City continues push for domestic partnership registry
Lawrence could soon become the first city in the state to create a domestic partnership registry, which is a program that would legally recognize unmarried couples who live together and depend on each other to live. Enlarge video
Domestic partnership registry
- Domesticpartnership ordinance
- Chatabout Lawrence's potential to enact a domestic partner registry(03-15-07)
- Panelanswers questions on domestic registry (05-04-07)
- Domesticregistry gets nod from AG (04-07-07)
- KansasAttorney General's opinion on the domestic partnership registry(.pdf)
- Banon domestic registry put on hold (03-28-07)
- Committeestands against partnership registry (03-23-07)
- KUgroup supports domestic registry (03-10-07)
To some, it would be just another list - another pile of paperwork - inside Lawrence City Hall.
But for gay couples in Kansas, where same-sex marriages are prohibited by the state's constitution, a proposed city domestic partnership registry may be the closest they'll ever get to a government legally recognizing their relationships.
Tonight, advocates pushing for Lawrence to become Kansas' first city to create a domestic partnership registry will find out whether there are three votes on the five-member City Commission to make it reality.
From early indications, the effort has more than a fighting chance.
"From what I can tell, there is some support on the commission for passing it," said City Commissioner Mike Dever, who said he was leaning toward voting for the registry. "We've gotten a lot of information on it, a lot of feedback on it."
The registry would allow unmarried couples to file paperwork at the City Clerk's Office that would recognize their domestic partnership. As the registry is proposed, both partners would need to be 18 years or older and "live together in a relationship of indefinite duration with a mutual commitment in which the partners share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent." A registration fee, which hasn't been set, would be charged.
Supporters of the registry, which was proposed by members of the Kansas Equality Coalition, have said some companies offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of employees, but the companies require some proof of the relationship. A registry run by the city could fill that requirement, they say.
Dever and City Commissioner Rob Chestnut - both of whom will be addressing the issue for the first time since being elected in early April - said they have heard from far more supporters of the ordinance than opponents.
"I'm looking at it strictly from the perspective of the city has a responsibility to provide service to the citizens, and this would be a service to some citizens," Chestnut said.
The issue, though, has sparked concern about whether a registry would create an end-run around the state's prohibition on same-sex marriages. For that reason, state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, introduced a bill that would ban cities from creating the registries. The bill did not become law during the legislative session.
Chestnut said he was trying to keep the city out of that debate.
"There has been a lot of comment about the broader issues attached to this," Chestnut said. "Those broader issues are there. You can't deny that. But what I'm focusing on are the cost and benefits of the citizens, because that is what I think we're charged to do."
The registry also has the support of City Commissioner Boog Highberger, who said it would provide tangible benefits to people who sign up and would be a symbolic sign that Lawrence is a welcoming and accepting community.
The state has received a legal opinion from Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison saying the city would be within its rights to create the registry, as long as it registers only Lawrence residents.
City staff members also have researched whether the city could be held legally liable by companies or others who rely on the registry to confirm partnerships. Staff members have said the city's legal risks appear small, although they admit there haven't been many cases on the subject.
Not all questions have been answered for every commissioner, though.
"I know we have a legal opinion that says we can do it, but the bigger question is whether we ought to do it," said City Commissioner Mike Amyx. "Is this the function of local government? That's the big question in my mind."
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.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
So when a gay couple register, they get benefits from thier employers, etc, what happens when they split? Irreconsilable differences? Do they have to go through a process of "un-registering"? And, what if one person doesn't want the relationship to end and refuses to "un-register"? Then the other person falls in love and wants to "re-register" with another person? What are the legal ramifications there? Will the person who "re-registers" be charged with bigomy?????? or some other legal fraud action type of behavior???? Will the employer (s) be able to sue for losses or charge for fraud when the system is abused?
If we create this registry, shouldn't the people using it be held responsible just as straight couple when they divorce??? Many legal consideration I would think?
