It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:17 AM
The one thing I can think of that this will mess up will be things like insurances and things where your spouse is in apart in a contractual or in a next of kin type of situation. What I mean is in the following.

In a Marriage, your spouse can be apart of your heath care, or your car insurance and such policies. I personally have never heard of them covering those in a domestic partnership. In fact, I believe that was one of the argument of those for gay marriage.

Second is a next of kin issue. If you get sick or are possibly dieing and need a next of kin decision, that would be your spouse. If you remove Marriage and insert domestic partner I would believe that right is now taken away from the partner and given back to the patients original family. And if they can't be reached for what ever reason and the would be spouse is there and could have made the decision but can't because someone remove Marriage from all vernacular of government speech would be an outrage.

I hope if this does get on the ballot that the people with sense in California will come out and vote it down because of the harm it could cause, and because it is pretty silly.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:22 AM
Yes - domestic partners can buy an insurance policy in California - under California law.

But - insurance policies are often sold to other agencies. If the insurance policy is sold to an agency outside California - - they are not required to honor the domestic partnership legal in California.

This happens all the time.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:27 AM
Heck, why not just start taxing people with long last names and also people who want to get married and combine two long last names? After all it does cost more to print all those extra characters on all those forms and documents.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:38 AM

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
How about striking the GOVERNMENT out of MARRIAGE !

Government should not be involved in personal, consensual, loving relationships!

Somebody should have thought of that before pushing the government to ban gay marriage.

(I'm not directing the rest of this at you greeneyedleo, I don't know what your stance is. This is directed toward those who agreed with banning gay marriage.)

"Do unto others" isn't just a religious saying, it's a good rule of thumb.

Typically, when you go after someone with such neglect for what they would have wanted... you get the same back.

I can't say I'd be sorry to see the word marriage stricken from your laws. You're only getting back what you dished out to those gays.

Though I'm not a gay myself, I certainly stand with them. Especially after seeing the reckless disregard religion showed them and their rights.

All the religious had to do was leave it up to their individual churches to decide on a person to person basis who gets married by them... but nooooo... you had to go and get the government involved.

You could have let another church do what you didn't want to... but no... that wasn't good enough for you. You had to attack them on a broad scale.

Well... you reap what you sow. They're just showing you the same disgust you showed them.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:51 AM
I think it's ok to let them have the gay marriage thing.
You know in those Muslim countries they don't have gays, so they can't be all bad.

Better later than never.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by googolplex]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by googolplex


Either you are trying to be sarcastic and humorus in a way that failed, or you actually believe the pablum you just wrote!

First idea: Not funny.

Second idea: Might be one of the most disgusting, ill-informed hateful "rants" I've seen lately, on ATS.


I'd better let someone else field this one!!!! I'll say something I'd regret, later.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Sorry if failed but I was bored, that's about same response I usally receive on my gay comments.
My dad said I was gay when younger, but said he beat it out of me.

And I don't complain about your perspective.
I don'thave any problem with gay people, that was a rather narrow minded way some people look at gays, what ever floats your boat.
And the gays in muslin countries are really in closet,in some of those countries if they found out you were gay they stone you to death.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by googolplex]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by johnsky

I starred your post, Johnsky. I couldn't agree more.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by n0b0DY

I think this is great initiative, now the -church crazies- can't say were attemtping to dismantle marriage, -were simply changing the wording to allow for less discrimination-.

Hmm you don't seem to be too constructive either...

You simply generalize that every person who is against gay marriage is a church crazy huh.

So every person for gun rights is a sadistic redneck who should be put in a cell and fed rat meat for lunch. Am I right? I mean hell...

...then I must be a Sadistic Church Going Nutcase because I don't agree with you.

No matter what WORD you substitute marriage with... it doesn't change the action nor the definition as you are substituting it.

i.e. If farmer joe doesn't like the term Scarecrow and he decides to name it Fowl and Wildlife Deterrent Device for Crop and vegetative Producing Land Properties. It doesn't matter...


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by Sestias

Sestias, I see this as more of a prank, than anything else.

For those that may not have read the linky, it said the 'proposal' (oh, what a pun!) was iniated by two heterosexual college students.

Not sure if their gender was specified.

As to what I think, I see 'marriage' as having two personalities, in Western society. Or, at least here in the USA.

A 'marriage' can be just a contract....a legal way to obtain certain tax benefits, Powers of Attorney rights, and so forth.

OR, a 'marriage' can have all of that, PLUS if the cople involved wish it, a religious aspect as well.

Unfortunately, as a 'contract', whether civil or religious/civil, 'breaking' that contract (divorce) can have dire consequences.

Barring some amicable arrangement, it seems that death is the only way out, without bearing some financial hardship by one or both parties.

