“I frankly don’t care what neighboring communities are doing. I don’t care what their justification is. I don’t care what businesses are doing,” Council Member Pat Elliott stated. “I care about what the citizens of Richfield have asked us to do.”

With that said, and many other things along the way, the Richfield City Council approved the first reading of the Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance Tuesday night.

After a Richfield resident brought the idea to the Richfield Human Rights Commission, the commission in turn brought it to the city council. The proposed ordinance would allow same-sex and other long-term couples—who live or work in Richfield—to register their relationships as a domestic partnership with the city. The ordinance allows domestic partners to gain privileges such as family status during a hospital visit, qualify for family memberships or benefits coverage if a company extends benefits to domestic partners.

While the ordinance will move on to a second reading on Feb. 8, it did not move forward unanimously. Council Members Tom Fitzhenry and Fred Wroge opposed the ordinance and both expressed interest in having it written as a resolution that could go before the state.

As the ordinance stands, Fitzhenry thought it looked as if the city was “passing and ordinance just to pass an ordinance,” with no real benefit to those who register.  While he agreed that every resident should have equal rights, he thought the state or county should be making the legislation on the issue.

“I realize the registration is important to these folks,” he said. “But I think I would more prefer that we do a resolution and submit it up to the state.”

While passing a resolution at the state level was hopefully in the future, Council Member Sue Sandahl said it was important to start in the community as a step in the right direction.

“One of the ways to get the legislation at the state level is to start locally,” she said. “And if enough communities support it then I think something will happen.”

However, Wroge agreed with Fitzhenry’s submit-it-to-the-state-plan and went on to say he felt some of the “priviledges” and other benefits listed in the ordinance were misrepresented.

On the medical benefits front, Wroge argued that employers will want to negotiate directly with their employees, not have the city tell them what they need to give to their employees. In addition, after speaking with Fairview Southdale Hospital, Wroge said he was told the domestic partnership ordinance wouldn’t be honored by the hospital and the person would need a medical directive in order to get medical information about their partner.

Wroge also thought the ordinance would be a negative economic impact for the city, would create more “busy work” for city employees and also make it the city’s job to regulate people’s relationships.

“This isn’t about discrimination,” Wroge stated. “I don’t want to be in the business of having to regulate people living together—whether it be gay people or heterosexual people.”

Wroge felt that people would land on one side of the issue fence or the other, and on that other side Tuesday night were Elliott, Sandahl and Mayor Debbie Goettel.

While Elliott thanked Fitzhenry and Wroge for their research and input, he also called their insights misguided and misplaced.

“The first thing that we have to recall is the name of the commission [that brought us this ordinance], it’s human rights,” he said. “Why should we ask any other community what we feel are the proper human rights for members of this community? Why should we being looking for reasons to say, ‘Let the state do it’? … All [the ordinance] does is give them some of the rights that they’re entitled to and the ability to say that this is my partner and the city recognizes this person is my partner.”

Sandahl added that the registry wouldn’t require any individual or company to do anything, but it would provide the documentation needed to apply for benefits or memberships.

“If this is something that [people] would find helpful then I think we should do it,” she said.

Elliott closed with, “Human rights are entitled and available to everyone, and I’m not willing to let Richfield wait until the state does it or every surrounding community in the major metropolitan area does it. Richfield’s got it before us now and from my perspective its time move forward.”

The second reading of the ordinance by the city council is set for Feb. 8.