Archive for Wednesday, February 20, 2008

House considering challenge to Lawrence’s domestic partnership registry

February 20, 2008


— A bill to repeal Lawrence's domestic partnership registry may be debated today in the Kansas House.

House Bill 2299 has been placed "above the line," which means it is set for possible consideration, although House leaders could skip over the bill or postpone discussion on it.

The House convenes at 11 a.m.

The measure by state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, was discussed this morning by the House Republican Party caucus during a review of bills.

The Lawrence City Commission established a domestic partnership registry last year at the request of gay and lesbian couples who said it could help them secure health insurance benefits for their partners.

The registry allows unmarried couples - both same-sex and heterosexual - to register their domestic partnerships at City Hall.

But Kinzer has said the registry violates a Kansas constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2005, recognizing marriage as only between one man and one woman.

He also says that rules affecting couples and families should be uniform throughout the state. A legal opinion by former Attorney General Paul Morrison said the registry doesn't violate the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

During the 2007 legislative session, a House committee approved Kinzer's bill, but it never received a vote before the full House.


hawklet21 10 years, 3 months ago

"But Kinzer has said the registry violates a Kansas constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2005, recognizing marriage as only between one man and one woman." And that is why this was created. Because it isn't marriage. Duh.

mom_of_three 10 years, 3 months ago

So many other things to worry about, such as the proposed Jodi's Law, and he has to worry about the domestic registry.
Priorities, priorities....

monkeyspunk 10 years, 3 months ago

"He also says that rules affecting couples and families should be uniform throughout the state."

Amen brother, every city should adopt the forward looking policy of Lawrence, and MOVE THE F$%K ON.

There are a laundry list of issues to deal with that are more important than these bogus issues.

Do the job you were elected to do! I am a Republican, and these types of agendas make me sick.

Our elected officials FAIL at making life better for the average citizen. They FAIL at protecting our environment. They FAIL at maintaining our security. They FAIL at improving our economy. They can't do the job they were elected to do, so now they pander to the dying conservative wing of the Republican party.


tvc 10 years, 3 months ago

Can we secede from the state of Kansas?

Oracle_of_Rhode 10 years, 3 months ago

Scapegoating homosexuals to scare up votes. Jesus would be so proud.

EXks 10 years, 3 months ago

KansASS republicians......sad, PATHETIC......creatures.

preebo 10 years, 3 months ago

If a registry is categorically not a marital union then how can it violate the state law defining marriage as between a Man and a Woman? My assumption on its face is that this will flounder. More political grandstanding by the dubious state representative from Olathe.

akuna 10 years, 3 months ago

Effing conservatives. Get out of our personal lives and start worrying about real problems.

New2Lawrence 10 years, 3 months ago

Dear Fellow Republicans, I thought our primary charter was a less intrusive smaller government. Why are we even talking about this? Why meddle in peoples personal lives? Domestic partnership also applies to non-married hetro couples who want to be allowed to take advantage of health care benefits. Mr.Kinzer don't you have more pressing matters to attend to in Olathe?

mr_economy 10 years, 3 months ago

This is precisely the kind of bigotry that will (fortunately) lead to the striking down of the state constitutional amendment as, fittingly, unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause may not mandate legalized marriage for all, but it sure would seem to mandate that any legal benefits off such a partnership are available equally.

There have been hints of this in previous Supreme Court cases dealing with gay rights, and of particular importance is that noted centrist Anthony Kennedy leans to the progressive side on this issue (see Kennedy's writings in Lawrence v. Texas, for instance).

aginglady 10 years, 3 months ago

Books. I didn't read Grapes of Wrath in school, always say the movie. I read it a few years ago, and frankly I was a bit flipped and my first thought was.."They have high school kids read this????" Now mind you I was reading Clockwork Orange and Johnny Got His Gun, etc., in jr high.

trinity 10 years, 3 months ago

what exactly in the book "grapes of wrath" made you flip a bit, aginglady??

lounger 10 years, 3 months ago

Why would they care? Its silly they would even consider doing this! Leave us alone please and get back to doing things in topeka like keeping filthy Coal plants from being built. We have NO problem with the way things are here-we are hurting no one-so once again..Leave us alone!!!!!

Keith 10 years, 3 months ago

Once again, the party that claims to be all about less govt. proves that they don't really mean it.

Chris Golledge 10 years, 3 months ago

Let's see, the US constitution forbids the establishment of any law regarding the practice of religion. Marriage is a practice of religion; I dare anyone to say that the spiritual meaning of marriage is inconsequential compared to the secular meaning of marriage.

