Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

My interpretation is now there is no difference in marraige and 'domestic partnership'.

http://www.gaywired.com/print_this_article.cfm?section=9&id=6786

1 posted on 08/02/2005 1:24:06 PM PDT by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: dmanLA
Moreno wrote that "permitting a business to discriminate against registered domestic partners by denying them benefits or services it extends to spouses violates the comparable public policy favoring domestic partnership."

I guess that applies to the tax code too! Make them pay the marriage penalty now!

2 posted on 08/02/2005 1:26:08 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA

Unless the club extended "married" benefits to unmarried, cohabitating heterosexuals, there was no basis for this ruling to force them to treat gay couples the same as married couples.


3 posted on 08/02/2005 1:27:01 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA
"Businesses can't give discounts to married couples — banks, health clubs or automobile clubs — unless they also give them to registered domestic partners," Davidson said.

I would close the doors and leave the state.
6 posted on 08/02/2005 1:31:33 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA

10 posted on 08/02/2005 1:43:40 PM PDT by dennisw ( G_d - ---> Against Amelek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA
There are some differences, surely.

Here's a link to the CA Family Code on domestic partnerships.

14 posted on 08/02/2005 3:23:09 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Choose LIFE. Circumcision = Barbarism. It's HIS body; what about HIS right to choose?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA

I will make a note of these names:
"Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar filed a dissenting opinion. Joining Moreno were Chief Justice Ronald George, and Justices Joyce Kennard, Marvin Baxter and Ming W. Chin."

Unlike with SCOTUS, here in Calif, these jerks come before the voters and I will vote against those who voted for this. I think the interval is 12 years and here is when they were confimrmed:

* Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
* Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice
* Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice
* Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
* Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
* Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice

It looks like George and Baxter were recently re-confimred but Chin comes up in '08


16 posted on 08/02/2005 6:34:20 PM PDT by fifedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dmanLA
Exactly. We have gay marriage in all but name. I don't think Proposition 22 will survive the ruling since it reserves marriage and its benefits for heterosexual couples. That's why we need to amend the State Constitution to save it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
17 posted on 08/02/2005 6:40:48 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson