Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by sc2099

 

The term "domestic partnership" is a term of art in California marriage law. The term "marriage" is a legally recognized union between a man and a woman who are of legal age and who fulfill other requirments. A "domestic partnership" is a legally recognized union between two people of the same sex or a man and a woman over the age of 65. A "marriage" under California law is not much different from a "domestic partnership" other than "marraiges" always involve people of the opposite sex and can involve people of any age.

I am all for gay people getting married or doing whatever they please, but I feel this law is poorly drafted. As I stated before, "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" are terms of art under California law with precise meanings. Deleting "marriage" and substituting it with "domestic partnership" may muddy the waters and lead to unintended results in the courts.

This is interesting, I didn't realize that "domestic partnership" was already a legally recognized status in California – what are the requirements?

And what's the "man and woman over 65" deal? Why would the union of a man and a woman over the age of 65 necessarily differ from that of a man and a woman under 65? If two 70-year-olds want a "marriage" can they have a "marriage", or are they limited to a "domestic partnership"?

Do different rights accord to "marriages" and "domestic partnerships"? What is the purpose of "domestic partnership" status that it must be maintained separate from the union of a man and a woman under the age of 65?

Is California really implying that the only reason the state recognizes to get married is to attempt to procreate? What of people who are infertile for whatever reason?

They are just being vindictive because prop 8 got passed. They didn't like that the majority voted against them so now they are going after the word marriage all together.


They are also trying to get some revenge against the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut.

I guess if you don't think the way they do or approve of their lifestyle they will try and take ours away.

You want to be, then be gay. Stay out of my life.

Please, scroll up to my posts on page 2.....that is PAGE 2!!


ENJOY!!!!

There is "knowing" gays and then there is "KNOWING" gays.

As I was employed at a company that was predominately gay - - and I was the minority - - uh yes I KNOW gays.

I see the difference every day - - of gays trying to "fit" into a heterosexual world - - versus those I knew who lived in a gay world.

Bottom Line: GOVERNMENT needs to be EQUAL.

The fact our government named their license for combining two into one - - as marriage - - should never penalize anyone.

Government = Equal Rights = license under the law - - named marriage.

Originally posted by Annee
There is "knowing" gays and then there is "KNOWING" gays.

As I was employed at a company that was predominately gay - - and I was the minority - - uh yes I KNOW gays.

I see the difference every day - - of gays trying to "fit" into a heterosexual world - - versus those I knew who lived in a gay world.

Bottom Line: GOVERNMENT needs to be EQUAL.

The fact our government named their license for combining two into one - - as marriage - - should never penalize anyone.

Government = Equal Rights = license under the law - - named marriage.

It is NOT an equal rigjhts issue annee, under the current law for it to be a civil rights issue they would have to be denied marriage under discrimination when any gay man can marry a woman as long as it isn't his sister or immediate blood relative. This is not about equal rights what gays are asking for is "special rights" and be considered a class distinction which would set a precedent where who you have sex with and how you have it is now something the government would have a right to know to establish this new distinction for protections. Being gay is not like race it isn't what they are and it isn't how anyone should be defined by who they have sex with. so get off the wrong side of the argument, this one doesn't work it is a logical fallacy from every angle. I'm sorry but it is

Friendly reminder...

Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Let's all take a deep breath and exhale.

Please take the time to address the issue at hand, and refrain from attacking our fellow members. Believe it or not, it is possible to discuss this topic in a civil and dignified manner, so please do so.

Adherence to this simple request is expected.

Thank you.

Ok this is silly already, let them get married already, that is better than a "ban" on marriage for everybody, just for the homosexuals.

This is madness, "THIS IS CALIFORNIA"

Crazy people

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Blue_Jay, could not have said it better!

For a second line....what IS a marriage, anyway?

For a third line....if two people, well up in years, an old man and an old woman fall in love....they obviously cannot 'procreate'...they are in their seventies, let's say....can THEY 'marry'?????

OF COURSE they can!!!

