As reported by the PG web-edition, City Council gave a thumbs up on the first vote for the domestic partner registry.  The lone naysayer was the Reverend Ricky Burgess.  Final vote will be next week.  No word on how the Mayor feels about all this registry stuff, but it appears veto proof at this stage of the game.

Sigh.  I am only speculating here, but my guess is that Reverend Burgess is sticking with the right wing rhetoric that even second class relationship civil rights are too much for Pittsburgh's homosexuals.  This new system is just a scooch along the path toward anything resembling civil unions in Pennsylvania.  Barely a scooch.  Way more important to this lesbian is the probability that this registry will help our family keep our domestic partner benefits if Ledcat's job is merged into the County.  Which is unlikely given her job, but it is good to be prepared.  Like Boy Scouts.  Only with labia.

I emailed Councilmen Shields and Kraus (no "e") asking for their thoughts on how the registry requirements might impact low income families, suggesting that the City compile a guide on how to meet the registry requirements.  The most vulnerable families are those least likely to afford things like attorney fees for wills and those most likely to have financial and credit blemishes impacting their economic stability.  Thus, they are most in need of the registry benefits (if any are available to them). 

And, to be honest, some of the requirements are a bit arduous.  I went through the process of adding my name to the household utility bills and it was a pain.  Lots of red tape and questions and three way phone calls.  It would be great if the City could put together a simple how to list to make things easier.  I would hate to see this great new resource benefit only those of us who have the luxury of joint credit cards and power of attorney documents.  That would be a great shame. 

You know ... that would be a great project for the Mayor's new LGBT Advisory Board with input from his LGBT Liaison.  Oh, except for the little detail that he hasn't appointed any of those people.  Darn. 

Matthew Fusina of Franklin Park seems a little fed up.

A little foray into the fascinating world of sexual history would reveal that our "[recently] corrupted society" has, in fact, been corrupt at least since the dawn of recorded history. Before Mr. Davis makes such broad historical generalizations in the future, I would encourage him and those who hold staunch opinions based on anecdotal versions of history to become familiar with some of the classics in sexual history. I particularly would recommend works by John Boswell, Thomas Laqueur, Peter Gay and George Chauncey, all highlights of the modern sexual canon. Even if you leave with the same opinion, it will prevent the future course of the marriage debate from being filled with historical half-truths.

Update:  The Pittsburgh City Paper's Melissa Meinzer and Chris Potter do a really good job with this story on the CP's website.  Good example of how web based media serves the CP readership.  And you. 

I contacted Shields' office and encountered a reluctance to work with a blogger which was disappointing as I worked very hard to get his letter to Sally Kern picked up by gay media around the country.  Ah well ...

****************************************************************

City Council President Doug Shields and City Councilperson Bruce Kraus are proposing the development of City domestic registry for unmarried couples which would formalize the process for determining eligibility of City employees for domestic partnership benefits AND provide private employers with a similar resource.  According to the Post-Gazette, the registry will also recognize familial relationships defined by mutual support.

I'm waiting for a comment from Council President Shields.  I'm also poking around to see what impact this has had in other communities, including Philadelphia. 

The PG story is here. 

Ledcat and I already have an affidavit of our domestic partnership.  It was a pain to get it and put us through more far more hoops than is reasonable.  How many heterosexual married couples have to get both names on utility bills -- do you know how complicated that is? 

This is an interesting step forward.  I'm curious as to how the Mayor rules on this and hopeful this will force the issue of addressing domestic partnership benefits in a potential City-County merger.

Stay tuned ...