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.
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.