Posted on 01/01/2005 12:15:12 AM PST by SmithL
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Good, equal rights and protections, but they are not "married". I am fine with this, don't care what they do in the bedrooms. Let's move on people.
Amen. There are a lot more important issues to worry about than what citizens are doing in their private homes.
Bet, however, this will be dragged to court.
There are more pressing issues like illegal immigration, abortive birth-control, supporting our troops, sticking it to the corrupt UN, reforming education into something that educates, taking back our elections from the fraudulent farce they've become (Washington's gubernatorial, San Diego's mayoral), and others ...
Is'nt that special?...said the Church Lady.
Some friends of mine have had their family terribly--and I mean terribly--hurt because the father, after many years of marriage and 4 kids, decided he was a homosexual and broke the family up. So there really aren't ANY more important issues than standing for what's right. People will continue to commit adultery and homosexuality, and we should forgive those who want to repent, but no posting on the Internet--and certainly no state or federal law--should every imply that any sexual behavior you engage in, provided it is consensual, is automatically okay. That's a lie!
One for the list. (I am sneaking on for 5 minutes...)
Happy New Year!
If you want on/off the list let me know.
Well, how about practitioners of polygamy and polyandry? Can't leave them out. It wouldn't be fair :(
Found it! It's very telling that uncontrolled anger is a constant theme among leftists in general and homosexuals in particular. And not just anger, real rage, as well as ennui, irritation, and pent up hatred. It's a constant background noise with them. And they feel happy about it! I mean they consider their anger a sort of badge of genuineness or authenticity. I've seen in Eugene OR (where I had the mistfortune to live for a while) bumper stickers something like this: "Don't trust anyone who isn't angry" and "If you're not angry you're not paying attention".
Part of the mindset is that if you're life isn't going well, or you're not happy, IT'S OTHER PEOPLES' FAULT - never your own. No personal responsibility whatsoever. The exact opposite of someone who is understanding their position in relationship to God. They see themselves as supreme. I conisder that leftists - and "gay" radicals (and how many aren't??) personify what happens when people rebel against God, out of envy.
What happens is not a pretty sight.
A lot of them (I've seen a few myself) Will not come full circle and deal with self culpability until they are on their death bed. What a humbling experience. Thank God I came to terms with myself before that point.
One thing that I have noticed about Leftists, and this is nothing new, is that they project their own personal misfortunes or failings on society or a portion of society. For example, I know that a number of prominent feminists endured bad fathers and/or husbands, or were just plain unlucky with men.
Anyway, Little Jeremiah, welcome back to duty! I note your tagline -- you are on the wrong side of Modern Man. I would consider that an honor.
That it's a lie is your opinion--you don't speak for the world.
The federal government is not a regulator of consensual behavior between adults--or shouldn't be. Your story is a case of apples and oranges--if this particular fruit had been allowed to marry and do as he pleased, he might not have messed up other people's lives.
You and I may dislike this person's personal morality, but it's none of our freakin business. It always astounds me when supposed conservatives think we should give the power to control personal lives involving consensual interaction to some government body. I thought it was the liberals who wanted to punish people for private behavior like smoking, speaking their mind in theor own way, using "hate speech" that's anything outside the liberal ideology.
The meddlers in others lives need to get lives of their own. If two guys wanna do disgusting things in their own house, like it or not, they're taxpayers, too. I couldn't give a damn what they do in their homes, because I want them to get the hell out of MY business. Meddlers in ANYONE's personal affairs are no friends of mine.
This has already been dragged to court, and was ruled constitutional. Among the first bills introduced in the new session of the state legislature, which began in December, were two aimed at overturning the court decision (SCA1 & ACA3). Also among the early starters was a bill to define marriage as a bond between "two people" (AB19). The legislature will be haggling over this for the next year plus.
The stated primary issue regarding the gay marriage bill is the desire to qualify for federal benefits. It's hard to see how a change in state law would accomplish that.
For those who are interested, text of the bills can be found on the state's legislative information website here.
It all just gets so complicated....
You're right. Homosexuality is a deviancy that plagues a society with too much time on their hands. It's not right, it's not natural, and I damn sure don't want my grandchildren being taught it is normal.
This sounds fine with me. I have no problem with same sex couples making whatever arrangements that they feel necessary, as long as they don't call it a marriage and try to force a redefinition of a marriage. My biggest objection to same sex marriage is that they will come into the churches and interfere religious beliefs.
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.