City commission
- Commissioners put big projects on back burner (06-13-07)
- Chatabout the T's future with Cliff Galante (submit a question)
- Liveblog: Lawrence City Commission discusses the T's future, budget cuts(06-12-07)
- Downtown'sfuture looking up
- Grantsup for commission's approval (06-11-07)
- Simons:City, county, school officials face tough funding choices(06-09-07)
- Proposalmay ease city cuts (06-08-07)
City leaders vote to increase "T" fares
In news fresh out of city hall, Lawrence city commissioners decide to cut funding to two dozen social service agencies by four percent this year. Enlarge video
Opposition from a pair of the city's religious leaders was not enough to change the minds of city commissioners who have supported creating the state's first domestic partnership registry.
Commissioners at their Tuesday evening meeting heard a bevy of faith-based concerns about a new registry that would allow same-sex couples to receive some legal recognition of their partnerships by registering with the city.
"I know this city prides itself in tolerance, but sometimes we can be so politically correct that we become spiritually wrong," said the Rev. William Dulin.
Commissioners had approved the registry two weeks ago on a 4-1 vote after about two hours of public comment. The registry was back on the agenda Tuesday for its first reading, which normally is nothing more than a technicality that commissioners must go through before an ordinance can become a law.
The Rev. Leo Barbee Jr. also urged commissioners to change course, and told them that he believed the ordinance was the first step by a gay and lesbian community to promote a "pro-gay agenda" at City Hall.
"It would be best to stop it now," Barbee said.
Approximately a half-dozen other speakers urged commissioners to change their previous vote. Most spoke against the ordinance based on faith-based concerns, saying it went against the spirit of the state's constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.
About five speakers urged commissioners to continue to support the registry.
"It is not a business' job or the city government's job to determine who has sinned," Natalya Lowther said. "That is God's job."
None of the commissioners changed their previous vote. Commissioner Mike Amyx was the lone commissioner to vote against the ordinance.
"To me, this is about freedom," City Commissioner Boog Highberger said. "This is a freedom that does not impose on anybody else's freedom. I strongly support it, regardless of whether it is the most popular thing to do."
The registry, which also is open to heterosexual couples who choose not to marry, would not grant the same legal rights to domestic partners that married couples have.
The registry would provide legal documentation that could be used by individuals to help secure health insurance for their domestic partner. That has been the main selling point supporters of the registry have offered to commissioners.
The city expects to have the registry ready Aug. 1. A fee to register has not yet been set. The city manager will set that fee after he determines how much it will cost the city to administer the program. Typically, fees in other communities have ranged from $20 to $50.
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.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Thank you very much, Commissioner Amyx, for voting against this horrible oridinance.
Fueldrum (Nick Combs) says…
I find it extremely interesting that the Journal World didn't print the name of the pastors' churches when they're against the domestic registry, but the pastors that spoke for the registry as one of MANY people were the first people quoted, with their church name prominently displayed.
Come on LJ, quit being so obviously biased.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Some thought that it went against the spirit of the state's same sex marriage amendment. hhmmm, that is the amendment that Douglas County did not support. So why would we not want to support this local ordinance.
C,mon people, it's the 21st century. Shouldn't we all be equal in eyes of the law?
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Was Rev. Phelps there too? Birds of a feather flock together.
Mari (Mari Windermere) says…
Leo Barbee is from Victory Bible Church and William Dulin is from Calvary Church of God in Christ.
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
There is an inherit flaw in democracy in that it provides a means for the majority to excert tyranny over the minority. Cheers to the city council for trying to resist this tendency and support, in a small way, the minority.
Fueldrum (Nick Combs) says…
Thanks Mari. The Journal-World thanks you too for doing their job for them.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Organized religion, is responsible for most of human suffering, war, oppression, inequality, injustice, ignorance , poverty, lack of social progress......... It will be a great day in human history when men and women's mind will be free of this cancer.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
I think the government keeping a list of gay couples is a great idea!!! NOT. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Ever since this registry has passed, I find that I'm still a heterosexual.
average (anonymous) says…
Sigmund, what kind of threat are you making?