Even IF two people, whether same-gender or not, live together, their financial entanglements get more and more complicated. AND there is the subject of health benefits, retirement benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc, etc.

personal example: After my Mother divorced, she fell in love again with a divorced man. Probably because of the pain of the divorces, they waited about two decades until, realizing that he was about to retire, they had better get married, in the eyes of the law...and since he was 15 years her senior, for the reasons I mentioned above as well.

Since they were a female/male pair, no problemo, KimoSabe!

But, if a same-gender couple wish to enter into that minefield known as 'marriage'... (oh! I know....when in love! That's the point!) ...they are stymied.

I believe in equal opportunity, under the law, to have your house taken away from you in divorce proceedings if it doesn't work out...."irreconcilable differences", or what ever!

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You've raised some interesting questions. Ideally, there should be a third term that implies a "marriage-type" arrangement, with all the financial and legal obligations that entails, and distinguishes it from just a roommate-type relationship, which is what a "domestic partnership" may or may not imply.

I think the framers of the initiative were searching for just such a term when they suggested that phrase. IMO they are quite serious about the initiative, which will go on the ballot if they can get 700,000 signatures by the end of summer.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Sestias

Sestias, I see this as more of a prank, than anything else.

For those that may not have read the linky, it said the 'proposal' (oh, what a pun!) was iniated by two heterosexual college students

This is possible, but I certainly didn't read it that way.

I think it's a legitimate attempt to replace the word "marriage" in legal issues with the words "domestic partnership" – while retaining all the rights of such a relationship as currently defined.

So, two adults would be able to enter into a legal contract, sanctioned by the state, to ensure such things as next-of-kin rights, insurance rights, tax status rights – all the legal rights that are given to heterosexual married couples by the state. And with those rights would come the responsibilities – alimony/palimony, divorce proceedings, etcetera.

It makes perfect sense to me. Essentially, gay couples would be in exactly the same position as non-religious heterosexual couples; both would be able to receive state recognition of their committed partnership and the benefits that entails, without worrying about the religious aspect of it; the churches could keep "marriage" among whoever they choose (I imagine some churches will recognize gay marriage and some won't).

Best of luck to the signature-collectors!

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Sestias


'marriage-type'....clumsier than 'civil union'.

Like I said, ALL marriages are civil unions, by definition. SOME marriages are based on a religious vow, as well. The third circle (in the logic diagram) would possibly be the concept of domestic partnership....there's another term, escapes me at the moment. BUT, in the classic logic diagram, three circles that intersect, some overlap.

BIG problem I see, though....even if these two college students are sincere, there is a certain point of law that (sorry, don't know the label) that ANY 'marriage' in a state of the USA is automatically recognized in every other state.

Changing the definition opens up a whole can o'worms.

EDIT....major edit....I forgot to mention the main reason for a marriage, in the traditional sense. It is for love. It defines a feeling, at the time, at least, of a lifelong commitment to each other, for love.

As most already know, the 'lifelong' part doesn't always work out exactly....people change, circumstances change...but still, if two people, regardless of gender, feel a need for a legal (or religious) 'branding' of their bond, a sort of need for others to 'witness' their commitment, then that should be something available to them....

Happiness, in Human relationships, may last for lifetimes....or, could be transitory (see 'growing apart'....)

I have seen too many 'anti-gay-marriage' claims that 'marriage' is for 'procreation'!!!

Hmmm.....well, I am an only child. Because my mother divorced my father when I was age 3. My Mother did NOT fall in love with my Step-father in order to procreate! In fact, he had a vasectomy, so that there would be no little 'surprises'!!!

Yet, they were in love...he was, really, the true love of her life. Guess that makes ME the 'little surprise', hmmmm?

Nah! Not dramatic, it was all good...just making a point.

Two sexually active fertile people can make a baby....happens all the time. It is irresponsible, and sometimes heart-rending, depending on how the scenario plays out. There are, also, very heart-warming outcomes too.

Point is, every time you see a DOMA placard out there, protesting against 'civil unions', or the like, who claim that marriage 'has to be protected' because it's for procreation.....think twice, please.

[edit on 3/12/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:48 AM
Anyone who has lived a very long time will have seen the slippery slope of eroding national morals deteriorate to what we have today.

I remember when people kept things quiet. You didn't tell someone they were fat. You didn't insult someone who was ugly. You didn't suggest to someone that they shouldn't have a family. You didn't push your way in or out. You opened the door for a lady. Women and children first (happened recently to my shock on the Hudson River landing) like on the Titanic. People had their looks, they didn't replace them with plastic and silicone, and they learned to deal with them. Killing babies of any age was wrong wrong wrong. Kicking God out of the country was never heard. Heck, now that I think about it, there must be several country songs about this sort of thing.

