Panel answers questions on domestic registry / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

May 4, 2007

When Diane Silver's life partner died of breast cancer, the already difficult task of tending to her partner's affairs was made more arduous by insurance companies and government agencies doubting that their relationship existed.

She had to prove the relationship through newspaper articles written about them.

"Here are these people saying your relationship doesn't mean garbage," Silver said.

It was a process that a domestic partner registry could have helped, she said.

That kind of documentation was one potential benefit of a registry, which was discussed at a forum hosted by the Mainstream Coalition and Kansas Equality Coalition on Thursday at Plymouth Congregational Church.

Ever since Attorney General Paul Morrison issued a legal opinion that Lawrence's proposed domestic partnership registry wouldn't interfere with the state's amendment that bans gay marriage, it appears to be just a matter of time before the Lawrence City Commission takes the issue up again.

Toni Wheeler, director of legal services for Lawrence, along with Steve Maceli, a Lawrence business owner, and Boo Tyson, from the Mainstream Coalition, answered several questions from the approximately 40 attendees about the proposed registry.

Among them:

¢ For those concerned about privacy, would there be an opt-out policy to keep them off a public list of couples on the domestic partner registry?

Answer: Wheeler said the domestic registry would likely qualify as a public document, made available for anyone who asks for it.

"Because the registry is with the city, it would be a public record, and if a person had a concern about whether their name would be included in that registry, that would be something they should consider," she said.

¢ Does this registry set the stage for costly litigation for Lawrence?

Answer: Wheeler said several similar registries in other parts of the country had been challenged in court to varying degrees of success. The outcomes of those cases depended on home rule charters and state laws in the places where registries had been adopted.

"Some of them survived," Wheeler said. "Some of them were upheld, and some of them were not."

¢ Could people from outside the city come to Lawrence for the purpose of getting registered, even though they're not residents of the city?

Answer: Morrison's legal opinion suggested to Lawrence that it keep the registry limited to Lawrence residents to prevent the further possibility of litigation.

"Under home rule powers, that would insulate us from legal challenges," Wheeler said. "It would take that argument away."

¢ When will the commission consider the issue again?

Answer: City Commissioner Boog Highberger, who was in attendance, said it could come before the commission within the next month or so.

Discussion

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.

4 May 2007
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Why is the Plymouth Church practiciing politics?????????? What happened to separation of church and state???????? Revoke thier tax free status if they are involved in this.
4 May 2007
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fueldrum (Nick Combs) says…

Or they're just a facility with a big enough room to host something of this size…
4 May 2007
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Q: Does this registry set the stage for costly litigation for Lawrence?

The answer turns on exactly who would have standing to file a lawsuit challenging it. Other than the Attorney General, I'm not sure who this party is supposed to be. Without getting technical, basically to have standing one must show a direct connection to the activity and show harm. In other words, neither you nor I can just file a lawsuit as a third-party just because we don't like what two other parties are doing. Who, outside the couples involved, has any connection to this issue, and who could possibly be harmed? That doesn't mean, of course, that someone won't file a lawsuit; but its not particularly “costly” to have the City Attorney show up with a petition for the court to dismiss the case for “lack of standing” (with a copy of the AG's opinion stapled on the back) - the City Attorney is paid a salary anyway whether he has work to do or not.
4 May 2007
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Souki (Anonymous) says…

In fact, Plymouth church provided only a venue for the forum. It wasn't a church activity.

But churches (and other nonprofits) are perfectly entitled to participate in political activities. They're barred from endorsing candidates, but they can take positions on issues if they like.
4 May 2007
at 2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

Parkay, you are beyond ridiculous.
4 May 2007
at 5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Its not Parkay; its butter!

Laugh as many will at looney-tunes like Parkay. The Christianity that now exists is - in part - the evolutionary product of millenia of people like Parkay enforcing their views via fire & sword against “apostates.” (And yet the love of Jesus shines on through!)
6 May 2007
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

When other churches can all but say you are sinning if you don't vote for republican candidates, I find it laughable that someone would criticize Plymouth for letting a group use their facilities.