Of course, that leads to an interesting question. Myself and my opposite-gender (but ambiguously named) partner, both heterosexually inclined, are planning on signing up for this registry. No benefit expected but solidarity. Will we be subject to your threats too?
I belong to a faith community (one that help found this city) that has been supporting gay couples and secular partnerships for over 30 years. What about my religious freedom? Slippery slope? If they're consenting human adults, I'm not scared of polygamy/polyamory. The line is pretty clear.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
My husband and I haven't even had a fight since this registry began. I guess our marriage is just too strong to be shaken by this. Too bad these preachers marriages are so fragile.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Rev. Barbee is the same guy that said Rose was innocent. You know, the murderer that got 10 years for killing 3 people and destroying the lives of 80+ others with his fire fetish? I also believe that Calvary Church claimed they were Homosexual friendly a few years ago. I guess being a hypocrite isn't a sin at these churches.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
You know, if these "People of Faith" would spend their time and resources on real problems, like the sick and the poor, instead of prying into people's lives, they could REALLY make a difference.
deec (anonymous) says…
Or adultery. They should be worrying about adultery. That's a real marriage and family killer.
smitty (anonymous) says…
....an interesting characteristic of fundamentalists is an obsession with one or two emotional issues as with homosexuality among some religious factions. Many devout worshipers respect homosexuals but refuse to give such sexual relationships their religious blessing, while some other groups have chosen gays and lesbians as the foremost targets of their denigration. Leaders of the Southern Baptist convention, for instance, have elevated homosexuality to a pinnacle of great importance among deviations from their increasingly narrow and rigid definition of the Christian faith......
Rather than let the controversial issue remain so divisive among our citizens, perhaps we should separate the two basic approaches, by letting governments define and protect equal rights for citizens, including those of "civil unions," and letting church congregations define "holy matrimony."
Jimmy Carter
our endangered values
america's moral crisis
pg 64 & 69
stuckinthemiddle (anonymous) says…
smitty
Jimmy makes sense, eh?
TheLawrenceFox (anonymous) says…
"I know this city prides itself in tolerance, but sometimes we can be so politically correct that we become spiritually wrong," said the Rev. William Dulin.
The Rev. Leo Barbee Jr. also urged commissioners to change course, and told them that he believed the ordinance was the first step by a gay and lesbian community to promote a "pro-gay agenda" at City Hall.
"It would be best to stop it now," Barbee said.
This from the president and vice president of the Ecumenical Fellowship that has for years received lawrence city tax dollars to promote their "agenda." ($5,000 in 2007...asked for $10,000)
When do we begin to realize that hate is hate is hate. No more tax dollar donations to religous organizations that promote segregation, disassociation and fear.
I agree Pastor Leo... It would be best to stop it now.
References:
http://www.lawrenceks.org/budget2007/...
http://www.lawrenceks.org/budget2007/...
smitty (anonymous) says…
Our Nobel Peace Prize President, Jimmy Carter, manages to be a devout Christian and an (careful now this is expolsive) honest politician.
I liked him while in office, liked him while he bailed out Clinton a few times early in BC's administration, liked him for his humanitarian contributions here and abroad and find his books are what he is really about, no political BS. Jimmy simply explains his point of view and I like his pov.
"There is obviously a widespread, carefully planned, and unapologetic crusade under way from both sides to merge fundamentalist Christians with the right wing of the Republican Party. Although considered to be desirable by some Americans, this melding of church and state is of deep concern to those who have always relished their separation as one of our moral values."
Jimmy Carter
pg 64
our endangered values
america's moral crisis
ImpactWinter (Derek Dodson) says…
I think its alarmingly simple to say that any law that restricts a specific groups (in this case, sexuality) rights afforded to every other american is a horrendously wrongheaded step backwards for America.
Gov't needs to get the F out of our bedrooms.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Why is this such a big deal?
toefungus (anonymous) says…
The real problems are the rich and the powerful.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
""I know this city prides itself in tolerance, but sometimes we can be so politically correct that we become spiritually wrong."