Are they going to 'procreate"??? Well, dah!!! NO! (edit...well, they could adopt)......

As I've said in prevous posts, on this thread....a marriage can be 'religious', but it is also 'civil' at the same time. As in, it is a legal contract.

Regardless of all the religious trappings, 'marriages' have ALWAYS been a way to curry wealth.

Oh, I know, flaming arrows headed my way for that comment....but, think about it!!!!


EDIT for spelling, and some added text.....

[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

I have to point out - the majority of California is agricultural and conservative.

California has "pocket" areas of liberal thought.

reply to post by Annee


Well put, Annee.

As a born and bred Californian......I know a little bit about California.

I was born, and raised, in SoCal....born in 'Gardena', to be precise. Might seem as too much info....but, without a name and date (1957) you may as well be watching an episode of 'Lost'!!!


I'd go back there, if there was work....anyone looking for a tired old actor??? I'm your man!

Annee....if I ever get to your neck of the woods, I'd love to take you out for dinner....your choice....and please....well....our choice!!

Oh...topic.....hmmmmm...gotta dig myself out.....

I still think the concept of 'banning' all marriages is a bit whacked. Great effort, but not gonna happen. There are too many 'future ex-wives' out there.....

Oh, this is gonna hurt in the morning!!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

As I've said in prevous posts, on this thread....a marriage can be 'religious', but it is also 'civil' at the same time. As in, it is a legal contract.

Regardless of all the religious trappings, 'marriages' have ALWAYS been a way to curry wealth.

As to the first point, I don't think anyone is proposing that the legal rights and obligations of marriage should be put aside, just because the word is changed to a phrase like "domestic partnership." I'm personally all for leaving the word "marriage" intact but not limiting its definition to heterosexual couples.

However, it seems that there is a pretty large segment of the population which insists there is only one definition of "marriage," and that definition should be law. So there is a need to establish a right of legal partnerhip between two members of the same gender, and therefore a new phrase is needed.

I think that Brown, the attorney general for the state of California, has said that proposition 8 is against the California constitution, in that it denies equal rights (i.e. the right to marry) to a minority population. I started a thread on that about a month ago, but I'm not sure what the result of that challenge to Prop. 8 is.

And weedwhacker, it has always been true that marriage has been primarily about the acquisition of wealth through an exchange of women and the passing of that wealth to the next generation. In most of the western world, the right of inheritance is passed through the paternal line. It will be interesting to see how legally inheritance is passed down when there are two matriarchs or two patriarchs, but I'm sure it can be worked out.

I just can not support "Separate but Equal"

It will always have that stigma attached to it - - if any term is used other then marriage.

I'm not gay - - so it doesn't affect me personally.

But - - I would hold out for full equality. And I think (but don't know) if I were gay I'd feel the same way.

Originally posted by jd140
They are just being vindictive because prop 8 got passed. They didn't like that the majority voted against them so now they are going after the word marriage all together.


They are also trying to get some revenge against the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut.

I guess if you don't think the way they do or approve of their lifestyle they will try and take ours away.

You want to be, then be gay. Stay out of my life.

It wasn't your disapproval of them that did this, it was your outward hatred toward them and willingness to make this a government issue that pushed them over the edge.

You could have simply lived and let live, allowing each individual church to decide if they want to marry them or not... but no, that wasn't good enough for you. You had to go to the government to get it banned.


If you want to be straight, then be straight... but you should have stayed the hell out of their life.


I've got no sympathy.

I find it funny that an Atheist should have to remind the religious to "do unto others as you would have done unto you"...

... ironic.

Ironic, but typical.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by johnsky]

reply to post by johnsky


johnsky....

Really, the best response I've seen in quite a while.

Couldn't have said it beter myself!!

EDIT...I could have written it better.....!!!!



[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by johnsky
It wasn't your disapproval of them that did this, it was your outward hatred toward them and willingness to make this a government issue that pushed them over the edge.

