“rubix, to quote Commissioner Rundle, this is about “non-gay” unions, as well. This is a work-around the marriage statutes for couples who find them too restrictive.”
I never said this was only about gay unions, although it is primarily the reason this is so active. There is such a thing called common law marriage between a man and woman. If you don't want that either, well, sorry, I don't know what to tell you. I guess we should make up rules for each person as they want them. That way everyone gets whatever they want and on thier own terms, huh?
10 January 2007 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Everyone does have the right to choose what kinds of relationships they pursue, and rightly so, in my opinion.
The issue is whether the state confers benefits on some of these choices but not others, and if so, what the justification is for denying those benefits.
Other than age (and cross-species activity, of course), I can't see the justification for excluding large portions of the population from the benefits.
If the conversation were about something other than marriage, it would be quite clear. Imagine if straight people were allowed to run businesses, buy houses, shop at grocery stores, mail letters, etc. but gay people weren't. Wouldn't this be obvious discrimination?
10 January 2007 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Hawkman (Anonymous) says…
Let's just do away with marriage…that union and “registration” has worked really well. That way everyone is equal.
10 January 2007 at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wheatridge (Anonymous) says…
Is sodomy still illegal? So this is like a registry of some law breakers? Huh, that sounds really Kansas, stupid is as stupid does.
10 January 2007 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“City Commissioner David Schauner … said the number of large companies offering benefits to domestic partners swayed him.”
Duh. A quickie survey on the internet reveals that virtually every regional employer of any size allows for domestic partner benefits.
I couldn't find a statement one way or the other for BNSF, the railroad, in Topeka, nor for Yellow Freight. Of course neo-con, private corporation, Halliburton-wanna be - Koch Industries - does NOT offer such benefits. But even old-fashioned, conservative Hallmark does offer such benefits. Everyone else - AT&T, Sprint, Kroger (Dillons), Ford Motor, American Century Investments, H&R Block, Payless, Home Depot, Cox Communications, Honeywell, Sears, Office Depot, Borders, UPS, State Farm, Best Buy, DST, Walgreens, IBM - check, check, check, check ….. Who have I missed? (Security Benefit, anyone?)
10 January 2007 at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
bd -
All three (just like heterosexuals, I suppose).
10 January 2007 at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
wheatridge -
Q: “Is sodomy still illegal?”
A: No. Any more questions?
10 January 2007 at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
is sodomy still illegal? So this is like a registery of some law breakers?
wheatridge, did you miss the memo? (see below)
––––––––––—
On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision overturning state laws that made sodomy between consenting adults illegal in the Lawrence et al vs. Texas case.
In its 6-3 decision overturning laws in Texas and about a dozen other states, the Supreme Court said the due process clause of the Constitution protects homosexual couples’ right to engage in private sexual practices without intervention by the government.
10 January 2007 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidnta (Anonymous) says…
The sodomy law was struck down 3 1/2 years ago. So this is just a symbolic registry for people who want a paper justification of their relationship. Some companies may require some proof of a documented relationship before they can offer benefits to the other spouse. The lawyer that works for AT&T yesterday made a good example of that. He said that AT&T requires documentation before they are able to release benefits. Over half of the Fortune 500 companies offer either full benefits or partial benefits to partners. You can go to the HRC's website to research this yourself.
There are many other places that offer similar registries throughout the US. Even Missouri has it, with KC and St. Louis and they have a constitutional amendment in place. Of course it was challenge, but it did not work. They are smart to get the AG's opinion on this before proceeding, and they already have past AGs from other states defending their own registries.
10 January 2007 at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porkchop (Anonymous) says…
I am against this proposal. I am against mandatory gay marriage. As a good Christian, I don't want to have to gay marry anybody!
10 January 2007 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
davidnta -
good point.
Someone with more time perhaps can do the math but if you added up cities like Denver, KC, Portland, Iowa City, etc. as well as the states with same-sex partnerships - Cali, NJ, Mass., Vermont, Conn., Hawaii, Maine - my guess is that over 50% of the U.S. population lives somewhere that recognizes same-sex partners as something beyond “strangers before the law.”
