Gay Marriage | Gay Rights | Kansas | News

Lawrence, Kansas Approves Domestic Partnerships

On Tuesday night, commissioners in Lawrence, Kansas made it the first city in the state to approve a domestic partnership registry. (video)

Lawrencekansas_2According to Lawrence Journal-World & News, "The registry will require both partners 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, will be charged to cover the administrative costs of the program. 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."

The measure passed by a 4-1 vote. Said Commissioner Boog Highberger: "I think this is really something more appropriate for the state to take care of. But the state has failed us on this issue, and the federal government has failed us. If we are to have the type of city and type of life we want, we have to deal with this."

Supporters speaking at the hour-long hearing before the vote outnumbered opponents by 15 to 4.

Adds the paper: "Opponents of the registry expressed concerns that the city was being irresponsible by not requiring gay couples to submit to an HIV test, and that the city was harming the institution of marriage by promoting homosexuality. Others said they feared the registry was just the first step by activists to push for special rights for gay individuals."

Left-leaning Lawrence is a city of approximately 80,000 and is home to the University of Kansas.

Domestic registry approved [lawrence journal]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The popping sound you just heard was Fred Phelps' head exploding!

    Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2007 3:48:52 PM


  2. does this mean that lawrence "is not in kansas anymore?" i know, very trite.

    Posted by: nic | May 23, 2007 3:52:55 PM


  3. We don't want "special rights". We want EQUAL RIGHTS!!! What is so freaking hard to understand about that?

    And if the folks who want gay "domestic partners" to be tested for HIV really understood AIDS, then they'd be clamoring for EVERYONE to get one before being given a marriage license. This isn't 1982. AIDS is not a "gay disease".

    Posted by: Jonathon | May 23, 2007 4:05:39 PM


  4. So what if they were HIV+? Would that mean that they no longer qualify for equal rights, or that they should no longer be able to have their relationship validated and recognized? If not, then patients with other long-term diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

    I'm preaching to the choir here, but it never ceases to amaze me how opponents of gay marriage are so unashamed to show their depraved and willful ignorance in the full light of day.

    Posted by: Brian | May 23, 2007 4:09:13 PM


  5. Kanas is a State? I thought it was a territory--it ought to be--its population is dwindling.

    The U.S. is lauded as the greatest democracy in the world while in reality it is quickly becoming one of the least democratic governments in the world as evidenced by the fact that California, with 40 million people and growing, has the same representation in the House of Representatives as North Dakota, with just 500,000 and falling. That is why the Congress is so heavily skewered towards Republicans and Conservatives. What was intended by the founding fathers to be a form of checks and balances and to avoid federalism is ultimately going to destroy us. As California and other states discover their self interest they will start pulling away from this egregiously unfair form of representation.

    Posted by: tony | May 23, 2007 5:11:25 PM


  6. Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!!

    Posted by: Rob | May 23, 2007 6:35:28 PM


  7. Tony, maybe you're thinking of the Senate, where each state has 2 Senators regardless of size or population.

    California certainly does not have the same representation in the House as North Dakota, California has 53 seats in the House (the most of any state). North Dakota has 1 at-large seat.

    Posted by: John | May 23, 2007 7:59:51 PM


  8. Having attended the University of Kansas, I can say that I'm proud of Lawrence being so forward-thinking. However, having grown up in a small town elsewhere in Kansas, I doubt the religious right will let it go unchallenged. Fred Phelps and his cronies won't let it go, but neither will many others in the state.

    Posted by: Daniel | May 23, 2007 10:37:26 PM


  9. First off let me say Lawrence is not 'left leaning' - no Kansan would saying Lawrence is leaning any direction - they're totally rooted on the left end of the politcal spectrum.

    Secondly - Fred Phelphs is a loon and no one takes him seriously except for those crazies who participate in his hate propoganda. While I'm sure he'll make noise he only hurts anyone trying to make a reasonable argument opposing the measure....

    Posted by: Jeff | May 23, 2007 11:49:04 PM


  10. Makes me proud to say that I was born and raised in Lawrence, Ks. I say way to go!!

    Posted by: jason | May 24, 2007 7:45:43 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal« «