Posted on 11/28/2004 9:21:50 AM PST by Rockitz
LOS ANGELES — A new state law in California allows gay and lesbian couples nearly all the same rights and benefits of married spouses if they choose to sign up with a state domestic partner registry.
For thousands of same-sex couples in the state, that means legal recognitions they have long dreamed about having.
California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, author of the Domestic Partnership and Responsibilities Act (search), calls the measure historic. It grants same-sex couples everything from insurance benefits to adoption rights, but also adds responsibilities like their partner's debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
ooops...... htin = think
Didn't California pass an initiative banning precisely this kind of law?
What they get with the registry is gov't enforced acceptance.
Read right over it- looks like gays in California are now allowed to adopt. While this may be OK for some gay couples, I recall being sent a research article indicating that there were higher child abuse rates in homosexual households.
Don't be naive. Maybe this law doesn't authorize gay adoptions, but the next one will.
You could make the same arguement for smokers or people who drink.
I have no problem with legal equality; however forcing a heterosexuals to recognize "Gay Marriage" on the same plane as "Marriage" was a bit much. The gay community does have a few very legitimate points. For example, a gay couple is driving and has an accident. One of them is severely hurt and requires immediate surgury. The unhurt person could NOT sign for the surgury, this requires a member of the family or a married partner. The unhurt person can NOT visit the hurt person in the hospital, for visitors in intensive care are limited to Family ONLY.
Now, the person dies; and the survivor finds that although they had built a business and home together over a period of years, the surviving partner now has to do legal battle just to keep what they have earned. People who did not participate in their business are now fighting for half interest in the business; the house is now half his; same for any financial remains. People who may have no contact with them are now nothing more than parasites; claiming half of what was left behind.
Now we move on to life insurance benefits, medical benefits and legal protection that is automatically extended to 'Married' people and survivors.
So, IMHO this is only fair. It is NOT marriage, it is a legal means that heterosexuals have enjoyed for centuries. This does not diminish the relationship between a man and a woman; nor does it inject itself into a religon that generally holds homosexuality as a sin, in and of itself.
Did Arnold sign this? Looks like we have someone who's basically the same as Gray Davis on social issues.
Just wait - those gays and lesbians will think of something else to complain about.
How about "Out of the Closet" day of thanksgiving.
How much are you willing to bet that a girl giving up her child for adoption will have no right to object to a gay couple getting the child. In fact, the state will probably preferentially place children with "gay" couples.
Insurance companies are already able to discriminate with against smokers. I've seen the question on forms many times. Private pilots are also discriminated against. If you voluntarily accept additional risk in your life, there should be an associated cost to that.
What are you suggesting?
I won't bet a dime because I agree with your sad assessment.
Yep I spent a year of my life working on it. It passsed by 61.7%.
I believe this is not settled yet. The court battles will continue.
The next step would be to put a referendum on california's next election.
1. Establish marriage as one man one woman.
2. prohibit civil unions.
3. outlaw homosexual adoption.
Remember CF only has very urban areas as gorezones, the rest of the state is Bush country.
Civil unions/homo-adoption a legal reality in Cal-i-forn-ia.
Looks like they slipped this one through somehow and your year-long fight was for the sake of semantics alone.
Very good points. I would have no problem with the insurance rates providing a seperate premium rate for gay couples. This would be in the insurance company's best interests. However, previously the insurance agencies denied coverage entirely. Providing a rate that has been pro-rated, so as to be fair and equitable (again, your examples of private pilot and smoking are great examples); this would be fair to all involved.
Joint defendants in lawsuits! Ruin your credit rating! Watch your "partner" clean out your bank account! Pain and expense of "disregistering" divorces!
I may like the idea. Just shut up, already. Have your wedding and your cake, too.
How do you "un" register a partner when the bloom is off the rose?
Your legal analysis is wrong. In an accident there is a presumption for the desire of medical services.
There is such a thing as a health care surrogate which either recreational sex partner can have. (and would be wise for any couple to have with them when traveling)
If they are stupid enough to "build" comingled finances without benefit of proper planning then TOUGH LUCK!
