CA: Bill would expand domestic partner law in California

SFGate.com ^ | 12/4/06 | Lynda Gledhill

[NormsRevenge]

Sacramento -- Responding to the growing trend of couples raising children out of wedlock, a San Francisco lawmaker plans to introduce a bill today that would give young and middle-age heterosexual couples who are not married the right to register as domestic partners.

The new bill and the expected reintroduction of legislation that would grant same-sex partners the right to marry are already drawing the ire of social conservatives and may once again put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the difficult position of taking sides on the politically divisive issue of defining marriage.

State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, said she decided to pursue legislation allowing heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners when she saw that so many more children are being born to unmarried women, many of whom live with the fathers.

"This is a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today," Migden said. "We're trying to provide the proper benefits for the families that exist today."

Couples would not have to have children, however, to register under Migden's bill.

Conservatives said the last thing the state should be doing is discouraging marriage.

"Talk about a government disincentive to be married," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a statewide pro-family organization. "It's appalling that just about anyone and everyone could be virtually married to each other, without being really married as a husband and wife."

Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.

Migden carried the legislation in 1999 setting up California's domestic partner law and said she had wanted to include all couples at that point. However, the law as adopted allows only gay and lesbian couples or different-sex couples in which one partner is over age 62 to register. ...

[NormsRevenge]

Chipping away at the very foundation of society, one bill at a time...

[ConservativeMind]

Why can't we also grant domestic partner status to pets owned by single people? It is wrong for them to find better companionship with a dog than a person? Animals need medical attention, too.

After that, since animals would now have domestic partner status, aren't they essentially a person? If they are viewed the same as a person for domestic partner status, why not also for voting rights, Medicaid/Medicare, and other human rights?

And after that, why not consider them legal for marriage? Animals need sex, too. If they are considered human in every other way, why discriminate based on sexual orientation?

[tessalu]

Let any two people set up a domestic partnership, just any two, and do not make sex a prerequisite. This is the only thing that would be fair.

[Churchillspirit]

Great post!!

[Churchillspirit]

And think of all the work for the lawyers drawing up partnership agreements.

And if one or both "partners" still has a living spouse.......

[babygene]

Here's a thought about domestic partnershps...

There are many, many more Roman Catholics that have been divorced and are unable to remarry under the rules of the R. C. church than there are gays.

Wouldn't it burn the butts of the pro-gay crowd if this program was overwhelmed by such heterosexual Catholic couples?

[DPMD]

Cynical. Migden is a professional lesbian, whatever else her resume may state, and she isn't the least bit concerned with rights of heterosexuals. This is a backdoor - forgive the pun - move to establish more marriage "rights" for gays, and as such, is a red herring. Not to mention a badly mixed metaphor.

[Amerigomag]

Migden and others are making haste while the Austrian is still in office.

Should a Democrat in 2010, their little party would be over.