Congrats Lawrence, Kansas! Bold Innovator and member of the Mainstream! Go Go Metropolis of the Plains! You've finally caught up with “average.”
10 January 2007 at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Good info, Jamesaust. Just goes to prove that the registry is unnecessary, at least when I comes to equal access to benefits.
Except, of course, if you work for the City of Lawrence, or for the State of Kansas.
It might have been more effective to lobby to get the definition of “dependent” changed on the city and state health plans.
10 January 2007 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
I am against this proposal. I am against mandatory gay marriage…porkchop
–––––
You're entitled to your opinion…… But who said anything about mandatory gay marriage??? A registery is NOT marriage!
10 January 2007 at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porkchop (Anonymous) says…
Do we have to have someone in mind when we register? Or will they just assign us one?
10 January 2007 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Godot -
I agree with you. I don't find the registry plan all that valuable (although hardly worthless either). I just find the arguments against it silly, or confused (where are you Marion?). Its fairly obvious as a last minute attempt to gain voter favor right before an election.
Seems to me Maggie Childs would better use her time picking a narrow issue - say, hospital visitation, inheritance, or easier unwanted child adoption - and lobby the Legislature to carve out an exception to its present, homo-phobic policy. I believe Childs' organization scored well in the last election with Democrat and moderate GOP victors; perhaps its time for those winners to take a stand, earn some “street cred,” and deliver some results beyond a paltry city-registry?
10 January 2007 at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Jamesaust:
Been off trying to make a buck!
I am quite certain that the wording if the Amendment in the Kansas Constitution that any such plan will be shut down by the homophobes as this is seen as a primarily Gay/Bi/Les/TGD issue.
I wish that this were not the case and will be pleasantly surprised if it works out.
Thanks.
Marion.
10 January 2007 at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
porkchop are you serious?
10 January 2007 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
I don't agree with this movement forward or anything that disguises homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. However, not everybody has time to go down and petition everything they don't agree with. Oh well.
10 January 2007 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Yeah don't waste your time on us, craigers. We're only trying to undermine the foundation of civilization *rolls eyes*. Good to know you couldn't be bothered. Thanks for the update.
10 January 2007 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion -
“I am quite certain that the wording if the Amendment in the Kansas Constitution that any such plan will be shut down…”
Perhaps, however, I doubt it.
I can see AG Morrison's memo now: “it is a reasonable inference that the people did not intended to invalidate recognition of domestic partnerships when adopting this Amendment.” Else, why doesn't the Amendment just say that? Was the concept of “DPs” unheard of two years ago? Were the drafters of the Amendment language incompetent? All it says is that “marriage” requires members of the opposite gender.
What's more, the City's plan takes great pains to restrict itself to “family” not marriage. “Family” is already broadly defined - heck, it even includes a single person. “Family” as in boring things like zoning.
Worse case scenario is not a lawsuit (again, who is the plaintiff?) but rather the Legislature decides it must adopt a mandatory, statewide definition of “family” (to avoid the non-uniform, decentralized Constitutional problem I noted yesterday) that pointedly excludes same-sex couples. Could happen but I'd guess the average Kansans would say, “why?”. Ironically, many Kansas politicians, having removed “marriage” as an issue for now, have created a fair amount of wiggle room, including a certain Democrat Governor with perhaps national ambitions. (Veto?)
10 January 2007 at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Atreides (Anonymous) says…
This gay marriage bit has been said by some to be a conspiracy of divorce attorneys;)
10 January 2007 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Atreides, I thought about that, too. Just more reasons to go to court and fight over stuff.
10 January 2007 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
parkay (Anonymous) says…
Local Kansas government should not be enabling businesses to pay sodomy benefits to employees by registering the perpetrators of sodomy at the courthouse.
We conservatives are boycotting pro-sodomy businesses, anyway, but those who buy their products or services would bear the added cost of sodomy benefits.
Not me!
10 January 2007 at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
I love it when oddballs think that only gays (or that all gays) engage in sodomy.
They're mistaken, of course.
