Domestic partnership registry discussion set

Two weeks from now, according to the paper. Expect a long meeting; the commission could do any one of several things; approve the registry, reject it, or take no action. They could also send it back to the city staff for more tweaking.

The responses of the commissioners to citizens' emails and letters has been very mixed. Boog Highberger gets extra credit for personally sending individual responses to several peoples' emails. Mike Amyx and Sue Hack have not replied to anyone's letters that I know. Mike Dever has been replying to emails, but he said he was too busy to meet Dave and I to talk about the issue in person, and Rob Chestnut has been sending everyone who writes him a form letter.

If you have read this and haven't yet emailed or called the city commissioners, please do so. Just click here and send an email. Public officials, even if they don't respond, do understand the volume of citizen contact, so if you care about the issue, drop a line.

Domestic bliss

Good news out of the Kansas Attorney General's office this afternoon, as his review of Lawrence's proposed domestic partnership registry was completed and the AG found nothing in the proposal that would not pass constitutional muster, although he did suggest to be 100% sure, Lawrence may want to restrict the registry to city residents.

You can read the complete memo if you want.

At this point, I feel a bit of annoyance that the AG couldn't have been a bit more punctual, since the outgoing City Commission would have passed this thing in a heartbeat. The incoming Commission, with two new members, is less certain, although I think that with the AG's imprimatur on the registry, there shouldn't be too much opposition and it will hopefully pass soon. If I had to predict, I would say the new Commission will direct city staff to add a section limiting the registry to city residents, and this will take a couple weeks. Figuring in a couple additional weeks for the new Commission to get settled in, I predict the registry will become law by mid to late May.

As a side note, given the new Commission's business-friendly makeup, I think strategically, it is very important to point out that the registry is not just a good idea out of fairness and human decency, but it will also be very good for the bottom line. There's a reason domestic partner benefits originally appeared in the high tech industry in Silicon Valley -- because those companies wanted to attract the kind of workers that made that region of America into the engine that has driven America's economy for the past 20 years. Enabling more businesses to provide these benefits would help Lawrence attract the kind of forward-looking and valuable companies and jobs that would help Lawrence's bottom line...making this city a better place to work and live.

Eh, there's no gay Jews anyway

The University of Kansas gay student group, Queers and Allies does some wonderful work in Lawrence and on the KU campus. Much of their programming is directed, obviously, at the student population they serve, but every spring traditionally they hold their annual Pride Week, which usually involves community-wide events such as nationally-known speakers and lectures, entertainment, and a parade. This year's schedule looks superb, highlighted by a visit from well-known sex/political writer Dan Savage.

As great is all these events sound, Pride Week will likely be as friendly to Jews as a Hezbollah homecoming parade given Queers and Allies' inexplicable decision to schedule Pride Week in conflict with the Jewish holiday of Passover. Passover (especially the first two nights) is basically the Jewish cultural equivalent of Thanksgiving -- celebrated by even very secular Jews with a special festive meal with family and friends. The holiday is listed on pretty much every cleandar ever printed, including the KU academic and event calendars.

Given that Pride Week is scheduled many, many months in advance, it is inexcusable that a student organization dedicated to fighting against the marginalization of one minority would schedule its keynote event of the year in such a way that they in turn marginalize a different minority. The further irony, of course, is that Passover is the original celebration of freedom over oppression...perhaps this is the reason that Passover resonates heavily with many gay and lesbian Jews; there are numerous gay and lesbian Seders (festive Passover meals) and inclusive Haggadot (Passover liturgies).

I have no ill-will towards KU's queer student group, and I wish them a successful week. I just wish they would have avoided marginalizing Jews -- both gays Jews and straight Jews who support the struggle for equal rights. It would be nice to see Queers and Allies apologize and promise that in the future they will consult a calendar before scheduling Pride Week. I would hope that organization's student leaders and faculty advisors take this to heart. At the end of every Passover meal, it is traditional to say "next year in Jerusalem" as a sign of hope for a better future, so in that vein, may I say regarding Pride Week, "next year in Lawrence!" for all Jews, non-Jews, gay folks, and straight folks alike.

April 2 followup: Apparently many other people complained as well. Queers and Allies (the KU student group) has posted an apology and promised to consult a calendar in the future. This has hopefully been a good learning experience for them.

Fourth City Commission candidate comes out in favor of domestic partnerships

Former Southern Baptist minister James Bush is much more progressive then I gave him credit for. I had thought he was a stealth candidate for the radical right -- I was wrong.

I have read the report the City Commission received from the city staff as well as reviewed the comments made by citizens of Lawrence and members of the City Commission. If I am elected to the City Commission, I would vote in favor of adopting the domestic registry. I support the registry because it affirms the relationship of domestic partners and it can provide employers an avenue to provide health insurance to employees who participate in the domestic registry. I think the big question now concerns how the Kansas Attorney General’s office will rule on the proposal. - James Bush

Immoral principles

"The question is whether personal moral beliefs should disqualify an individual from positions of leadership in the U.S. military? We think not. General Pace’s recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received. In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles." - Kansas Senator Sam Brownback

The problem isn't Chairman Pace's moral principles, it is Pace's immoral principles -- such as the principle, shared by our Senator, that bigotry is not only something to tolerated, but something to be celebrated enthusiastically.

I think Pace would do better is a military leader in a different country that better shares his values, and Senator Brownback could probably find a good job there, too. Don't laugh -- apparently, the latest thing for right-wingers is the goal of a worldwide Islamic-right-wing Christian common cause to take (rhetorical, for now) arms against American and Western European ideas of liberty and freedom. Dinesh DeSouza just wrote a book about this. Here's a very good analysis of said book. Maybe Pace and Brownback have read it too.

