POL. Thread (kinda) - Civil Union for some, BAD for californians

[Flasch186]

happy New Year's!!!

So all of the talk about Gay marriage being bad BUT Civil Unions being ok...wasn't really the intent. Perhaps, just perhaps, the voters of many states voted against gay marriage because the rhetoric was, "Were only outlawing the term 'marriage' not 'civil unions'" thus it wasn't too terrible a punishment for being gay. Now that California might be allowing for greater benefits from such a term...welp, thats not good too. "Marriage" by any other name is still "marriage"...so what was all of that Horse Manure that the term "marriage" has to be reserved for Man and woman? I dont understand why people care what another couple, regardless of sex, do or say or are termed as, boggles me.

I understand that this is one small group of angry people in California but it just chaps my hide, when Politicians sucker people while theyre running and do something different whence they get in (see my ethical thread for more info.)


U.S. National - AP
AP
Calif. Law Gives Benefits to Gay Couples

1 hour, 38 minutes ago

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Like many gay couples, Brian Cornell and Alberto Rulloda long ago established a legal framework for their relationship to match their commitment to each other.


They drew up wills naming the other as beneficiary, property agreements and powers of attorney, among other documents. The couple of 27 years wanted to spell out the specifics that would have been presumed if they were married.

Come Saturday, such improvised arrangements will be less necessary for them and nearly 29,000 other California couples — the majority same-sex partners. A law taking effect with the new year gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses. Heterosexual elderly couples also are eligible.

Same-sex couples in California for the first time will have access to divorce court for dividing their assets, seeking alimony and securing child support. They also will have automatic parental status over children born during the relationship and responsibility for each other's debts.

It guarantees domestic partners a say over what happens to their loved one's remains at death and means they cannot be forced to testify against each other in state courts.

"It won't be as good as marriage because we are talking about a thousand-plus federal benefits that won't be covered," Cornell said. "But a start's a start, progress is progress."

Many gay rights advocates say the domestic partner law heralds a hopeful new era of legal recognition and participation for gay men and lesbians. They hope that is particularly true for those raising children or without the money to pay lawyers to prepare the previously recommended paperwork.

One indication of the growing acceptance comes from the California Department of Health Services, which is updating its birth certificates to replace the lines for "mother" and "father" with the gender-neutral "parent" and "parent." Until now, hospitals have hand-altered the forms, and couples have needed a court order for the changes to be approved.

Two groups opposed to marriage rights for gay couples have challenged the law, claiming it violates the intent of a 2000 ballot initiative approved by voters that holds only unions between a man and a woman as valid in the state.

The California Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the case early in the year.


MY FAVORITE LINE IN THIS


"Whether you call it 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions,' homosexual 'marriage' by another name is still homosexual 'marriage,' and the people of California voted against that," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit.

Linton Johnson, 31, and Jeff Winkler, 30, already share a bank account, ownership interests in two houses and a romance that goes back six years. The extra responsibilities of domestic partnership, such as obligation for each other's debts, are not a burden for the Oakland residents.

"It helps legitimize our relationship to others," Johnson said. "And in that regard, if you get treated differently, you sort of feel like family with the rest of the world, and that can bring you closer together."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I started to do a different post entirely, but opted to try something different here, looking at this article point-by-point to see where I fell on some of the specifics.

1)Same-sex couples in California for the first time will have access to divorce court for dividing their assets, seeking alimony and securing child support.

Umm ... if you aren't "married" why on earth are you in divorce court? Same logical question holds true to me regardless of sexual orientation.

2) They also will have automatic parental status over children born during the relationship and responsibility for each other's debts.

Largely, see above with regard to sexual orientation being irrelvant IMO.

I'd have to look more into how "parental status" is granted in other cases to be able to isolate that specifically, but at first blush, I'd go with "parent" on a birth certificate should pretty much be sperm-donor + egg-donor, with changes via adoption, other legal processes, et al. to follow.

3)It guarantees domestic partners a say over what happens to their loved one's remains at death ...

Couldn't this, and perhaps shouldn't this, be handled by a simple contract and/or as part of a will? Again, sexual orientation isn't a factor in my position, I apply exactly the same to hetero couples.

... and means they cannot be forced to testify against each other in state courts.

The first item I've seen in this article that specifically chaps my ass. I'm not even sure I agree with the marriage exclusion for testimony, and extending this one beyond the bounds of marriage really annoys me. Not sure why it's elevated beyond the others on my first reading, but it is, and by a pretty significant amount. And once again, it doesn't matter one whit about the sexual orientations involved.

Hmm ... I don't know if I learned an awful lot from that exercise, beyond something that I already knew.

I do not now, and have never, supported the notion of "domestic partnership" or "common-law marriage" or "whatever-phrase-applies-in-a-given-state" being anything other than a standard contract between two parties; i.e. you're either married or your not, much like you're either pregnant or you aren't, you can't be just "a little bit married". I've got exactly the same position on that whether it's 1 man + 1 woman, or 2 men, or 2 women, or whatever else you've got.