Yet here we have, not a law, but a state constitution that regulates marriage. How long will it be before this amendment to the state constitution is struck down? Not entirely up on my state rights versus federal government rights, but I can't see that a state constitution can supercede the US one.

RedwoodCoast 10 years, 3 months ago

And again, the spector of sexuality looms over humanity threatening to block out the sun and rain down fire and brimstone. But don't worry, the Grandstanding Old Party is here to save the day.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

Kinzer is just this millennium's apologist for bigotry and self-righteous condemnation. The racists of yesteryear "morally" opposed to miscegenation had their Loving v. Virgina. I hope we do not have to resort to similar means to right the wrongs advocated by those people like Kinzer who seek to oppress through the institutionalization of discriminatory practices an inherently unique population.

monkeywrench1969 10 years, 3 months ago

The point people are missing and I think is important to recognize is the registry is about people getting recognized to get insurance. If people really think it is a marriage issue they are wrong. It is about people who would normally not qualify for insurance being able to get recognized.

It is easy for both of the major parties to mask the issue in the "honor of marriage has to be this..." but with reps and senators on both sides history of fooling around with hetro and same sex partners we know where many stand on the importance of marriage.

This is a way to say to the insurance companies we are backing you without going on record to the public saying not everyone should have health care...because that is not an electable stance.

SettingTheRecordStraight 10 years, 3 months ago

Thank you to any legislator fighting to protect traditional marriage in Kansas.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

"And BTW, I work with a hetro couple that used the registry for purposes of solidifying their relationship for work benefits reasons."

Exactly what it was intended for - there are no "incidents and rights of marriage" created and therefore the ordinance is in perfect harmony with the state law. Even though the state law is a steaming pile of bigoted poo.

newsreader 10 years, 3 months ago

Everything that is wrong with our country, and our Government focuses on this and steroids...

mom_of_three 10 years, 3 months ago

if you want the legislator to "fight to protect traditional marriage in Kansas", then you might want him to outlaw divorce. because the domestic registry law does nothing to hurt traditional marriage. I am in a traditional marriage, and I don't feel threatened in the least.

ontheotherhand 10 years, 3 months ago

You all have given some very interesting and thoughtful arguments today--very nice to hear this instead of gay-bashing!

As for the slam on Republicans, I must state that it is NOT just Republicans who support this. Jan Pauls is a Democrat and she is just as bad as Kinzer. The only difference between the two is that Kinzer is a smooth-talking idiot and Pauls is a buffoon and an idiot. Homophobia is not just a Republican problem!!

The best we can do is "listen" to what these legislators and people around us say and ask them to explain what they mean. If they give us a stupid, empty response, then challenge them!

For example, let's see if SettingTheRecordStraight even knows what "protecting traditional marriage" means? According to statistics (which he will refute because Rush Limbaugh did not tell him this!), it means that every 1 out of 2 marriages will result in a divorce. If this is what marriage has been reduced to, then how does homosexuality threaten your right to marry, get a divorce, marry again, get a divorce, marry again, get a divorce, marry again, get a divorce??????

Unfortunately, our Nation is being run by people who champion soundbites (King GW is their Leader) and bash thinking. STRS is a good spokesperson.

I hope you all are as sick of this crap as I am.

DaREEKKU 10 years, 3 months ago

What a great diversion from the coal plant mess! Congratulations Republicans, you've done it again! Let's not talk about how you royally are doing us over by allowing people to pillage our landscape....lets turn to....oh let's marriage! That's it! THE EVIL GAYS!

How sad and pathetic that people have to feel important by exercising power over a group of people for NO good reason at all.

Oh are 10 Good Reasons why Gay Marriage should be Banned (reposted): 1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

RedwoodCoast 10 years, 3 months ago

OTOH: You exonerate Republicans and then proceed to condemn them ("King GW is their leader"). I guess I'm a little confused.

Chris Golledge 10 years, 3 months ago

STRS, so, what you are saying is that you support any legislator who presses your religious beliefs into government enforcement.

So, what is the difference between you and the Islamic (and other) fundamentalists we all know and love?

Bradley Kemp 10 years, 3 months ago

Marion says that it "will be recalled that I predicted that this very thing would happen."

You predicted that the registry would be overturned. It hasn't been overturned.

Your prediction could still come true, but it hasn't yet.