The domestic partner registry: The Candidates speak

Below you will find the official pubic-stated opinions of all six Lawrence City Commission candidates on the proposed domestic partner registry for Lawrence. I am pretty sure that this is the first time all of these have been in one place for comparison. Click on each candidate's name to be linked to the complete interview from which the domestic registry opinion was excerpted.

A couple notable trends stand out:

1. The three "progressive" candidates are the only ones who forthrightly said "yes" they will support the registry.
2. None of the "developer" candidates gave an outright "no" answer, but none said "yes" either. All of them seemed to weasel out of giving any kind of straight answer (pun intended). Judging from the answers Dever and Chestnut gave, I think it may be possible to educate these folks on the need and desirability of a domestic partnership ordinance.

Even though the Kansas Equality PAC has officially endorsed the three progressive candidates (Maynard-Moody, Schauner, and Highberger), an endorsement I agree with, we should try to educate the other candidates as well about why the domestic partner ordinance is both good for business and good for the town as a whole. Both Dever and Chestnut I think could be brough around to this point of view, although I doubt Bush (as a Southern Baptist minister) would.

Anyway, here are the views of the six candidates:

Carey Maynard-Moody: I'm very supportive of it. Human rights should not distinguish between race, religion, gender, sexual orientation... We all benefit from protecting human rights.

David Schauner: Thanks for your inquiry about this important issue. I voted to support creation of the registry and believe that it will offer a valuable benefit to all unmarried couples without regard to sexual orientation if their employers choose to make those benefits available.

Boog Highberger: I support creation of a local domestic partnership registry. I share the view of former Attorney Phill Kline (as reported in the Journal World) that a domestic partnership registry would not conflict with the recently passed Marriage Amendment. A domestic partnership registry could help give a lot of Lawrence citizens access to health care benefits that they are not eligible for now.

Mike Dever: I am against discrimination of any kind. I believe that we as a community must be prepared to defend the rights of our citizens. I need to become more informed on this issue to be able to make a sound decision as a commissioner if I am elected.

Rob Chestnut: I would like to ensure that we are not going to have any legal entanglements going forward in considering the domestic partner registry. Secondly, I need to understand more about the potential benefits that it offers citizens of Lawrence. I am not aware of those employers that offer benefits to domestic partners, so I would like to make an informed decision on the impact of the ordinance. Finally, I would like to know what the cost is to the city. This would allow me to make an informed decision.

James Bush: Thank you for asking this question that so many in the community are pondering during this election season. I haven't seen the actual wording of the proposed ordinance so I may be at a disadvantage to address specific language but, I do have an opinion. First, I am opposed to discrimination in any form. I do know the city has an ordinance that addresses discrimination in hiring practices. The questions I have in regard to this registry is what the economic impacts are from such a registry and have these consequences been fully considered.

Marriage is good and protected in Michigan

The truth that "protecting marriage" apparently requires gay people to lose their employer-provided health care benefits was proven true in Michigan today as a court ruled that Michigan's anti-gay marriage amendment (adopted in 2004) doesn't allow cities or state universities to grant health care benefits to the partners of their gay employees.

This is similar, but not quite the same issue as the situation here in Lawrence; in Michigan the issue is employment benefits; in Lawrence the proposed ordinance is a symbolic public registry, but if, say, the University of Kansas were to grant benefits, then a situation such as they have in Michigan would be set up here.

Either way, this proves that in expanding these various amendments to do more then merely ban gay marriage, the right wing supporters of these measures are intending to do exactly what actually happened in Michigan - take away people's health care and go way beyond "protecting marriage" to actively try to harm gay people living in their state.

Hopefully, city and university administrators can re-rig their health care plans to perhaps cover "any designated adult" or something like that, rather then specifying a "spouse" or "domestic partner" -- that would insure that people don't lose their health care coverage.

Or maybe a new amendment can be drafted that would strip health insurance from bigots. One can dream, I suppose.

Conservatives are in favor of local control of government...

...Except when they're not.

In a state where marriage is quite definitely "protected" from the depravations of loving gay couples thanks to a constitutional amendment approved by voters two years ago, it looks like even that isn't enough for a random state legislator, Lance Kinzer, who hails from Olathe, but somehow thinks he should be able to tell the citizens of Lawrence what kind of local ordinances they are allowed to pass. He has introduced a bill that would prohibit cities such as Lawrence from adopting any kind of domestic partner registries or programs.


Lawrence, you might recall, was the only county in Kansas to vote against the marriage amendment, and it did so by an overwhelming margin. The city commissioners of Lawrence are planning on implementing a domestic partner registry. Although the reigstry cannot counter state law, and will be basically symbolic, it is an important statement that clearly reflects the will of the citizens of Lawrence.

Representative Lance Kinzer has no right to tell Lawrence what ordinances it may adopt. Home rule is a fundamental building block of our system of government, and it basically means that cities are free to govern themselves and enact any ordinances they see fit so long as they do not violate state law. The legislature has the power to enforce uniform state law on any subject it wishes, but this power is to be used sparingly, on the principle that local control is the best.

There is no matter of statewide concern here. Lawrence's registry doesn't force other cities to do anything, nor does it violate state law (unless a court or the Attorney General say otherwise; and there will certainly be a suit to determine this).

The reason Lance Kinzer is trying to tell the people of Lawrence what to do is bigotry. He cannot abide by the thought that anywhere in this state there might be a city where gay people are actually thought by the majority of their neighbors to be fully human. The Kansas legislature is hardly a bastion of liberalism, but I doubt the leadership is spoiling for a "culture war" fight this year. Hopefully this disgusting bill will die alone in a committee, and the people of Lawrence -- and Olathe -- can make of their communities what they wish.