Advertisement

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

BrianR 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Fletch:

Yes, in one regard you are correct but in another you are mistaken!

We've been through this before, so I'll go slowly this time!

(1) Kansas prohibits gay marriage and civil unions by the constitution.

(2) Kansas defines marriage.

(3) Kansas prohibits the assignment of any of the things normally assigned to marriage to any other realtionship.

Ergo; this is the path that will be taken by the supporters of this bill.

"Recognition" will serve no useful purpose as those who oppose gay marriage will point out that the constituion of the State of Kansas prohibits the assignment of any sort of "rights" to any relationship but marriage as defined in the Constitutiion.

This prohibition will extend to the private sector in that, even a private company could be prohibited from granting anything to a gay "marriage" or "civil uniion".

I'm right on this one as the plan to do it is already underway.

I have Little Birds in interesting places!

I think that it is a travesty of a sham of a travesty of a sham of a travesty of justice but that IS how it is going to go.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

marxisnotdead 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

fletch 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Fletch:

The problem is that the constituion of Kansas may well prohibit such recognition.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

fletch 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

George_Braziller 7 years, 1 month ago

Hmmmm -

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Could it be?????

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8

Thanks.

Marion.

0

pelliott 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

BrianR 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Ray Parker 7 years, 1 month ago

We must have legal as well as moral limits on deviant behavior. We cannot allow employers and local government agencies to sanction and endorse perversion that will damage our society.

0

hawkperchedatriverfront 7 years, 1 month ago

Why not interview the wedding planner featured in the J/W to see how much revenue could be gained from gay weddings in Lawrence? Story here J/W, helloooo?

0

none2 7 years, 1 month ago

People think of the consequences if this perfect person, Rep. Lance Kinzer, doesn't get his bill passed...

It could lead to gay marriage being allowed...

If that happens, imagine the increased demand on weddings. There will be much higher the cost of tux rentals, wedding dresses, wedding cakes, reception hall rents, caterers, honeymoon trips, and on and on. This might even speed up global warming due to the increased pollution created by these industries and the extra distances people have to go to get the resources to make a wedding happen.

Isn't there some sci fi horror show entitled "Gay Wedding Dress: Death of a Planet." where the plot begins with an alien creature that forced towns people to create a registry?

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

"Plastic Jesus!

Plastic Jesus!

Sittin' on the dashboard of my car!

Ignore that blower on his Cord!

I am faster in my Ford!

Southern Baptists cannot build race cars!"

Yes, Brothers and Sisters!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

white_mountain 7 years, 1 month 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..

0

nbnozzy 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

"Jesus!

Plastic Jesus!

Sittin' on the dashboard of my car!

Though my lifters clang and clatter

He will make my engine better

Sittin' on the dashboard of my car!"

Thanks.

Marion.

0

white_mountain 7 years, 1 month 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

0

Dambudzo 7 years, 1 month ago

How else are we going to keep track of these people if they are not registered?

When will the insanity stop!!

0

americorps 7 years, 1 month ago

discrimination is wrong, seperate but equal is wrong and It is time to tell the legislature to stop demanding discrimination.

I do not care the cost, that is a stupid argument because it would be like saying we should still have slavery because the cost of ending it was too high.

Until there is equality for all, there is no freedom for anyone.

0

Ragingbear 7 years, 1 month 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.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Although I oppose this action, it will be recalled that I predicted that they would do this very thing.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.