RedwoodCoast 10 years, 3 months ago

cg22165: here's a link to the definition of "hegemony." I think that is what you're trying to say in your post. There is a word for it, especially definition #2:

RonBurgandy 10 years, 3 months ago

This is ridiculous. This state's legislature is embarrassing.

ontheotherhand 10 years, 3 months ago

Redwood, trust me, I am not exonerating them. I am a devout Democrat but I know that other Democrats support anti-gay legislation. (This makes me very sad, btw!)

At the same time, I am not condemning Republicans. GW does not rep all Republicans. He represents something I truly hate, whether he is a Rep or Dem.

There are non-thinking Democrats and very smart Republicans. I guess my wording is confusing because I refuse to see things as either black or white, esp when they are not. :) When STRS makes the comments he does, it is clear to me that he has no ability to put forth a valid argument that makes sense. Notice how he makes soundbites, but never explains himself in a way that compels us to either agree, or simply agree to disagree. Mark my words: his next post will offer nothing but a stupid retort. We who view Life as more than superficial soundbites deserve more than that.

estespark 10 years, 3 months ago

Nothing says true love like registering a domestic partnership at City Hall.

Bradley Kemp 10 years, 3 months ago

Now Marion says that, rather than reminding us of his prediction that the bill would be overturned, he was reminding us of his prediction that "legislation would be drafted to overturn it."

But that happened last year. Nothing about your prediction -- the substance of which was that the bill would be overturned, not that someone would try to overturn it -- has yet come to pass.

As I said before, your prediction may well come to pass, but it hasn't yet.

And I don't hate it when you're right. In fact, on the substance of this matter (whether the ordinance should be overturned, and more broadly, whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as mixed-sex couples), I think you are right. And I agree with you.

I'll dislike it if your prediction comes true, but not because it was your prediction.

ToriFreak13 10 years, 3 months ago

Paul Morrison's opinion vs. The Constitution? lol

sinedie 10 years, 3 months ago


From the gay onslaught! Duh. Do you realize that it's a slippery slope? Today we allow domestic registries, tomorrow we are required to wear assless chaps in public.


mom_of_three 10 years, 3 months ago

b3, I don't consider myself a "hippie" for thinking all people should have all rights.... it's called - human.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

Common law marriage in Kansas is more than just living together.

And where does one buy assless chaps? Maybe Nuefeldt knows. I hear lots of people wear chaps out by the proposed coal plant site and oddly enough al of them seem to be assless.

moo 10 years, 3 months ago

This thread has made my day. I've been losing my faith in Lawrence a little bit lately, but these comments make me feel much better. : )

Oh, and Marion, e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e knew that this would get challenged sooner rather than later. But yes, you deserve to celebrate. Break out the champagne, get in people's faces, chant "nanny nanny, boo boo" until our ears bleed. You have made a great prediction. You, like everyone else with half a brain, knew that the Kansas legislature would not take what it sees as a direct challenge to their power lying down. Duh. The question is whether they'll succeed and plunge Kansas deeper into the dark ages.

Everyone, since whatever Marion predicts eventually comes to pass, we'll all know who to blame if the registry does get shut down. Hehe.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

So ChristmasCarol is simultaneously praising the jackbooted thugs for limited the number and gender of her partners while also criticizing them for making her memorize numbers and forcing her to wear a seatbelt.

The cognitive dissonance is mind-numbing.

estespark 10 years, 3 months ago

Al Franken's take on the sanctity of marriage is classic.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

SCOTUS would be more likely to find that sexuality is a protected class like race and gender if sexuality was found to be an inherent characteristic rather than a preference.

akt2 10 years, 3 months ago

DPOA. Durable Power of Attorney. Forget the list.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago


What the hell are you talking about?

What options should be left open?

And I don't see what the civil commitment states offer to this issue. Our domestic registry is cheap. No legal fees required. SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States. I have no idea what the sky is like.I am still at my desk. I have no idea what the New York rental rates, the fact that half the kids at Hillcrest attend ESL classes, or the pros and cons of a sin tax have to do with the domestic registry and Kinzer's actions today.

Ask your foreign national what he thinks about the EUs handling of domestic partnerships. Almost without exception, the countries of Europe are moving to where all state-recognized partnerships are civil commitments and marriages are handled by the church if at all. Makes sense to me.

In any event, hopefully you take my serious stuff seriously and my not-so-serious stuff not so seriously. On the other hand, I can't honestly say I care either way.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

Wow. That last line reads a little more gonadish than I had intended. Sorry.

Baille 10 years, 3 months ago

It took you eleven minutes to come up with that little witticism.Wow.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.