When ANYBODY dies without a benifit of advance planning then they are screwed. Remember Joe Robbie, owner of the Miami Dolphins? He died without a will and the estate taxes forced the sale of assets to pay the tax man. Where was the cried of "fair" and "family".
The intestate laws should not be trumped by a individuals desired fetish with regards to recreational sex.
Will californias activist bearucrats start issuing spousal visas to same sex couples? Federal law prohibits this but we have seen what regard california hacks have for laws which go against recreational orgasms.
Let's say one partner becomes suddenly spendthrift; does the frugal and responsible partner then have grounds to "de-register" himself?
Gay? How mature is that? These people want to be 'married', and they call themselves 'gay'? Grow up.
I disagree. Previously insurance companies did NOT deny coverage entirely. A homosexual could get insurance coverage like anyone else.
You're talking about treating people in samesex relationships as if they are special. Why is it "fair" and "equitable" for two men to be able to get a family insurance policy, but not for one man and three women?
But your examples are for available legal coverage that is available to anyone; but is automatically given to married couples.
In the car accident example, my wife can sign for anything, including terminating life support. If I die; my wife gets 100% of what I own. There is no debate from my parents, brothers, ect. The house/business reverts to her, my savings is hers, my stock options are hers.
What you are proposing is that what is automatic for married couples become extraordinary for gay couples. This is what the law intended to overcome. I have no problem with equality; however I do have a problem with either group declaring 'protected' status.
This is the part of the equation I absolutely love. If they find that their 'union' just doesn't work; then they can go through divorce court like anyone else. They can discover the bliss of paying alimony, and dividing their property, finances and belongings in half; just like heterosexuals. If you want the 'Good' stuff; you also get to enjoy the 'bad' stuff.
Otherwise, things wouldn't be "equal", now would they?
And how about that federal 1040. Think the Federal Government will recoznize it?
It two homosexuals have the time to "register" there is no excuse for simply signing a health surrogate or inheritence docs.
The inheritence laws you cite are there to protect the production of children for society.
Society rewards the institution, society is not there to reward individuals fetish for a peculiar form of recreational sex.
There is nothing to overcome since homosexuals have always been free to marry members of the opposit sex AND heterosexuals of the same sex have been prohibited from marrying each other.
Homosexuality is only a behavior for recreational sex. period.
Do you deny that the 'opperession' exists? What would be your grounds if some legal protection was extended to Blacks, but available to Whites only through extraordinary means? Extended to women automatically, but males had to hire a lawyer and file additional paperwork.
Bottom line, "equal protection under the law" means that all groups are treated equally. It is patently unfair to demand that one group perform extra paperwork to obtain the rights that another group enjoys automatically.
I don't think it's okay for any homosexual couple to adopt a child, period. That's automatic indoctrination, one more child who will grow up with a skewed sense of what parents are supposed to be, one more child who will be denied what children really need, a female mother and a male father. There are TONS of good heterosexual couples looking for kids to adopt.
MM
Because 2 does not equal 3.
Cool. Does Nordstrom's carry AIDS interferon treatment and hospice care on their bridal registry list now?
actually in pubek skool, 2 does equal 3 if it feeeeeeels right.
This is requiring one group to hire a lawyer at some cost, to fill out paperwork to provide the same coverage that is provided automatically to another group. This is patently unfair; and thus falls into the 'equal protection under the law' clause.
Would you tolerate legal protection automatically provided to Blacks, that whites would have to hire a lawyer and file paperwork for? Or legal benefits provided to women, that men would have to hire a lawyer and fill out forms to match the female's inherit legal protection?
Now, to be fair; and that is what the whole argument is about has obvious benefits, but it also has substancial negatives too.
We know that heterosexual relationships tend to be more stable than homosexual relationships. And the divorce rate among heterosexuals is nearing the 50% mark. What would you expect the divorce rate to be among the gay community? Let's give them the benefits we heterosexuals all get to enjoy. So, they can split their possessions, finances and income 50/50. They too can pay alimony for the rest of thier lives. If they want to be equal; I have no problem with that.