10 January 2007 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Is there a directory or list of pro-sodomy business? Can I call the Chamber of Commerce and request one…LOL
10 January 2007 at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Souki,
It's just one glaring example of the blatant ignorance that most of these reader-reaction posters share with the rest of us.
10 January 2007 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
Dambudzo…….., the rise and fall of past empires and civilizations were due to a number of factors, i.e., economic, overextension of the military, colonialism, imperialism, etc.
You're right, everything is cyclical, but a domestic partnership registry wasn't one of the causes
10 January 2007 at 6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
parkay —
You're so funny. The devolution of sodomy laws in practice to being ONLY about homosexuality was a key practical reason for finally doing away with them.
The perpetrators of so-called “sodomic” acts are overwhelmingly heterosexuals. (I would guess >90%.) Sodomy itself was invented as a concept by medieval monks relying upon ancient Greek beliefs that the 'male seed' was itself a baby (to be incubated within the mother). It had no basis in science (or theology, for that matter).
Name me a business (virtually) and you'll have named a 'pro-sodomy' business. Good luck growing your own food, weaving your own cloth, and making your own candles in your cave. (Say howdy to that other great anti-sodomist, Osama.)
10 January 2007 at 6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…
Porkchop has a geranium in the cranium. To extrapolate mandatory gay marriage out of this demonstrates that those of that mindset are completely and utterly hysterical, and I don't mean humorous.
Common Law relationships haven't been recognized by the state since July 1, 2003 and as others have pointed out earlier, sodomy laws were struck down at that time as well.
I guess it's hard for people living in centuries past to grasp recent changes. Just like they can't grasp that getting/giving a BJ to your partner is sodomy. I bet more than we can count we doing that when it was illegal but only had a problem with it when gays were doing it. Flip/flop, flip/flop . . .
10 January 2007 at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
It is so much easier to get into and out of domestic relationships without the burden of marriage and divorce.
Which leads me to wonder why gays, or heteros who have managed to escape the marriage thing, would sacrifice their freedom to partner up without formal rules in order put their names on a public registry that ties them to another, without formal rules of disengagement.
I guess it might be useful for future hookups to lookup the hookee's registration history, but….
You guys and gals have it good; now the activists among you are preparing to shoot all of you in the collective feet.
I can see it now; you have a good relationship going, and then the partner utters the inevitable, “Where are we going with this?” and, “If you really loved me, you'd go register with me…”
Arrgghhhh!
10 January 2007 at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Godot,
The reason I would “sacrifice” my freedom to be on a registry is because that would entitle my partner and I to the same insurace rights and hospital visitation rights (to name just a few rights) that married couples have–provided that the business or hospital chooses to recognize the registry. I don't think that's comparable with shooting anybody in the foot, do you?
10 January 2007 at 8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, weezy, I do. You have the ability to take out your own health insurance policy, and a life insurance policy on your partner, or on yourself, and choose your own beneficiary, and you can create legal documents that give you and your partner the right to visitation and to make medical decisions, and you can make a will that directs where your property should go after your death…..and all of this is private, and none of it is subject to marriage law. It may cost a thousand bucks or so to set it up, but that is chump change compared to the dollars you will spend to unencumber yourself from a “registered partner,” should you desire to do so, once this unregulated relationship enters the courts.
10 January 2007 at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Why in the world should I jump through all these extra hoops to get the same benefits that a hetero couple could instantly get just by getting married on a whim during a quick trip to a drive-thru chapel in Las Vegas? The goal here is equality. Setting different rules for people who aren't like you is discrimination.
10 January 2007 at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Porter (Anonymous) says…
Parkay where do YOU work? I'm not eligible for sodomy benefits, and I'm jealous. That weak Christmas bonus I get is nothing compared to some adult fun.
Seriously, I could use a new job. Hee hee.
10 January 2007 at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This is what will kill the registry if anyone gets cute, sues and invokes this clause of the Kansas Constitution.
Please note section “b”:
Ҥ16. Marriage. (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.”
This kills the thing and sets the standard for the rights of couples of any flavour.
Remember, I didn't write this, do not support it but I can read just fine.
Thanks.
Marion.
10 January 2007 at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
right_thinker: Who's Charlie?