The one thing we seem to be in agreement about is what the intent of the various legislation was -- I never particularly believed the intent was entirely limited to "marriage" per se, and my support of limiting marriage benefits to people who are actually legally married has nothing to do with the orientation of those involved.

Disagreement is expected, along with at least one iota of credit for my consistency of position

{FYI, if you get no reply from me on this any time soon, it's not personal -- I've got some crisis stuff happening on the homefront right now & I'm likely off-line more than online TFN}

[JW]

When do polygamous couples get their rights? What is the moral difference between two men or two women and three or more people of any gender who want to cohabitate with the blessings of the state and all the rights of married couples.

Likewise, when will incestuous couples be granted their rights. If there is no longer a moral framework surrounding marriage, then what interest does the state have in prohibiting a brother and a sister from marrying? And please don't talk about the children. We do not prohibit people with genetic defects that will be with 100% certainty passed on to their children from marrying. So the possibility of a genetic defect in the child of a brother and sister should be no limitation on marraige.

I just find it interesting that many who support gay marriage are using arguments that could easily be used by polygamous and incestuous partners while usuallly denying that gay marriage will lead eventually to an even more liberal definition of marriage. But it will. All we need is a few ambitious polygamists, a few good lawyers, and a few judges willing to turn society on its head. And we have all those.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I do not now, and have never, supported the notion of "domestic partnership" or "common-law marriage" or "whatever-phrase-applies-in-a-given-state" being anything other than a standard contract between two parties; i.e. you're either married or your not, much like you're either pregnant or you aren't, you can't be just "a little bit married". I've got exactly the same position on that whether it's 1 man + 1 woman, or 2 men, or 2 women, or whatever else you've got.

but, if I'm not mistaken, you are opposed to gay marriage? correct?
fwiw, I totally agree with what I quoted from you - call it a marriage or don't call it anything. Then again, I am totally in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, and, if that isn't going to happen in the immediate future, I'll be happy with whatever rights we can manage to give to gay couples. Make no mistake - gay marriage WILL eventually happen in this country, but it's going to be a while before it does.

hope your family crisis stuff works out ok.

[clintl]

Other than among a few fringe groups like the one Thomasson heads, the law has generated very little controversy as far as I can tell. And since the law was signed in 2003, there has been ample time for it do so.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

One indication of the growing acceptance comes from the California Department of Health Services, which is updating its birth certificates to replace the lines for "mother" and "father" with the gender-neutral "parent" and "parent." Until now, hospitals have hand-altered the forms, and couples have needed a court order for the changes to be approved.

Here's the part that makes no sense to me that maybe someone can explain: in order to be born, you need to have a "mother" and a "father", correct? That child may be adopted by a same-sex couple, but it still takes a heterosexual couple to actually make the baby. Aren't birth certificates supposed to at least attempt to reflect who the natural parents were? Or has the definition / importance of a birth certificate changed? I would think this would have medical history implications at the least.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Here's the part that makes no sense to me that maybe someone can explain: in order to be born, you need to have a "mother" and a "father", correct? That child may be adopted by a same-sex couple, but it still takes a heterosexual couple to actually make the baby. Aren't birth certificates supposed to at least attempt to reflect who the natural parents were? Or has the definition / importance of a birth certificate changed? I would think this would have medical history implications at the least.

Not in the case of adoptions - this is normal practice.

And JW, I think you are right. As a result, I support that only Seventh Day Adventists be able to marry. Everything else dilutes the definition of marriage and risks an endless slippery slope. Or better yet, why don't we pass a law so only gays can marry? It is those damn heteros with all their divorces that are trivializing the institution.

[clintl]

I'll believe the slippery slope argument when I see some evidence of advocacy groups campaigning for legalized polygamy and incestuous marriage. However, as of now, there are none, and there is no serious possibility of widespread movement to legalize polygamy or incestuous marriage in the foreseeable future.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'll believe the slippery slope argument when I see some evidence of advocacy groups campaigning for legalized polygamy and incestuous marriage. However, as of now, there are none, and there is no serious possibility of widespread movement to legalize polygamy or incestuous marriage in the foreseeable future.

hxxp://www.pro-polygamy.com/

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'll believe the slippery slope argument when I see some evidence of advocacy groups campaigning for legalized polygamy and incestuous marriage. However, as of now, there are none, and there is no serious possibility of widespread movement to legalize polygamy or incestuous marriage in the foreseeable future.

The decline of morals is a slippery slope down. Everything starts with an idea, both good and bad.

[Chief Rum]

Isn't this overblown? We're talking about two small special interest groups, aren't we? Although I couldn't tell for sure, because Flasch apparently didn't post the whole article or a link to it (well, yeah, I could search for it, but, hell, he posts additional excerpts of it that, for all I know, could be lifted completely out of context).