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" For the record: civil law is 100% secular. The City of Lawrence is neither spiritually right nor spiritually wrong - it is "a-spiritual." Apparently, several local religious leaders choose to ignore Christ's injunction and instead pursue a path of imposing their own religious beliefs by force upon everyone.
kujayhawk (anonymous) says…
"I guess being a hypocrite isn't a sin at these churches."
No, it's the foundation of the church.
davidnta (anonymous) says…
Well, I know which commissioner should go (cough Amxy) next election.
The city of Lawrence should be in the business of protecting its citizen, and provide them with equal rights. It was funny because the arguments that the anti-gay speakers were using, were used on them not too long ago (they were a Black conservative group just for context).
Really, it's not really about bedrooms. That argument was shot down a couple of years ago. It's about protecting two people committed to each other.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
**What a hate filled, homophobic biggot!!
No place for someone like Him in Lawrence, Ks.!!
Now That sounds like hate to me. It's not hate to call sin what it is.
I think that government should get out of marriage. Then gays could get married at a gay church. It's really no one elses business what they do in private. But if I as a Christian want to call it a sin. It's not hate.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
No one has to, but many do.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
While it was obvious to all except for the most obtuse of posters to this forum that I was making no threat, I think government keeping lists of gay couples is a horrible idea. While I am not a member of either group (government nor gay), I don't trust governments to always do the right thing and if I were gay I wouldn't voluntarily put name on such a list. The potential for abuse, intentional or not, is simply to great. Further, if the list is made available to the public (to verify status for instance) it could be used for exactly the opposite of its stated purpose, or even to inflict intentional harm on its members. If it is not made available to the public, what exactly is the purpose?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Can none of you imagine the damage that could be done if Fred Phelps were allowed access to this list? Honestly, I just think it is a well intentioned but horrid idea.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
Sigmund:
I'm not so sure Phred Phelps isn't on this list.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
It doesn't really matter much with Phred anyway, Sigmund. He will assume that everyone else in the world, except himself and his own, are on the list anyway.
Just wait until he starts picketing ALL funerals, not just those of military people.
Gogo, you have the right to think that it is a sin...however, what you believe to be a sin should have nothing whatsoever to do with what is considered legal in this country.
And marriage is totally secular anyway. If you don't believe this, just try going into any well-established church in this country, and get married without a marriage license.
The church may or may not do it. But if they do, try taking that "marriage" to any state in the union and tell them that you're legally married. They will tell you that no, legally you are not. Even if the marriage was performed by a person legally allowed to marry people, without that license you're sunk.
So marriage is totally secular. As such, it shouldn't be regulated by religious beliefs.
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
I really don't care. I have gay and lesbian friends, if they want to register their sexual preference, let them. I do think, however, that this will come back and bite people in the ass. When I make friends, or talk with people, I look at them as people not what their sexual preference is. It has nothing at all to do with their honesty, caring, or any of the other good things that make up human beings. The gay and lesbian people I know, and consider friends, are no different than my heterosexual friends. I really think people should get past this and look at the person. Thank you, Lynn
ihatelv (anonymous) says…
I can not believe someone actually quoted Jimmy Carter..... Lawrence really is doomed to be full of stupid people.....
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Ummm crazyks, you ever hear of common law marriage? You will be just as married in a religious ceremony without secular paperwork as one with the paperwork. In fact, you don't need either! There are three requirements common-law marriage in Kansas: (1) capacity to marry (male/female over 18); (2) a present marriage agreement (need not be written); and (3) a holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public (open joint accounts, change name, tell people you're married).
There is no common law divorce, sorry.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Forgot to add, common law marriages in Kansas are recognized in all other states. No muss, no fuss, well no more than other marriages....
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Phred and his crew used to picket the funeral of any young person, because if they died young, they must have died of AIDS. And if they had died of AIDS, they must be gay. Real simple minded. Not everyone who has a degree is educated.
