Lawrence city commissioners may have shown that their hearts were in the right place Tuesday night, but it remains to be seen whether the domestic registry they approved will accomplish the goal they envisioned.

An “implementation memo” that was part of the agenda packet for Tuesday’s meeting proposes a strategy for establishing the registry but also leaves some questions unanswered. Chief among those is whether the insurance companies that cohabiting partners hope to influence actually will accept the city’s domestic registry as verification of their status as a committed couple.

The memo says that an online registry would place the least burden on the city’s staff. Couples seeking to register as domestic partners would be able to use an online registration form on the city’s Web site. An online removal form also would be available. An electronic certification and signature field could be created, according to the memo, and payment of the registration fee with a credit card might be an option.

The city would maintain and update the registry but apparently would take no responsibility for verifying the information. If the partners sign their names to the form declare themselves domestic partners, the city would accept that as fact and include them on the registry.

Keeping the registry up to date would seem problematic. Because no legal proceeding is required to either establish or dissolve a domestic partnership, the status of such partnerships might be the subject of some dispute even between the two members of the couple.

What is required of a domestic partnership? The city says the registry will be limited to people over 18 who “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.” If one partner lives at another address for employment or education purposes, can he or she still be part of a domestic partnership? Must the partners have a joint checking account? What about any dependent children?

All of these seem to be questions that an insurance company might ask before determining whether someone’s partner qualifies for benefits. If insurers were willing to simply accept the couple’s word about the relationship – as the city’s registry will do – it seems it would be easy enough for them to come up with a form of their own for couples to sign.

If the city finds it must do more verification to help domestic partners with their insurance issues, the registry could quickly become a time-consuming and expensive proposition for the city, which already is experiencing some financial problems.

The biggest problems with the domestic registry ordinance may turn out to be not moral or philosophical, but practical. Whether it will accomplish its intended purpose without placing too great a burden on the city staff is a question that remains to be answered.