CC Minutes - 09/18/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

providing visitation rights for domestic partners in institutions such as the jail and hospital was also noted. Ms. Bettman thanked the HRC and work group for their efforts. She asked about the anticipated impact and how it could be delineated. Can the threshold that would trigger a change be identified? She expressed her support for the ordinance. She asked what the difference was between a civil ceremony and a domestic registry. Ms. Miller said that a civil ceremony is a marriage, but two people of the same sex cannot get married anywhere within the United States. The domestic partner registry is a way for two people who cannot or choose not to be married to say that they are partners. The registry does not provide for a legal marriage. Ms. Bettman said that there were tangible benefits for those registering as domestic partners, including the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or participate in a funeral. Those people who oppose the registry probably do so on religious/moral grounds. To deny a population the same rights granted to others is a matter of discrimination. Specifically relating to transgender protection, Ms. Bettman said that the City of Eugene would be protecting the most vulnerable. Mr. Kelly thanked the HRC and the work group for doing a thorough job and expressed his support for the proposed changes, which he considered to be matters of human decency. With regard to the domestic partnership registry, he stated that anything that the State or community can do to encourage a stable family environment should be done. Mr. Rayor said that the City of Eugene has been actively trying to eliminate discrimination since before this charter was adopted in 1976. He said that the proposed revisions were thoughtful and went through a reasonable process. The need for the gender identity protections can be found in the Police Department. The bathroom issue does not appear to be one that could not be overcome. He asked for clarification on "source of income" discrimination. Ms. Miller said that it was added during the last code revision and it addresses income discrimination based on welfare or other government benefit/income. She said that this has not been a big deal. Ms. Taylor commented that the proposed revisions were an excellent package. She spoke in support of the domestic registry, which provides a tangible benefit for loved ones who want to visit their partner in the hospital. Regarding transgender accommodations, she questioned the potential expense for remodeling a bathroom and asked for additional information about this. Ms. Taylor said that this was her only reservation about the proposed changes. Mr. Pap8 said that he has been the City Council's representative on the HRC. This is not an issue of providing rights, but providing protection. He supported the domestic registry, but expressed concerns that individuals beyond the City of Eugene will want to use the service. The services and benefits should be targeted for the citizens of the City of Eugene. He asked that this qualification be added to the registry. He echoed the concerns of Mr. Farr and Ms. Taylor that there should be no additional expense or additional code requirement for restroom accommodations. Except for the qualifications that were just raised, Mr. Pap8 said that he supported the proposed changes. Mr. Torrey asked Mr. Lidz for clarification of any "down-side" to the proposed changes, and what would be considered reasonable accommodation. He asked if there would be a cost for the person using the domestic registry. Ms. Miller said that there have been initial discussions with the City Recorder and that the fee might be about $50, which would cover the costs to the City. Mr. Torrey also noted that the domestic registry was not a marriage. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 3 Work Session