Sigmund - didn't the language of the anti same sex marriage amendment eliminate common law marriages too.
white_mountain (anonymous) says…
i have concerns that this registry will turn my children gay and bring about the end of western civilization as we know it.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
dorothyhr, I don't think so. I think it simply clarified that common law marriage was only available between two people of opposite sex.
§ 16: 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.
By my reading a common law marriage between one man and one women would still be valid. It would be interesting to hear what a court would say if presented with the issue you raised.
kchuskerfan (anonymous) says…
Registry is an improper forum for the debate. Just as the military was a ridiculous place to try to force change in gay rights.
Most employers are getting clobbered in health care costs and the result has been benefit reduction for all. The healthcare system is buckling from similar liberal "let's help everyone because it's the right and decent thing to do". Haitian boat people with hiv/aids? Sure, bring them in, pay 1 Million and charge it to the government. Illegal aliens and their children? Sure, gotta help them too. Debt of third world countries? We'll write it off, Starvation of children in Africa? Plight of the Farmers, subsidy for Ethanol?, Education for illegal immegrant children? Prisons and welfare systems? Social security payments for people with millions of dollars because they still get it if their income is "investment" income....Now same sex couples? Ummm...Outta money. Maybe you should push the same sex issue above that of the illegal aliens when it comes to health care?
It's frustrating to see citizens of another country getting healthcare, inheritance, parental and judicial rights over US Citizens. Perhaps then, the other major issues can be addressed. The laws of estate and inheritance, medical power of attorney's, parental rights, etc for same sex partners are absolutely in need of review.
I'd like the Family leave act to recognize the rights of spouses to get time off to care for in-laws. My mother has Cancer, I can't leave work, my wife could, but the current FMLA won't allow for care of "in-laws". Can I go go get a local panel to agree that such a rule sucks and get a registry of people that want it to happen? My mom is 100% my dependent, even before the Cancer, but I can't add her to my insurance. There's flaws in the system, I agree.
"Marriage" should not be re-packaged/re-interpreted as two people "committed" to each other? "committed" is not "married". Living with someone is "shacking up", not marriage. (you can't lose 1/2 in a "committed" relationship). I do not think boyfriend/girlfriend living together should get benefits either. I think married should. Therefore, I'd rather see same sex marriage before recognition of same sex couples with benefits without being married. That would be consistant in my feeling that same sex people, if married, should then be able to have inheritance rights, parental rights, medical power of attorney rights, etc.
True change is still a long ways away and some may paint this as some kind of starting point, but really, I don't think it's accomplished much other than to perhaps announce that Lawrence, KS., as the first and only city with such a registry, is the most friendly city in Kansas towards the gay/lesbian lifestyle or that people are actually volunteering to identify themselves to the government for no actual benefit, which seems like a silly thing to do in the current environment.
friend73 (anonymous) says…
My lordly people. Give it a rest.. Why is it such a big deal? Last I knew nobody owned this earth, that we all share!! As long as people are paying their taxes and are upstanding citizens.. What business is it of anyone elses?? I mean really. Shouldn't everyone be more worried about criminals? Verses a relationship law? That is the least of my worries. I worry about the criminal activity, verses that.. Walk down the street and get shot but oo lord forbid don't allow a domestic-partner ship law... Just makes no since to me!
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Actually, I have known many people who wanted to be common law married in Kansas. Not only did they have to prove all the things Sigmund mentioned, they also had to go to the courthouse and sign a paper stating that they considered themselves married.
Without that paper, they weren't common law married. Just living together isn't enough anymore.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
And anyway, my point, Sigmund, was that marriage is a totally secular institution. That includes common law marriage.
Larzia (Jake Esau) says…
If you don't like gay marriage (or in this case domestic partnerships), then don't get one.
Souki (anonymous) says…
Spywell:
Baloney.
If partner A dissolves his domestic partner registration with partner B, and if partner A's employer relied on the registry to provide health insurance to partner B, then partner B loses that insurance coverage and has no legal recourse. That's no more discriminatory or unconstitutional than when a married partner loses inheritance rights after a divorce.
