Mike Sil­ver­man found this remark­able state­ment on the web­site for James Bush, until recent­ly the min­is­ter at a South­ern Bap­tist church here in Lawrence.:

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

Like Mike, I fig­ured Bush was a stealth can­di­date for the right wing, but this makes that unlike­ly. A bill for­bid­ding Lawrence from keep­ing a list of domes­tic part­ners is stalled in the leg­is­la­ture, and will be back next year, so this may all be academic.

Bush remains firm­ly in the Cham­ber of Com­merce col­umn on most issues, and indeed that may explain his sup­port for this bill. It sim­pli­fies mat­ters for com­pa­nies with exist­ing domes­tic part­ner­ship ben­e­fits, and shows Lawrence to be a place that would be wel­com­ing of all employ­ees of new busi­ness­es and of their fam­i­lies, how­ev­er those fam­i­lies are con­sti­tut­ed. Civ­il rights are good for busi­ness, not just the moral bot­tom line.

This means that only two can­di­dates of the six can­di­dates have not backed the reg­istry, the two oth­er Cham­ber can­di­dates. Both have said they would study the issue, and might well back the registry.