Souki (anonymous) says…
The ordinance spells out how a registered couple would become unregistered. If one of the partners dies, for instance, the couple is removed from the registry. A couple can also be removed if either or both of the individuals request it.
If the registry is used fraudulently, then those who committed the fraud -- the individuals who registered fraudulently -- would be liable for that act.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
consumer1: "If we create this registry, shouldn't the people using it be held responsible just as straight couple when they divorce??? Many legal consideration I would think?"
That's exactly why they should enter into a marriage or a civil union. All the benefits, and all the responsibilities and strings.
The registry is the right thing because it's a start, and it's all we can do in Lawrence with the state laws.
But we need to have our eyes wide open and see the down side: this will provide Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing preachers who dominate radio throughout Kansas to paint Lawrence with some kind of brush - you know, the intolerant, hating, jugemental brush. They already have redefined the word "liberal" to mean some warped thing and this will give them more fuel. The sheep will buy it. We'll have to be ready for that.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Dever and Chestnut, I did not vote for you so you could pass a "domestic partnership registry."
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Heck yes, Lawrence should institute a registry -- to show the rest of Kansas what tolerance and respect for one's neighbors looks like. I'd go further and say Lawrence should set up some process for local civil unions or gay marriage, although those laws usually need to come from the state level and often are stuck down by courts. However, I believe some mayors have been presiding over gay marriages in spite of their state laws.
I cannot fathom why anybody would oppose a registry.
Souki (anonymous) says…
b3:
The registry confers no rights other than the right to be on the registry. Which, if you have a willing partner and meet the requirements, is a right as available to you as to anyone else.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
There are over 1,000 rights that a married couple enjoy that those joined in "civil unions" do not enjoy:.
Scenebooster, you seem to want everyone to explain things to you, how about you list these 1,000 rights that married couple have????
conservative (anonymous) says…
I see nothing wrong with the registry and I support it.
Everyone wants to turn this into a gay issue, but it isn't simply a registry for same sex couples. Male/Female couples who don't want to be married could register as well. In fact I can see a lot of benefit from doing so if you have an employer that will provide health coverage to your partner even if you aren't married. This is designed to give companies that offer those types of benefits an easy way to verify the status of a relationship.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
If you are married, then you already receive the rights that the gay registry would possibly allow gay couples. Even straight couples who are co-habitating and aren't going to marry are allowed to sign up for the registry.
So I am not sure where the "extra rights" come from, unless you are a single person, then it would be extra.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
thanks for the info Souki.
The only way the registry effects me is through, friends that might benefit, and as someone else stated, " how lawrence will be percieved" by the extreme right. Personally, though, I have given allot of thought to this, and I am NOT opposed to it, I am just a little concerned about the language and if it has undergone thorough "what if(s)". It would be a tough position to create city policy and find problems down the road.
4chewnut (anonymous) says…
Why is it so hard for people to simply be decent human beings? Some of you get pretty freaked out by something that is fairly straight forward. It is a registry. No more, no less. It has been done in other cities with success. It will provide access to such things as health insurance for some domestic partners -- straight and gay.
mick (anonymous) says…
"It's a start......" Right. What's next? nambla? Indoctrinating and desensitizing our children in the schools? Why does Lawrence need this? Any consideration at all for the majority?
karensisson (anonymous) says…
Do the right thing, Lawrence. Make the registry a reality. Show the world that not all of Kansas is bigoted and narrow-minded.
bettie (anonymous) says…
consumer1, If it's not too much trouble, you can download a General Accountability Office report on the 1,138 rights automatically granted to married couples here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf.
In the meantime, here are a couple:
-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.