In 1995, when the city added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination ordinance, there was the same sort of wailing about all the litigation that would result. Has it?
No.
12345 (anonymous) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says:
...There is no common law divorce, sorry.
Yes there is. I had to divorce my common law husband in order to prevent him from having a claim on the house I bought after he abandoned our relationship.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
let me ask a stupid question here , what cannot be established in a partnership with a bit of legal paperwork that the registry will provide or honestly is this a precursor for alternative marriages that will ultimately gain state and federal recognition for SS type benefits.
ImpactWinter (Derek Dodson) says…
Homosexual recruitment?
They wish it was that easy!
Parkay, thats just about the silliest thing I've read in print for a long time.
if you think there's a concerted homosexual-political agenda, well you're a little too paranoid.
Between Islamic radicals, belligerent trading partners and corrupt Gov't, we've got enough to worry about!
Anti-homosexual political agendas, however,
we're pretty much sick with those...
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
" "I know this city prides itself in tolerance, but sometimes we can be so politically correct that we become spiritually wrong," said the Rev. William Dulin. "
Well it's a good thing there's a separation b/t church and state. Spirituality has no business being in government affairs.
"The Rev. Leo Barbee Jr. also urged commissioners to change course, and told them that he believed the ordinance was the first step by a gay and lesbian community to promote a "pro-gay agenda" at City Hall."
What would that agenda be? Equal rights and protection for all as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I find it sad that we have to follow the exact same path as interracial marriages in the 50s. Maybe we need another civil rights movement to get every person in this country equal rights.
How exactly does it harm anybody else if there are two gay dudes or dudettes married? I have yet to find a Jesus-freak that will answer that question for me.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Hey parkay,
Are you bigoted enough with your comments? Why do you hate homosexuals so much? I hope you realize that it was your religion that was spewing hate on interracial marriages in the 50s. Also, isn't bigotry a big form of sinnery, according to your draconian religion?
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
My thought is that marriage should not be interfered with by the government. Then this whole thing would be a non issue. Gays could get married in churches or wherever they would be allowed to. Do we really need the government to tell us we can get married?
peppermint (anonymous) says…
gogoplata:
Gays and lesbians already do get married in churches or by shamans or whatever. It carries no legal weight. It would be a disaster is there were no legal form of marriage for everyone.
Gays and lesbians only want what you already have: for their marriage to give them some legal rights.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
12345, there is no common law divorce, you must actually go to court and have a judge dissolve any marriage (common law or non-common law). But then again, you probably don't understand the concept of common law marriage. Citing Wikipedia for legal authority is not really proper, but your misunderstanding appears so profound it is a good place for you to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-l...
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Crazyks, there is NO requirement to go to a courthouse and sign a paper to be common law married. Find me one case or statute that requires that in Kansas. And trust me on this, you MUST go to the courthouse to get a common law marriage dissolved. You are correct though, no need to cohabitate and cohabitation is not enough.
I repeat, there are three and only three, not two and not four, three requirements for common-law marriage in Kansas: (1) capacity to marry (male/female over 18); (2) a present marriage agreement (need not be written and nothing signed at a court house); and (3) a holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public (open joint accounts, change name, tell people you're married). That is it, period, your married, like it or not.
And if you don't like it there is no common law divorce, never has been, doubt there ever will be. Lawyers want to collect fees from all those miserable married couples who will pay anything to get that person they would have done anything for just a couple of years ago out of their lives.
But back to my main point, I think government keeping lists of gay couples is a horrible idea. While I am not a member of either group (government nor gay), I don't trust governments to always do the right thing (in fact I trust Walmart more than governments) and if I were gay I wouldn't voluntarily put name on such a list. The potential for abuse, intentional or not, is simply to great.
If the list is made available to the public (so they can verify status for instance) it could be used for exactly the opposite of its stated purpose, or even to inflict intentional harm on its members. If it is not made available to the public (so they can't verify your status for instance), what exactly is the purpose?