Thanks_Marion: If businesses are given the option to recognize OR ignore a couple's registry, is that considered “recognized by the state”?
What the hell is wrong with this country?
11 January 2007 at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Thanks Marion but we were aware of this already. There's nothing in this proposal about “marriage.”
11 January 2007 at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Marion, it says the state can't recognize a marriage, it doesn't say anything about a sovereign city government.
11 January 2007 at 6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
So if a sovereign city government wants to push one religion over another, perhaps with public displays, it would be okay since it's not the state?
11 January 2007 at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
the point is moot when it comes to benefits….When the insurance companies recognize domestic partnership, then we will be on the right track.
11 January 2007 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
My point is that I suspect that the City cannot do something which is prohibited by the State.
I am well aware that this is not about marriage so take a close look at the Amendment and you will see that the key thing is the prohibition against the granting of rights equivalent to those of “marriage”“(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.” and I believe that this caluse will be used to effectively prohibit granting of those rights by any city, county, municipality or other governmental body.
The “rights” under scrutiny here are the so-called “rights of marriage”. or at least those normally associated with marriage.
The State says that those rights cannot be granted to any other relattionship.
I'm only trying to tell you exactly how the homophobes will go after this proposal and they will, believe me.
It will take a constituiional amendment to get this done and we have seen how far one of those will go.
I think that the situation is absurd but it is what it is.
Thanks.
Marion.
11 January 2007 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Marion may be right about this, unfortunately.
What's needed is for the clearly unconstitutional amendments “protecting” marriage to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
I think the fact that marriage is both a religious and a secular institution is in large part the cause of the trouble here. If we could separate those aspects, it might help to sort this out.
As a secular institution, it should be available to all who wish to engage in it, with the same rights/benefits for all. Anything else is clearly discriminatory.
As a religious one, it should be up to each church to decide what their philosophy is and act accordingly. After all, we are not supposed to have a state religion - check the Constitution.
11 January 2007 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ericarothwell (Anonymous) says…
If I had not had to be at work at 5pm in KC I would have attended and opposed the registry.
So, city employees might be able to get health care?
Who pays for this? Tax payers? Insurance subscribers premiums will go up. Homosexuals are making a choice to engage in this type of lifestyle which does not provide them
the same benefits as those who are following the law.
We should not be creating laws to get around other laws.
Lawrence is already very tolerant. And I am sick of hearing about tolerance, all it means is that those who have opposing opinions should not voice them. Tolerance is muting the voice of the unpopular vote. Or the opinion not deemed tolerant. Tolerance has nothing to do with violence. Just because you find my view point intolerant does not mean I will hurt someone I disagree with. And yet, I know once this is posted. Some will sling verbal arrows menat to harm. I am not in favor of Homosexuality. I do not judge those who engage. I have friends who are..they know my viewpoint, they also know I personnally do not approve and I will not allow my children them to be around them.
Those of us who do not appove need to stand up and be heard or this minority will become the majority if it is not already. So, what if we will be judged for our christian right-wing opinions (as it is called.) If we don't our culture will change and our children will grow up believing that homosexuality is okay and normal. When it is unnatural. Thanks!
11 January 2007 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Erica, several things:
You have already judge those of us who are homosexual by saying that we are making a choice—we are not. With people like you who treat us like second-class citizens, why would we choose to be gay? Seriously, think about it.
“I do not allow my children to be around them.”
Ridiculous!
“Those of us who do not appove need to stand up and be heard or this minority will become the majority if it is not already. So, what if we will be judged for our christian right-wing opinions (as it is called.) If we don't our culture will change and our children will grow up believing that homosexuality is okay and normal. When it is unnatural. Thanks!”
That just frightens me. How ignorant can you be? Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. It's like you believe the domestic partner registry is a recruiting tool to get more people to be gay. How ludicrous. And by the way, homosexuality IS okay. Thanks!
