Skip to comments.
Calif. Gay Couples Now Have Registry Option
foxnews.com ^
| November 28, 2004
| Fox News
Posted on 11/28/2004 9:21:50 AM PST by Rockitz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
Looks like civil unions are, for all practical purposes, a reality in Cali. I don't want to be in the same group insurance plans as homosexuals. Their life expectancy is much lower and their health far worse than that of heterosexuals. They made the decision to pursue this lifestyle- they should pay for it. I also don't htin it is a good idea for them to be able to adopt children, but I'm not sure this registry addresses that issue. Other than that, I could care less if they are allowed to inherit property or visit their lovers in the hospital.
1
posted on
11/28/2004 9:21:50 AM PST
by
Rockitz
To: Rockitz
2
posted on
11/28/2004 9:23:12 AM PST
by
Rockitz
(After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Rockitz
Didn't California pass an initiative banning precisely this kind of law?
4
posted on
11/28/2004 9:29:58 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
To: Rockitz
The article says it gives them adoption rights. That makes me just sick. You can already draw up a will and leave your things to whomever you want. And you can visit anyone you want in the hospital too. The are only specifically talking about when the patient is in a comma or something and cannot consent. But even then, hospitals cooperate with whatever the family members want. My brother was in a comma and had his wife, his kids, his extended family, and even his girlfriend visiting him. This was at a Catholic hospital too.
What they get with the registry is gov't enforced acceptance.
5
posted on
11/28/2004 9:30:11 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
To: Rockitz
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.
6
posted on
11/28/2004 9:31:01 AM PST
by
Rockitz
(After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
To: Rockitz
. I also don't think it is a good idea for them to be able to adopt children, but I'm not sure this registry addresses that issue. Don't be naive. Maybe this law doesn't authorize gay adoptions, but the next one will.
7
posted on
11/28/2004 9:32:08 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
To: Rockitz
I don't want to be in the same group insurance plans as homosexuals. Their life expectancy is much lower and their health far worse than that of heterosexuals. They made the decision to pursue this lifestyle- they should pay for it.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.
8
posted on
11/28/2004 9:32:53 AM PST
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Did Arnold sign this? Looks like we have someone who's basically the same as Gray Davis on social issues.
9
posted on
11/28/2004 9:33:46 AM PST
by
Rockitz
(After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
To: Rockitz
Just wait - those gays and lesbians will think of something else to complain about.
How about "Out of the Closet" day of thanksgiving.
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; Rockitz
The article says it gives them adoption rights. 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.
11
posted on
11/28/2004 9:35:05 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
To: Hodar
You could make the same arguement for smokers or people who drink.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.
12
posted on
11/28/2004 9:37:49 AM PST
by
Rockitz
(After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
To: Cowboy Bob
go ahead and register - so we know who they are, and where to find them when the time comes.What are you suggesting?
To: Paleo Conservative
I won't bet a dime because I agree with your sad assessment.
14
posted on
11/28/2004 9:39:53 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Didn't California pass an initiative banning precisely this kind of law? 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.
15
posted on
11/28/2004 9:40:36 AM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(Santorum 2008)
To: Cowboy Bob
where to find them when the time comes
OK...you've piqued my curiosity. Why will there be a need to "find them"?
16
posted on
11/28/2004 9:42:18 AM PST
by
Clara Lou
(Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
To: Rockitz
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.
To: ItsOurTimeNow; little jeremiah
Bad news for the children.
Civil unions/homo-adoption a legal reality in Cal-i-forn-ia.
18
posted on
11/28/2004 9:43:24 AM PST
by
DirtyHarryY2K
(Perversion is not a civil right.)
To: ElkGroveDan
Looks like they slipped this one through somehow and your year-long fight was for the sake of semantics alone.
19
posted on
11/28/2004 9:44:20 AM PST
by
Rockitz
(After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
To: Rockitz
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. 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.
20
posted on
11/28/2004 9:45:18 AM PST
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson