Archive for Saturday, March 3, 2007

Committee to consider registry ban

Lawmaker says he wants to keep state law on domestic relationships uniform

March 3, 2007

Advertisement

— A House committee will work on a bill that would prevent the city of Lawrence from establishing a domestic partnership registry, the committee chairman said Friday.

State Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, said the House Federal and State Affairs Committee will consider the measure next week.

After a hearing on House Bill 2299 last month, Siegfreid said he wanted to find out whether the measure would run counter to the home rule authority of cities.

"There is no conflict with home rule," he said Friday.

The bill would prevent any city or county from establishing a domestic partner registry that "recognizes any domestic partnership not recognized under state law."

The legislation is being pushed by state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe. He said the proposal would keep state law on domestic relationships uniform and protect the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But during the bill's hearing, a handful of Lawrence residents urged the committee to reject the measure.

They said a domestic partnership registry would help gay couples receive health insurance coverage from companies that extend benefits to their employees' partners.

Some companies require a registry as proof of a domestic partnership.

"If couples are banned from registering anywhere in the state, they will be put in an impossible Catch-22 situation," said Maggie Childs, chairwoman of the Kansas Equality Coalition of Lawrence and Douglas County.

"In effect, these citizens will be legally barred from receiving the benefits their employers want to give them," she said.

Mayor Mike Amyx also wrote a letter opposing Kinzer's ban, saying that the decision on whether to approve a domestic partnership registry should be left up to the city.

The city has requested a legal opinion from the state attorney general's office on the legality of establishing a registry. The attorney general's office said it will probably deliver an opinion in April.

Comments

fletch 8 years, 6 months ago

It doesn't. The amendment that passed was in regard to awarding institutions outside of marriage the same benefits. It says nothing about recognizing their existence.

Ragingbear 8 years, 6 months ago

Marion. All you said was that the sky was blue and that grass is green. This is just an article that verifies that. We all knew this was going to happen. We all know that these uber-conservative republicans are actually all closet homosexuals intent on trying to deny who they really are.

white_mountain 8 years, 6 months ago

If these people were serious about "protecting" marriage they would pass laws banning divorce.

The Bible categorically forbids divorce:

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery." - Mark 10:11

"Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery." - Luke 16:18

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14

nbnozzy 8 years, 6 months ago

So what if two gays marry? What the hell business is it of the state, federal government, or the neighbor next door? Grow up people and learn to live together.

white_mountain 8 years, 6 months ago

LOL Marion you are a hoot. My car could use one of those, if it'll help it run better!

nbnozzy: normal, mentally-stable heterosexual men could really care less if gays get married..

BrianR 8 years, 6 months ago

"We cannot allow employers and local government agencies to sanction and endorse perversion that will damage our society."

By this, of course, you mean politically powerful clergy.

Tychoman 8 years, 6 months ago

Take your sacreligious, pompous argument and forcefully place it where the large ball of nuclear fire at the center of our solar system does not shine, parkay. People like YOU are who damage our society.

pelliott 8 years, 6 months ago

usual hypocrasy. Compare it to the ability for communities to have a different standard of alcohol. Then he would be pushing the communities right to self regulate. These guys were too slow on the uptake when many communities added sexual orientation to their local ordinance of protection. They are more sophisticated now, they won't be caught with their pants down. Oh that reminds me of that Colorado preacher who spearheaded a lot of this stuff nationally. I wonder if this desire to turn this country into one church is as dangerous as it was for Afganistan. Crowl and crown riding the same set of shoulders makes a crooked spine.

George_Braziller 8 years, 6 months ago

Hmmmm -

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Could it be?????

ASBESTOS 8 years, 6 months ago

I still do not know where a City though they had overiding authority to pass a bill like this recognizing anything like legal marriage, partnerships, or other such things.

Cities have to follow State and Federal law.

fletch 8 years, 6 months ago

asbestos: there is no federal or state law against recognizing the unions, only awarding benefits to them. The purpose of the registry is to recognize them so that private 3rd party companies can use the registry to give out health insurance as they please.

For a bunch of conservatives, I'm amazed how quickly some of these lawmakers are to abandon the notion of home rule and interfere with private business.

marxisnotdead 8 years, 6 months ago

Why do many on this comment board go to great lengths to categorize ideas into conservative and liberal? It bewilders me that we take such a shallow analytical view of comments and opinions and discount them in a manner that dilutes the issues as a whole.

BrianR 8 years, 6 months ago

"Why do many on this comment board go to great lengths to categorize ideas into conservative and liberal?"

That is a good question and I've wondered the same thing. I guess I've just never viewed the world in left-right terms because, in reality, it's just not arranged that way.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.