California high court upholds gay marriage ban

reply to post by paulthefourth


Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. It's about time we had someone speaking from personal experience in here. People can argue from righteous indignation all they like, but that doesn't hold a candle to one person's true-life experience.

Originally posted by MillionEyedMask
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

A domestic partnership is not a civil union. Civil unions are available to same sex couples in only a few states in the US. Civil unions do grant most of the rights of marriage, but they are not recognized universally outside of the states where they are granted.

My mistake, I thought they were the same, just different use of words.

California does have a provision for domestic partnership which grants many of the same rights as marriage, but it is not marriage.

So what rights, as put forth in our founding documents, is a parternership and/or union lacking?

This goes beyond the legal rights of the institution. Even if most of the same rights are granted, there is a qualitative difference. If two men or women become domestic partners, they are still not married. It is the ability to FEEL equal, to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and be accepted by society at large. As long as there are persistent bastions of intolerance, no legal provision will be adequate to assuage feelings of inequality.

So what it comes down to is that you get most of the benefits of being married, except the title?

reply to post by ImzadiDax


No offense taken

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
We do have such things in place and they are by NO MEANS cheap.

But not everyone can afford that route. We have done this over years.

so you can afford half a mortgage but not to protect your investment!!?! get real.

Originally posted by paulthefourth

Once again . . . . what LEGAL rights?

Give me one part of the founding documents that is taken from you, because of your lifestyle?

You know its funny, I work in a bar part time as a bartender and I have quite a few customers that are gay and a few that are lesbian, they all come in in a group.

The funny thing is , EVERY SINGLE one of them told me when broached with this subject, that it doesnt matter to them what its called, and that the ONLY people who are pushing this "homosexual union under the term MARRIAGE" are special interests groups and people trying to cause a stir.

Point blank, as long as they have the same legal rights that it doesnt matter to them.

I find that a very telling statement from people who live the lifestyle and of whom a few have had unions.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Well I can certainly attest to that sentiment. Me and my partner have been together for a little over 19 years now. We are happilly married and have this discussion often with our friends both gay and straight.

And I have echoed this many times, it matters not what they call it, it's a simple matter of having the legal bonuses awarded to heterosexual couples, be awarded to gays' who decide to persue a life together.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


For the nth time . . . what legal rights and bonuses are not afforded to you and your husband?

[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

i]reply to post by xxpigxx


I have all the legal rights that married people do, only because I live in Canada and the system recognizes both as equals. however in the US, it's not the same, see below:

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

Source

That's the difference.

~Keeper






[edit on 5/26/2009 by tothetenthpower]

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Marriage is a judeo-christain construct. To have gays/lesbians marriage would be like taking white-out to the bible (ironically enough, alot of those same folks want to take white-out to the Constitution too). If they want civil unions and have all the same rights as a hetero union, fine.
Just don't start changing the bible, people!

No it isn't. Marriage exists in many different cultures where the bible does not.
Typical christian arrogance to think that they are the owner of all things.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


But those are not rights. Those are benefits.

If those are to be changed, it has to be done through representatives or direct vote.

So . . . if someone does not get Medi-Cal, they should, because it is not fair that they have to pay more to visit a doctor? Being sick comes naturally. It is not a choice.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
We do have such things in place and they are by NO MEANS cheap.

But not everyone can afford that route. We have done this over years.

so you can afford half a mortgage but not to protect your investment!!?! get real.

I think I said I did protect my investment, did I not??

I was just listening to Gay Radio. They had an interesting take.

They said this is just a minor setback. AND those supporting Prop 8 have backed themselves into a corner.

When this comes up for a vote again - - and gay marriage passes - - will they still support "the People Voted"?

Its "their" argument. Will they still support that argument in the reverse?

reply to post by Annee


I will.

If the people want it, fine. If not fine.

Like I have said before.

I have no dog in the fight, except the people who complain when the country works the way it is supposed to.

reply to post by xxpigxx



Well as far as I am concerned, being able to see my husband after a car crash is a right, and that is denied everyday to same sex couples because of the silly laws imposed by the "majority".

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


That is not a right.

If you do not like it, perhaps switch hospitals?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by AnonymousMoose

 

But the people in california did vote to ban gay marriage, so that is their fault, and if they want to fix it, they should prepare another proposition so they can vote gay marriage back in.

No they didn't, only 52% did.
This is the major flaw of democracy and huge governments.

reply to post by Psynarchist


What is your suggestion then, since the Constitution OBVIOUSLY does not work?

I'm a man married to a woman, but maybe I should start calling it 'civilly unioned' coz damn this whole thing is the biggest loathsome stinking blemish on the 'institution of marriage' ever. With all this hatred surrounding 'marriage' I'm sure God is weeping for all of us.

reply to post by Psynarchist


YOu have the choice to practice your sexuality as you desire.

If your state does not recognize you and your partner, you are free to move to a state that does.

That is the beauty of a democratic republic with a constitution like ours

reply to post by xxpigxx


I'd suggest people get a say in decision making processes according to the degree they are affected by the ultimate decision.

When I choose the color of my socks I will decide that myself as a totalitarian tyrant.
When it comes to what's for dinner I will try to reach a consensus with my wife, which is fairly easy. When it comes to something that effects all of us we can vote.

Of course this is unrealistic without changes in society across the board.