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 ...
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.
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.