-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits
It's important to keep in mind that the creation of a registry will not require anyone including employers to do anything. It will simply be a resource for those companies that do choose to offer benefits to domestic partners. Considering that a majority of Fortune 500 companies have such policies already, it seems a logical step for a city looking to attract business.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
All the rhetoric aside, the fact is this registry will improve the quality of life for some Lawrence residents while not costing anything or harming anyone. Sounds like a win-win situation.
mick (anonymous) says…
If this ordinance is passed, every homo within 300 miles will want to move here. Goodbye Lawrence as we know it.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
I'd be interested to see the debate in person. I kind of like seeing the opponents get mopped up by the eloquence and well thought out and articulated arguments of the supporters. The best part is when the opponents run out of arguments, they jump up and shout, "Ain't none y'alls gun turn my kid inta a homo!"
crazyks (anonymous) says…
While it's a good idea for Lawrence, having a local domestic registry is not going to cut any ice with the federal government when it comes to social security or veterans' benefits.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
A domestic registry will benefit some who have fewer rights than the rest of us.
It will hurt no one.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
1) "If we create this registry, shouldn't the people using it be held responsible just as straight couple when they divorce???"
You want to explain that statement?
2) "Why should these people get rights that i dont have? This isnt about equal rights it is about getting extra rights."
Explain - what rights would a registry confer upon those that chose it that you don't have?
There are over 1,000 rights that a married couple enjoy that those joined in "civil unions" do not enjoy:.
But who is counting???
oldvet (anonymous) says…
Many of the "rights" pointed out are solved by legal documents... including wills, power of attorney, trusts... the documents that even married couples should have to protect themselves. Other "rights" pointed out are at state and/or federal levels and you will not be able to change any of them with your registry...
Many companies currently offer benefits (medical, etc) to unmarried or same-sex couples, yet I have NEVER heard of any company that requires the couple to have their name on a government-sponsored registry. Those companies that I am aware of require the employee to provide a statement that the couple is living as a domestic couple to get the benefits. This registry will not do a single thing to attract companies to Lawrence... companies know the climate of Lawrence and those who offer benefits will continue to do so (even in Texas! Gasp!!), those who do not will still be welcomed if they are willing to bring jobs here... even WalMart, who, by the way, offers benefits to domestic partners!!!!
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Quote from scenebooster,
"Now if we could just do something about the jews and the blacks, we could have Lawrence right in line with your way of thinking":.
Dang !! that is a little harsh of you to say there scenebooster !! Sounds like you are pretty hatefilled.
Sammy Davis Jr.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Not much...
If only the federal government would get in gear and do the same thing...
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
I used to work for a national Liberal news magazine.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
I hope this would draw more homosexuals to Lawrence. We could use them in our tax base, since they tend to have higher incomes. They're also less likely to have kids in public schools. Plus, gays tend to vote progressively and have pretty good taste in art, food, music and architecture. Thus, more gays would mean more rehabilitation for old housing around downtown that right wingers and developers want to knock down. Also, much better restaurants, galleries and MUCH better dancing skills at the clubs. Most importantly, a higher number of homosexuals would mean more strength for the progressive point of view at the ballot box. I hope we pass a registry and in general make Lawrence as gay-friendly as possible, including getting the police department to actually pursue gay bashing as hate crimes.
EmJones (anonymous) says…
b3 (Anonymous) says:
Every man and woman in this country already has equal rights, this will be granting a portion of the population additional rights.
Someone who is not heterosexual has no way to get the rights you do, from marriage. This is a tiny crumb to compensate for that, and it is worth almost nothing.
If we can give them that, let's do it.
peppermint (anonymous) says…
Who would be hurt by this?
none2 (anonymous) says…
quote from mick: "If this ordinance is passed, every homo within 300 miles will want to move here. Goodbye Lawrence as we know it."
If this also means every bigot within 300 miles will want to move further away, then it sounds like a great idea.
My only concern is can Lawrence afford any legal challenges that will come of this. There are so many fanatics on the far right, that you know it is bound to happen.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
"If this also means every bigot within 300 miles will want to move further away, then it sounds like a great idea."
none2 - love it, love it, love it..........
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
peppermint says.......who would be hurt by this?
Answer..........everyone eventually.
It's a lose/lose.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I'm just going to recycle one of my posts from the archives...