Homosexuals kept their sexual perversion quiet. They gathered at night in dark places in clubs or private homes. They considered themselves sexual deviates, and that was the turn-on. They had multiple partners, shared bathhouses, and had their own secret signals. Sometimes the signals were sent to the wrong guy, and someone got hurt.

Then some time ago, about 30 years, they felt they should not be hurt by others anymore. They were tired of being beaten or killed for fun. They wanted to be recognized with respect, and they wanted to use the hate they felt to strike back at society to get that respect. So, they began to strike over and over to bring their perverted lifestyle into the light. They told the lie over and over and over that they were just like everyone else, and that their perversion deserved to be out in the open. After a while, a few began to believe them. Usually they were friends or family, folks who had wished that they would have kept the secret because it embarrassed them. However, now that it was blatantly out in the open, the friends and family began to support them to some degree because they loved them. So, the support for the perversion spread wider and farther across our land. Many are now involved in supporting this perversion. The supporters believe that any and all laws should change, any and all standards should be revised, any mountain should be moved to enable the perversion to feel equal to the good, wholesome, righteous citizens who have been careful their entire lives to live a good, clean life.

On this site, there are many supporters of this dark, dismal perversion that have surfaced; but, my friend, this is a slippery slope. If you degrade the standards of your society, where will it end? Will you bury your country under immorality? Will you enable more of the perverted anti-social elements to succeed? How many times have you been warned to stop the insanity?

Ironically, the good is used to promote the bad. Good and right laws of discrimination and opportunity are being used to promote perversion. You can use good things for evil ends. You can build a nuclear power plant or a nuclear bomb. What type of person applies good laws of discrimination to perversion? Do we use these laws to promote marriage between adults and children because we don't want to discriminate against age? Do we use these societal standards to promote plural marriage because we wish to encourage freedom between consenting adults? Do we? How far can this slippery slope continue?

The marriage covenant is between one man and one woman.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:55 AM

Originally posted by bigvig316
The one thing I can think of that this will mess up will be things like insurances and things where your spouse is in apart in a contractual or in a next of kin type of situation. .

Insurance can require a period of cohabitation, three years, to consider the folks a couple.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by Jim Scott

Jim....the 'standards of society'?????

Whose standards??? WHEN!?!

Do you mean, when it was 'standard' to own a slave?

Do you mean, when it was 'standard' to deny women the right to vote???

Do you mean,when it was a Patriarchal Society, where no matter the woman's opinion, the Man's always prevailed?!?!!?

Is THIS what you are propounding?

When it was 'standard' to be mysogonystic, and the woman had no rights to complain, much less, to recompense???

Seems to me, 'sir' advocate more towards the Muslim religious ideals, than the American Ideals.


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by Jim Scott

To me it's not a question of morality. If one is male or female, black, white, red, brown, yellow, blonde, brunette, rehead, tall, short or is distinguised in any of a million other ways--these are not moral issues. They are only differences.

Human beings have a tendency to make outcasts of some people who are different from others. This, IMO, is not one of the greatest characteristics of the human race.

When women got the vote there were those who maintained this was an abnormal perversion of the "essential" feminine character. It was preached against in some churches. When African Americans began to achieve equal rights there were those who felt that equal rights would lead to interracial marriages (and they have, of course) and insisted that that was a perversion of God's laws. "Miscegenation" was preached against in some churches. Both of these things are now considered by most to be normal human behavior.

Many things that we now consider normal differences among people were once called "perversions" of "right" human behavior. I believe that discrimination against, and ostracism of, gays and lesbians will come to be regarded as what is abnormal. Gayness is only a difference, not a sin.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by Sestias

Sestias.....big ole'

Nicely put!

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Anyone who has lived a very long time will have seen the slippery slope of eroding national morals deteriorate to what we have today.

I am 62. There is no difference today then there was years ago - - except real life is more out in the open.

Oh yeah - I remember my early years of - Hush! Hush! Keep it in the family. Everyone knows the term "Skeletons in the Closet".

I choose life not to be a Closet lie - - just so the self-righteous can profess their purity and high morals.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
How about striking the GOVERNMENT out of MARRIAGE !

Government should not be involved in personal, consensual, loving relationships!

Yes, I agree. I have always felt strange about the idea that a "marriage" has to be state sanctioned.

As a child of a mother who has been married 8 times from the age of 15 to 50, I do not buy the whole "sacred union" idea. The divorce rates of this country are pretty bad, so I get the feeling that many people do not hold to their convictions in this matter when problems start to arrive. I am glad that I was never married. My tastes in women have changed, anyway.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in