No one "pushed" anyone over the edge, in fact people have bent over backwards to please the ever increasing sensitivities of this segment of society that happens to have a sexual fetish, a sexual preference unique to that segment of society. There is nothing to hate here and what kind of sex they have is none of our business moreover, none of them are walking around with "I'm Gay" on their foreheads so it isn't a difference anyone would even know about, much less have a reason for you to assume we MUST hate them for it.

Marriage has religiously based implications as well as Governmental restrictions for OBVIOUS reasons. It was and always has been about one man and one woman. It was incentive to create a family and as bad as many marriages are, many are still going strong. While Gays can argue why civil unions are not good enough, then why are they proposing they would be by removing the alternative just because they couldn't comply with the law and don't understand what marriage is about to those who do.

This isn't Gays getting victimized here it is every married person in fact everyone who is NOT gay can also get married just for the tax breaks when the people who need them are those with families.

Gays who blame religion for this so called violation of their equal rights have got it BACKWARDS. This is Religions Gig and those who are religious people do NOT want this tradition for the institution of marriage to become even more secularized and liberal the antithesis of what it is about to them and they have every right to defend it just as Atheists have had their arguments to keep religion out of public schools, Religious people want to keep Religious institutions like the word marriage and what it has always been for them sacred without further corruption for its defintion and meaning. They don't hate gays, Johnsky, they just don't want them to change marriage to mean anything goes with anyone, any sex, anywhere, it is a line Religion doesn't want crossed and Government also as it opens a pandoras box that has become one of the biggest regrets anywhere it has been allowed to happen.

This proposition is yet another attack on religion to change their ideologies to suit Gay people and those who are NOT gay, are getting sick and tired of Gays wanting special treatment. If they want to live together and love each other, FINE no one is stopping them so that argument doesn't fly, no one is telling them who they can have sex with or who they can love.

If they say it is about visitation rights and power of attorney, they can create their own civil unions and work to get those accepted everywhere just like married couples with one man and one woman has done to make marriage the institution it has become.

What gays are trying to do is ride on the coat tails of marriages legitimacy as a couple in love when marriage is not even about that if this law was passed. Case in point:

I just can not support "Separate but Equal" It will always have that stigma attached to it - - if any term is used other then marriage. - Annee

How this stigma got that way wasn't from us asking what kind of sex people are into and with whom. If it is a stigma, then why on earth would they expect the straight married community to want it rubbed off on them. It wasn't their fault it has a "stigma" and adding legitimate phrases like marriage won't even sugar coat it.

You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong and you can't make gay unions legitimate by stealing legitamacy from religious traditions title.

The argument that not all civil unions are accepted everywhere is BUNK a poorly argued cop out because it isn't about that at all. It is that civil unions will have the word GAY written all over it and they know it.

They cannot claim this is tantamount to racial discrimination when one cannot discriminate against someone not hired for a job for being gay simply because unless they insisted on telling their employer what kind of sex they are having, no one would know and no one is asking. This legislation would give them a RIGHT to ask however if it were passed.

Their have ALWAYS been restrictions for marriage but we don't see anyone arguing against the frivolity of law suits by people wanting to marry their sister or their brother, or their three girl friends. Marriage is for ONE man and One woman, if gays want to invent something for them then they can do it and that would be one man and two others men or would it? You see the legal precedent this would create for case law would get messy, especially if argued on an equal rights for all basis because for all means just that. Their are certain laws in place that protect specific institutions from beng usurped from opposing groups.

We have the Boyscouts and womans restrooms for woman only and mens restrooms for men only and we have civil unions for one man and one woman only and that type of civil union happens to be called MARRIAGE and those who voted to keep it that way have spoken and if Gays expect tolerance from others they had better learn to tolerate this but what do they do??

They cry victim again and rather than find an alternative solution, they attempt to attack the very voting block they need to get much of their political views enacted by assaulting marriage AGAIN! This time by trying to remove the word from Government.

This is just going to anger more people against them those that were sitting on the fence will see this as the most asinine proposal for a bill to bring to the legislature their has ever been.