This is one subject where I agree with the self-proclaimed liberal posters - live and let live. If you, your religion or your marriage are "threatened" by someone who is gay, it is YOU that has a problem. I really think that the haters here have never interacted with any gays. I knew of kids in HS (primarily jocks) who would go to the Liberty Memorial and beat up "fags". I never understood why. But I was pretty much ambivelant about the whole subject until I worked with some gay people. Hey, they really are just people trying to make sense out of this f'd up world, just like anyone else. Made some new friends. Got no problem with them.
And I have no problem with a registry.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster you seem to be very PROUUD ? of your ignorance. Not sure what prouud means but, I take the stance that if you are happy with your life then you should be proud of yourself. Ha ha ha ha. ha.
Souki (anonymous) says…
Oldvet said:
"Many companies currently offer benefits (medical, etc) to unmarried or same-sex couples, yet I have NEVER heard of any company that requires the couple to have their name on a government-sponsored registry. Those companies that I am aware of require the employee to provide a statement that the couple is living as a domestic couple to get the benefits."
Well, AT&T, which has lots of employees who live in Lawrence, is one such company -- one that offers employment benefits like health insurance to the unmarried partners of its employees, and requires that they be on a domestic partnership registry in order to receive them.
Other companies have different standards, but most require establishing proof of the partnership, through affidavits, producing financial records, and so on, or by showing registration. Getting on the registry is cheaper and easier than most of the alternatives many companies will accept -- and you don't have to do it again a second time if the employed partner gets a new job.
spacystaci8 (anonymous) says…
Here we go beating the dead horse again. I suppose a registry wouldn't be all bad but gay marriage is still out of the question. Lawrence is already a "gay magnet" so it doesn't really matter.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster writes:
"Well, consumer1, I'm not sure how continuing to be ignorant is something to be prooud of, but thanks for sharing."
Consumer1 writes:
"Scenebooster you seem to be very PROUUD ? of your ignorance. Not sure what prouud means but, I take the stance that if you are happy with your life then you should be proud of yourself. Ha ha ha ha. ha."
What I find most hilarious about this exchange is that Consumer1 misspells the typo (prooud vs. PROUUD) that Scenebooster posted. Not only is it a sign of defeat to point out typos, but the guy makes fun of something and then does it himself....classssssic.
JSDAD (anonymous) says…
oldvet (Anonymous) says:
even WalMart, who, by the way, offers benefits to domestic partners!!!!
and evryone wants to make them out as evil shame,shame
Godot (anonymous) says…
"Well, AT&T, which has lots of employees who live in Lawrence, is one such company - one that offers employment benefits like health insurance to the unmarried partners of its employees, and requires that they be on a domestic partnership registry in order to receive them."
It would be more appropriate to get AT&T to change its company policy than to create a new beureaucracy in Lawrence to make up for that employer's shortcomings.
Souki (anonymous) says…
Why?
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Scene...Truly sorry to let you down. However, there was no hate in my post, nor was there any behind it. I think where we are headed in this country is sad, from a moral standpoint. Regardless of which political party you subscribe to, there was once a time when we all shared common ground on many issues. Many people agreed that some things were "wrong" and some things were "right". We operated with respect and a conscience for each other. I believe (and I know I'm in the minority) that the registry is a step in the wrong direction.
peppermint (anonymous) says…
shockchalk:
I asked who would be hurt by this, you simply replied, "everyone."
An non-answer like that requires a little more elaboration to become an answer.
How would any person be hurt by this?
peppermint (anonymous) says…
Good for Wal-Mart if they recognize domestic partnerships. Good for them, too, for having skylights in their stores. So what? Two rights do not wash away a hundred wrongs. I am still opposed to Wal-Mart on every level and refuse to shop there.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Come on Scene, your smarter than that. I believe all of us would believe those things were wrong. I think you know where I was coming from but for whatever reason, you are attacking my post today. My post was not born out of hate for anything or anyone.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Keen eye roadkill, your not as ignorant as they say you are.