The forms are FREE and freely available. No lawyer required.
You can go to your local office depot and pick one up for about $2-$3 dollars.
the days of "filing" a will before probate are gone
Sour grapes from a bunch of folks who want their bigotry (in the guise of Faith) codified into law and our most sacred public document.
My position remains unaltered: Get government ENTIRELY out of the sacred which means no more "marriage" licenses for anyone. Convert to civil union contracts. Marriage, the sacred tradition, belongs in institutions of FAITH, not government. It's time we recognize the difference and the wall which ought to be between government and faith. Folks can continue to say they're married, just like they do today, if the ceremony is performed by a justice, but government should not be issuing sacramental licenses. It's perverse, unAmerican and quite nearly sacrilegious.
The very liberal Dems in the California legislature and our very liberal governor, do not have the final say. They can pass bills repealing the law of gravity, but that doesn't mean we are going to float in the air.
The legislature passes unconstitutional laws all the time which are on occasion thrown out in court. However there is no judicial oversight unless a plaintiff takes the issue to a court. That is what is happening now.
And how is that proveable? One homosexual experience? No past heterosexual marriage? No past heterosexual experiences? A chosen lifestyle? A transgender attempting to engage in a "heterosexual" relationship when the partner is the same gender as the birth gender of the transgendered person? Is there a blood test for homos, for heteros? Brain scan? Maybe they can watch porn and see what turns them on. If it's two women in lesbian acts and you're male you're a red-blooded heterosexual American.
Of course what could happen is that girls wanting to direct that their child only be adopted by a heterosexual married couple could go out of state to give birth. There could be clinics set up in nearby conservative states just for this purpose.
Here're the facts:
On September 19, 2003 California Governor Gray Davis signed in a law the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, granting gay and lesbian couples most of the rights usually reserved for married heterosexual couples.
It is on the application form. If you lie on the adoption paperwork the adoption is VOID (not voidable, void as in it does not happen)
This may seem technical however the documents are under oath and penalty of prosecution. There are also the home studies, and other aspects. It is not the drivethrough at McAdoptions.
this is no differnt than INS applications which seem to ask absurd questions but are really traps for revoking a persons visa in the event of a lie.
Actually conservative Republicans have not declined to the point where we have our own obscure "wing". In fact, the most recent election has driven home the point that the public by and large SUPPORTS conservative Republican principles.
In fact, I didn't say which "very liberal governor" signed the bill. There has been a seemless streak of liberalism out of the Governor's office since 1990, so its really a trivial point.
But if you would like some evidence of your pal's liberalism, here's a clip from dan Weintraub's column in the Sacramento Bee, October 1st:
...The first hint of trouble for the right might have been Schwarzenegger's reaction to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's gay marriage gambit earlier this year. As Newsom issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying a voter-approved initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, Schwarzenegger at first did nothing, then condemned the mayor's policy but did not step in to try to stop him. On a nationally televised appearance on the "Tonight Show,' Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't mind if California voters reversed themselves and voted to legalize gay marriage.
But that was only the beginning. With hundreds of bills sent to his desk at the end of the legislative session, Schwarzenegger has now been forced to choose repeatedly between the left-leaning social activism of the Democrats who control the Legislature and the conservative wing of the Republican Party he calls home. So far, he is leaning left.
Schwarzenegger, for example, signed a measure to force health insurance companies to offer the same benefits to same- sex domestic partners as they offer to wedded spouses. The bill has long been a priority of the state's gay and lesbian community.
He signed another bill expanding the definition of gender in hate crimes and discrimination law to include not just male and female, but also "gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.' The change is meant to protect "transgender' individuals from harassment or discrimination. ....
Bigotry? Am I a bigot for despising the habits of drug addicts, alcoholics, pick pockets, and litterers? Any time people choose a lifestyle based on behavior long rejected by society, then it is appropriate to criticize them. It is even more appropriate to oppose giving special rights to them. Faith doesn't even have to enter into it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.