11 January 2007 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Oh, dear ericarothwell, I don't know where to begin with you. You certainly shouldn't try to get your education from a reader-reaction post, but I'll do my best to play “teacher” here…
Lesson #1: Homosexuals do not–I repeat, do not–make a choice to engage in “this type of lifestyle.” We are who we are, just as straight people don't “choose” to be straight. Oh, sure, one can choose to BEHAVE in a certain way, but that's called acting or, in most cases, severe self-denial. Most gay people don't announce their sexual orientation as overtly as you might see some gay people do in the movies or on TV. In fact, ericarothwell, most are probably just like you but feel like they have to act straight just to be safe. That, my friend, is the only “choice” gay people make about their orientation–to deny or tell the truth.
Lesson #2: Most gay people, as with most straight people, are law-abiding, tax-paying citiziens who are always “following the law.” But–brace yourself for this–most laws are unethical. Ever hear of Jim Crow laws? America certainly created laws to get around THOSE laws. It's only a matter of time before we do the same to this wave of marriage discrimination.
Lesson #3: Hmm, let's have a recess. Take a break and be back in time for Lesson #4.
Lesson #4: Tolerance and violence have everything to do with each other: they're at opposite ends of the same spectrum. Intolerance stems from ignorance, which leads to fear, which can lead to hate, which can–and most often will–end in violence. Forgive me for sounding like Yoda, but all this is true. This isn't to say that you're a prime candidate for being a gay basher, but the closer you can stay on the tolerance end of the spectrum, the better.
Lesson #5: You say you do not judge those who “engage” in homosexuality, yet you say in the same breath that you are not in favor of it. Surely you are judging something about gay people in order to reach your conclusion.
Lesson #6: This lesson isn't so much of a lesson as it is an observation: You need new friends. If you have friends who are gay, like you've said, and they're still your friends even though you won't let them near your kids, your friends are either terrified of you or aren't the sharpest crayons in the box. What kind of a friendship is that?? Sheesh.
Lesson #7: Those of you who don't approve have been standing up and letting yourselves be heard for long enough now. And our culture WILL change, and it will change for the better. Children WILL grow up to believe that homosexuality is OK and normal because–surprise, surprise–it is.
OK, before I dismiss class, I have a suggestion: If you indeed have gay friends, please get to know them better and try to see them as fellow human beings and not immoral, unnatural, law-breaking, child-eating trolls. That's your homework assignment.
11 January 2007 at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Beautiful, Weezy. Absolutely beautiful. Especially the child-eating trolls part, that brought a huge smile to my face.
11 January 2007 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Thanks, Tychoman. I've been on a soapbox for so long that I think I should change my moniker to Country-Fresh Tide.
11 January 2007 at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
I've thought of changing mine to Thread_Killer.
11 January 2007 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Just a couple of things:
1) I don't know why people keep bring up choice or not. Who cares? If fundies wanted to DAMN tall people who married short people or old people who married young people; would short/tall or old/young couples need to justify it by saying it was no choice? Frankly, it is NONE of their business.
2) The biggest hypocricy with the fundies and their supporters are their priorities. Currently, their biggest moral/social agendas are gays and abortion. They preach that abortion is murder, yet in reality they are more concerned about sex than murder. Just look at their numbers; they swell much more on issues like this than abortion. Seems like they have twisted priorities.
11 January 2007 at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
I hear you Erica. Don't let the tolerance police get to you. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple. The fact is that society is changing to believe that it is right, but hopefully there will always be a portion of the society that believes in the one true Christian God that says it is wrong and sinful, just like every other sexual sin. It is too bad though that Christians focus more on this than adultery, fornication, etc.
11 January 2007 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…
Oh for Pete's sake, craigers, let's not get into what God said and all that jazz. Put the Good Book down for a second. God “said” a lot of stuff about adultery, murder, slavery, avoiding menstrating women, and so on. WWJD, craigers? WWJD?
People who think homosexuality is wrong think that way because (1) sex is already a taboo topic among church folk, (2) they don't understand it and therefore fear it, (3) they're really gay themselves and take out their self-hatred on other gay people, or (4) a combination or all of the above.
“Tolerance police”….You say it as if it's a bad thing. Madre de Dios…
11 January 2007 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
craigers, no it's NOT.
“one true Christian God” One of the most arrogant, pompous posts I've ever read, until your next sentence.
“It is to