EmJones (anonymous) says…
mick (Anonymous) says:
"It's a start::" Right. What's next? nambla? Indoctrinating and desensitizing our children in the schools? Why does Lawrence need this? Any consideration at all for the majority?
No, silly, because the first thing would involved pedophilia which is illegal, the second is just exaggeration to the point of hallucination.
And what makes you so sure you're in the majority?
The argument that if you give homosexuals rights, they are going to take over your schools and your kids, is so stupid I'm not sure a person who swallows this can be reasoned with. Think about this some more, and get a clue. You're being used by political entities who want to use this issue to scare and control you, for their own ends.
EmJones (anonymous) says…
blue73harley (Anonymous) says:
I really think that the haters here have never interacted with any gays.
Insightful observation. The bigotry and fear are based on some fantasy about what gay people are like, based on some attention-getting extremes - not the reality of what 98% of gays are like. There are extremes in every group - among straight people, too. You don't see gays freaking out because 2% of straight people are nymphos, or dress like sluts, or steal wives, or whatever.
Homophobia is not based on reality and it's almost never based on experience, either.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
So shockchalk, saying that "everyone will hurt" from a registry and "everyone eventually" loses if there was a registry isn't spawned from hate? I guess I would need your definition of "everyone will hurt".
To say that allowing people to be registered in their own privacy will eventually lead to the demise of everyone else sounds very hateful... but if it's not, please explain why. I can't wait to hear how you justify this and remember what I said about name-calling.
packrat (anonymous) says…
I would only support a registry if it pertains to both straight and gay couples. I don't know what this ordinance says.
packrat (anonymous) says…
I took the time to read the ordinance and have no issues with it.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
I don't translate hurt into hate. You did that. You may not agree with me but it's still my opinion. In the big picture, I believe that this is a step in the wrong direction I believe it is damaging for Lawrence and families in general. I know I'm in the minority and you want to translate my opinion as one of hate but it's not, and that is a fact. BTW, I respect your opinion on this issue and I don't translate it into hating me or my opinion.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Roadkill...........I didn't say that this would lead to the demise of everyone else so please, just attack the things I actually wrote.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
shockchalk wrote:
peppermint says::.who would be hurt by this?
Answer:::.everyone eventually.
It's a lose/lose.
Okay, please explain.
deec (anonymous) says…
Still waiting for a non-religious explanation of how gay marriage damages straight marriage, or society in general. Been waiting months now....
Meanwhile, the straight "good catholic" ex is about to marry for the 4th time.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
And I'm still waiting on an explanation as of how denying equal rights to a certain group isn't a form of hate.
KawValleyKid (Nick Yoho) says…
Include me in the "this is a positive thing for Lawrence" Side of the tally.If it drives out a few bigots that would be a good thing.If it really would bring more culture and better restaurants,so much the better!
karensisson (anonymous) says…
It's the heterosexual women who could potentially, in theory, threaten my marriage. Not gays.
Gays don't threaten traditional marriage. Get over yourselves, homophobes!
peppermint (anonymous) says…
shockjock says the registry would hurt "everyone."
shockjock refuses to say how.
hmmmmmmmmmm...
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster's comment about Jews and blacks was a supremely sarcastic reply to one made by mick.
Are you up to speed now, consumer1?
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
I can't attend the commission meeting tonight and I'm sorry because I want to hear the arguments. I also am curious about something else:
Three weeks ago Mayor Hack told the public they would not be allowed to talk about Wal-Mart per se - its ethics, its effect on businesses, how it would treat local workers, and so on. No talk about Wal-Mart morals, in other words. They could only talk about the land use at that corner in the strictest legal terms.
Tonight, will citizens be limited to talking about the rights of gay partners in the strictest legal terms? Will people be forbidden from discussing or passing judgment on their morals, opinions on the effect their behavior might have on others, their feelings about others' (private and legal) sexual behavior?
I wonder. I wonder if Mayor Hack is strict, or just selectively strict.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
live blog on this cancelled due to internet problems
bogus