If you think people hate gays, I would have to argue that THIS would be the reason why

When you say :

I find it funny that an Atheist should have to remind the religious to "do unto others as you would have done unto you"...

What does that have to do with this? unless you think it means do TOO religion and blame religion for making you do it to them.







[edit on 13-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


I am so sorry, 'Aermacchi'


YOU are the aberration.

I an sorry for being so blunt....but so-called 'Christian' umbrage is continually annoying.

We see OTHER religous intolerance exhibited in Saudi Arabia.....40 lashes to a 75-year-old woman, because she accepted bread from strangers....men that she welcomed into her home?

Really??? Do we, here in America, wish to go down this road?????

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I am so sorry, 'Aermacchi'

Apology accepted

YOU are the aberration.

Ill only accept so many weed so don't push your luck. I haven't called you any names and if you must call me abberent, at least explain why or what it is, giving you the right to disparage me so

I an sorry for being so blunt....but so-called 'Christian' umbrage is continually annoying.

We see OTHER religous intolerance exhibited in Saudi Arabia.....40 lashes to a 75-year-old woman, because she accepted bread from strangers....men that she welcomed into her home?

Really??? Do we, here in America, wish to go down this road?????

How is that relevant weed? I think marraiage was around during slavery too and yet gays not getting married didn't stop us from abolishing slavery and I'd bet that if they don't get married in the next 50-100 years, we still won't be giving a 75 year old woman 40 lashes.


It's just like you to use an extreme abberation of an entirely different religion in an entirely different country in an entirely different set of circumstances and lump Christians in with them. You don't like Christian umbrage? Then I suggest you leave Christian values and traditions alone

By the way weed, It was Christians who fought and died to get us where situations like you used in your example DON'T happen here and I served six years defending that so people like you could have the freedom to assail me with false dichotmy's


Oh BTW,,

You're welcome









[edit on 13-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


There is simply no way to entertain your claims, not on this Forum.

It seems you are deluded....and I apologize if this runs afoul of the T&Cs....

There is a point where you just must call it!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

There is simply no way to entertain your claims, not on this Forum.

It seems you are deluded....and I apologize if this runs afoul of the T&Cs....

There is a point where you just must call it!!!!

Weed I have no idea what you are talking about so do what you must do.

Call it.

hehe and Ill do what I CAN do.

Then we'll see what happens

Okay?

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Marriage has religiously based implications as well as Governmental restrictions for OBVIOUS reasons. It was and always has been about one man and one woman. It was incentive to create a family and as bad as many marriages are, many are still going strong. While Gays can argue why civil unions are not good enough, then why are they proposing they would be by removing the alternative just because they couldn't comply with the law and don't understand what marriage is about to those who do.

* * * * * *
Gays who blame religion for this so called violation of their equal rights have got it BACKWARDS. This is Religions Gig and those who are religious people do NOT want this tradition for the institution of marriage to become even more secularized and liberal the antithesis of what it is about to them and they have every right to defend it just as Atheists have had their arguments to keep religion out of public schools, Religious people want to keep Religious institutions like the word marriage and what it has always been for them sacred without further corruption for its defintion and meaning. They don't hate gays, Johnsky, they just don't want them to change marriage to mean anything goes with anyone, any sex, anywhere, it is a line Religion doesn't want crossed and Government also as it opens a pandoras box...

According to my Webster's New World Dictionary, one of the definitions of "marriage" is "any close or intimate union."

It is religion that has decided that its definition has to be restricted to a union between one man and one woman. As you say, "it's religion's gig."

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is a separation of church and state in this country. Religion cannot dictate this matter to the government. It is not the state's job to prevent marriage from becoming more "secularized" or "liberal."

While the churches may have the right to dictate the definition of marriage and its relgious implications to their congregations, the state has no obligation to do so.

The State of California had ruled that gay and lesbian couples may marry.

It is some religious groups who want to take this right away.

This is a civil rights issue.