This is disgraceful

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Dumpy said:
Fine, lets get serious then.

You keep saying that "there is no discrimination." Prove it. I believe that there ARE fundamental differences between marriage and civil unions, even in California. I will provide the same number of citations as you have for the opposite proposition. . . . Done.

Prove me wrong. Just three reputable cites will do.
Click to expand...

I posted the laws earlier in this thread.
 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Full text if you've bothered to read it.

Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Click to expand...

A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
Click to expand...

The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
Click to expand...

No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Click to expand...

so please, inform me what rights are being taken away?
 
Dumpy said:
uh huh. Are civil partners entitled to federal social security benefits due their spouse when he passes away?
Click to expand...

This is a state matter. Recognized by the state and its entire scope is based in California. As far as the state of california goes (which is the measure I voted on in this state and in the scope of this state alone), all rights are equal.
 
Xericx said:
exactly. the poor analogies to slavery does more harm than good to their cause.
Click to expand...

I was making no analogy to slavery. My analogy was that your "the will of the people" is meaningless if the proposition they pass is unconstitutional.
 
Dumpy said:
hooray, state rights are the same. What happens when your partner is hospitalized when you are on vacation in Oregon?

What about federal benefits that are granted to married couples?

Take all the time you need.
Click to expand...

Again, that would be mandated by Oregon. I'm not sure if Oregon would recognize the married structure. Would they? Across the board? Say they went to Texas, would they recognize them as a legally married couple?
 
Denny Crane said:
I was making no analogy to slavery. My analogy was that your "the will of the people" is meaningless if the proposition they pass is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, no analogy to slavery there.

:dunno:

and I quote:

If the will of the people were to make black people slaves again?

The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious - it's unconstitutional, the courts would and should strike it down. Same as the 4 judges did, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
 
Xericx said:
Again, that would be mandated by Oregon. I'm not sure if Oregon would recognize the married structure. Would they? Across the board? Say they went to Texas, would they recognize them as a legally married couple?
Click to expand...

Read article IV, sections 1 and 2 of the US constitution and get back to us.
 
Xericx said:
Why not. I support that. Unions for all, marriage in the church. Credit Maxiep.
Click to expand...

Fine, but you're still going to have gay marriage, thanks to the Unitarian Universalists.

edit: the problem is that this Prop 8 blocks that from happening. That's why this is so disappointing.
 
Xericx said:
This is a state matter. Recognized by the state and its entire scope is based in California. As far as the state of california goes (which is the measure I voted on in this state and in the scope of this state alone), all rights are equal.
Click to expand...

Now you are so entrenched in your position that you are turning yourself in knots to make it come out right. Face it; there is nothing equal about this; the idea of granting civil unions is just to make you feel good about yourself.
 
Dumpy said:
Now you are so entrenched in your position that you are turning yourself in knots to make it come out right. Face it; there is nothing equal about this; the idea of granting civil unions is just to make you feel good about yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this was a STATE MATTER, not a federal one. So go whine to the feds.
 
Xericx said:
Oh yes, no analogy to slavery there.

:dunno:

and I quote:
Click to expand...

Denny Crane said:
I was making no analogy to slavery. My analogy was that your "the will of the people" is meaningless if the proposition they pass is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If the will of the people were to make black people slaves again?

The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious - it's unconstitutional, the courts would and should strike it down. Same as the 4 judges did, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Parse the english, my friend.
 
eric, I apologize for sinlging you out; I don't mean to make you defensive. Your viewpoint is obviously shared by many, and I guess you could even consider it the "mainstream" argument.

But it is wrong, plain and simple. And I submit two things: (1) The young generation is geometrically more accepting of gays and interested in extending gay rights to include marriage than the older generation; and (2) this is an issue which will therefore increasingly haunt the GOP over the coming decades until they get their act together.
 
Dumpy said:
eric, I apologize for sinlging you out; I don't mean to make you defensive. Your viewpoint is obviously shared by many, and I guess you could even consider it the "mainstream" argument.

But it is wrong, plain and simple. And I submit two things: (1) The young generation is geometrically more accepting of gays and interested in extending gay rights to include marriage than the older generation; and (2) this is an issue which will therefore increasingly haunt the GOP over the coming decades until they get their act together.
Click to expand...

What is wrong here? All rights are the same. No one seems to understand that. Its a simple difference in term of calling it a civil union and married couples. If there were a federal vote that allowed all duplicative rights for homosexual couples as a civil union, I would support that.

I believe there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation on both sides. The "No on 8" side is also guilty of many it.

Nothing is going to "haunt" anyone. My position is the same as Barack Obama's regarding civil unions and marriage, so I fail to see the GOP doom and gloom of all of this. And as was mentioned earlier, a republican california governor opposed this.
 
Xericx said:
What is wrong here? All rights are the same. No one seems to understand that. Its a simple difference in term of calling it a civil union and married couples. If there were a federal vote that allowed all duplicative rights for homosexual couples as a civil union, I would support that.

I believe there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation on both sides. The "No on 8" side is also guilty of many it.

Nothing is going to "haunt" anyone. My position is the same as Barack Obama's regarding civil unions and marriage, so I fail to see the GOP doom and gloom of all of this. And as was mentioned earlier, a republican california governor opposed this.
Click to expand...

I as well. :]
 
Dear Friends:
Thousands of you worked tirelessly to promote equality during the long months leading up to Tuesday’s elections. I want to take this opportunity to thank you and to honor your efforts to defeat divisive ballot measures in California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas. This work was—and remains—profoundly important, in spite of disappointing results at the polls. Please know that your work was not in vain.
I know that your hearts are heavy, because mine is, too. We are all saddened by the setbacks to family and marriage rights. We empathize with bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people and their allies in these four states and beyond. The defeats are hard, but I truly believe that they are temporary.
Our faith community will continue to fight for marriage equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. We will continue to offer steadfast and passionate support for all bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people. And we will continue to defend the rights of all committed couples to marry and to extend loving family environments to children in need.
Marriage equality will one day be a reality throughout the country. As we mourn our recent losses, we also renew our commitment to education, advocacy, and love. In spite of the setbacks, we are making progress, one state at a time. Justice is knocking, and our work is helping to open a very heavy door.
Our patience, passion, and determination will carry us through the disappointments. We will continue to stand on the side of love. And we will win, because love will win.
In faith,
Bill Sinkford
President of the UUA
Click to expand...


http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/121906.shtml
 
Xericx said:
What is wrong here? All rights are the same. No one seems to understand that. Its a simple difference in term of calling it a civil union and married couples. If there were a federal vote that allowed all duplicative rights for homosexual couples as a civil union, I would support that.

I believe there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation on both sides. The "No on 8" side is also guilty of many it.

Nothing is going to "haunt" anyone. My position is the same as Barack Obama's regarding civil unions and marriage, so I fail to see the GOP doom and gloom of all of this. And as was mentioned earlier, a republican california governor opposed this.
Click to expand...

First, his position is wrong, too.

Second, you make a good point about the difference between state rights and federal rights. Once federal rights are extended to partners of civil unions, and every state is required to extend the same rights to civil partners who were unioned(?) in other states as they do for married couples, then it truly will become a matter of semantics. But until then, there is a disconnect; you'd be creating a sub-class of people that are entitled to some rights in some parts of the country and other rights in other parts (and not entitled to certain federal benefits, to boot).

It partly comes down to timing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top