I live in California, and I haven't heard too much controversy over this. I am in favor of the concept of civil unions for gay couples, so that they may enjoy the legal benefits (and responsiblities) that married heterosexual couples do. In fact, I would be for changing the official wording of all such unions (hetero or homo) to civil union, making it a sexless legal term.

I respect the term marriage to be a religious one for many people, even though it has come to be used in legal form as well. It's not really something I give one care about (whether a marriage is a marriage or a civil union or a government-supported coupling ), but I respect that to some the term is an important one, and see no reason to trash their beliefs when all we need to do is make a change in wording in our laws.

CR

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The decline of morals is a slippery slope down. Everything starts with an idea, both good and bad.

Not everyone holds the same morals as you. To many people, letting gays marry is perfectly moral and not letting them marry is immoral.

Welcome to the melting pot.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

In fact, I would be for changing the official wording of all such unions (hetero or homo) to civil union, making it a sexless legal term.

That would be the ideal solution, IMO. But if we did that, and "reduced" marriage to civil unions, the religious people would start yelling about "religion under attack" and all that nonsense. Lesson here: No one's ever happy. Can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Glengoyne]

Mr. Thomasson is actually mistaken. The people of California voted to Protect the definition of "Marriage" as to clarify that the definition applies to only a man and a woman. If the people had been asked to vote to BAN gay marriage or civil unions, I think the proposition might have ended with a different result. I voted against it then specifically because it didn't provide for a "civil union" alternative.

I do agree with the other California residents that have replied. This really isn't causing too much of a controversy. It is only pissing off the fringe elements on both sides of the issue. Some Gay rights activists are against it, because they consider anything short of gay marriage a second rate compromise .

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That would be the ideal solution, IMO. But if we did that, and "reduced" marriage to civil unions, the religious people would start yelling about "religion under attack" and all that nonsense. Lesson here: No one's ever happy. Can't please all of the people all of the time.

I'm not religious at all, but doing that would certainly piss me off. I don't want my own marriage "downgraded" just because some people can't be open-minded enough to be able to handle gay marriage being called marriage.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

hxxp://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Nobody is listening to them, which illustrates my point. One reason that neither polygamy nor incestuous marriage will become legalized is that both the right and the left are against both. For different reasons, perhaps, but both sides are against them.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not everyone holds the same morals as you. To many people, letting gays marry is perfectly moral and not letting them marry is immoral.

Welcome to the melting pot.

Obviously not. If everyone held the same beliefs, there wouldnt be any qualms

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by clintl

... both the right and the left are against both. For different reasons, perhaps, but both sides are against them.

Actually the Democratic party hasn't really decided if they are for or against Gay Marriage. The left might have, but the party itself hasn't exactly embraced it.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Obviously not. If everyone held the same beliefs, there wouldnt be any qualms

or fun FOFC threads

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Obviously not. If everyone held the same beliefs, there wouldnt be any qualms

Which is why I think everyone should just elect me as Leader Of Earth and do and beleive everything I say. Then there wouldn't be any problems at all. Finally, I've got someone who agrees....and you all one day will follow my rule!! MWAHAHAHAHA

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I'm not religious at all, but doing that would certainly piss me off. I don't want my own marriage "downgraded" just because some people can't be open-minded enough to be able to handle gay marriage being called marriage.

Were you married religiously, DD? I mean, in a religious ceremony? If so, you wouldn't lose the right to call your union a "marriage".

If you're not religious, why does it matter if a religious term is applied to your union with your wife?

It's not a downgrade. Just a different name, with the same rights.

CR

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Isn't this overblown? We're talking about two small special interest groups, aren't we? Although I couldn't tell for sure, because Flasch apparently didn't post the whole article or a link to it (well, yeah, I could search for it, but, hell, he posts additional excerpts of it that, for all I know, could be lifted completely out of context).
CR

Hey, I copied and pasted DIRECTLY from yahoo news. The only thing I deleted, intentionally was the [picture] and linky stuff to some of their advertisements. From now on Ill post the link to but I never edit stuff for my stance's gain....defeats the purpose.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Hey, I copied and pasted DIRECTLY from yahoo news. The only thing I deleted, intentionally was the [picture] and linky stuff to some of their advertisements. From now on Ill post the link to but I never edit stuff for my stance's gain....defeats the purpose.

Oh, I see what happened. You stuck that MY FAVORITE LINE IN THIS, and it looked like you had simply cut off the article and posted an excerpt from a part of the article not otherwise shown. I see now the entire article is listed from top to bottom (ignoring your insertion), but I was confused by that. You should probably not bold and caps it like you did, because it looks like a break in the whole thing. Try italics and maybe parentheses next time (if you have a point to make in the middle of an article like that ).

CR