• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

FallingPianos said:
unless you want to marry him.
Click to expand...

Not true, no one is stopping you from being married. You can go to a church that marries gays, go on a honeymoon, call yourself married, etc.
 
Kandahar said:
What you imagine "liberals" believe about Obama's margin of victory is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Significant isn't defined based upon your convenience and whether or not you like the position.
 
Jerry;

I did some checking to see if, in fact, civil unions conferred the exact same benefits accorded to married couples. Furthermore, I wanted to see if the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 was essentially the same thing as marriage. I found the following differences:

1. Same-sex couples are still not considered "married" and cannot simply walk down the aisle and say "I do" to be legally married.

2. Same-sex couples cannot file joint state or federal income taxes.

3. State employees are not entitled the same benefits under the state's long-term care benefits package. Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System) long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

4. There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

5. Domestic partnerships do not have the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes.

6. Unlike marriage, if you or your partner are injured in another state, you may not be allowed hospital visitation or the right to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of your partner simply because you are in a domestic partnership.

7. The lack of any equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.


Sources (http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/Changes-California-Domestic-Partnership-law.html; Robin Estes: Family Law: Domestic Partner Law ).

In addition, I am curious about the supposed problems with durable power of attorney, wills, and medical power of attorney. From what I understand, having this done would cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which is only a few hundred bucks at the most from what I understand, would cover all the same rights and benefits. And can't these be challenged in court? California may view a domestic partnership equally when it comes to a will, but legal spouses almost always have more legal power than any other family member in such a case, so what if this is done outside of California? It would appear that the family could contest a lot more easily, as the domestic partnership isn't recognized by every other state.

Those would be my concerns. Thoughts?
 
Ninja Pig said:
No it isn't. Significant isn't defined based upon your convenience and whether or not you like the position.
Click to expand...

A 4-point margin of victory is not significant regardless of the position. Especially when the margin on the issue at hand is closing at more than 2% per year. In 2010, it should be virtually a tie in California. And even if legalizing gay marriage fails then, it's almost certain to pass in 2012.
 
Kandahar said:
A 4-point margin of victory is not significant regardless of the position. Especially when the margin on the issue at hand is closing at more than 2% per year. In 2010, it should be virtually a tie in California. And even if legalizing gay marriage fails then, it's almost certain to pass in 2012.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I live in a county in Mississippi that is "dry" - no liquor sales allowed.

In 2002 a measure was on the ballot to allow liquor sales and liquor by the drink - it failed by about 3% The pro-liquor forces took this as a sign that they were close, and launched a campaign to "educate" the electorate about the benefits of liquor sales - the jobs, tax revenues, etc... - and in 2004 the measure lost by a larger margin, almost 6% as I recall. They tried again in 2006, and again lost by a still larger margin, about 11-12%.

What was happening is a voter backlash against having to vote on the same issue again, and again, and again. Plus, as the pro-liquor forces stepped up their advertising and rhetoric, the anti-liquor forces did the same.

Now, for the 2010 election, there is a measure to strip liquor sales authority from the province of the county, and turn it over to the individual cities to decide on a city-by-city basis whether or not they want to allow liquor sales. One local city - which is basically nothing more than shopping malls and restaurants like Applebees, Chili's, TGIFriday's, etc... - stands to benefit from this.

There's no doubt in my mind that sooner or later same-sex marriage will be legal in California, it's just going to be a long, hard, difficult and bitter fight.
 
Singularity said:
1. Same-sex couples are still not considered "married"
Click to expand...

That's the point.

Singularity said:
and cannot simply walk down the aisle and say "I do" to be legally married.
Click to expand...

Neither can heteros.

Singularity said:
2. Same-sex couples cannot file joint state or federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

Your source quotes the same law I did (much to my credit), so where, exactly, does that law say anything about joint-filling specifically?

Singularity said:
3. State employees are not entitled the same benefits under the state's long-term care benefits package. Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System) long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
Click to expand...

Please link to the policy.

Singularity said:
4. There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.
Click to expand...

Putative Spouse Doctrine Applies to Domestic Partners—C.A.

Singularity said:
5. Domestic partnerships do not have the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes.
Click to expand...

This is the result of the DOMA, and as such is a Federal Issue. We're talking about CA state law and CA state law only. If this is a loophole you would like closed, please write your local CA Representative as CA is a boarder state and can make it's own rules in this regard.

Singularity said:
6. Unlike marriage, if you or your partner are injured in another state, you may not be allowed hospital visitation or the right to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of your partner simply because you are in a domestic partnership.
Click to expand...

• the right to make medical decisions if your partner becomes incapacitated;

[.....]

Will our domestic partnership be valid outside of California?
Yes. Even if you don’t live in California, you and your partner will be domestic partners.
Click to expand...

Singularity said:
7. The lack of any equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.
Click to expand...

C O N F I D E N T I A L COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ: AFFIDAVIT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP 1.

Sources (http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/Changes-California-Domestic-Partnership-law.html;
Click to expand...

"That Page Does Not Exist"

Proly a simple URL error.

Singularity said:
In addition, I am curious about the supposed problems with durable power of attorney, wills, and medical power of attorney. From what I understand, having this done would cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which is only a few hundred bucks at the most from what I understand, would cover all the same rights and benefits. And can't these be challenged in court? California may view a domestic partnership equally when it comes to a will, but legal spouses almost always have more legal power than any other family member in such a case, so what if this is done outside of California? It would appear that the family could contest a lot more easily, as the domestic partnership isn't recognized by every other state.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of worry over nothing.

Singularity said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Gays should stop pursuing marriage and abandon Domestic Partnership altogether.
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
How many times do the need to vote on it?
Click to expand...

jallman said:
Until they get it right.
Click to expand...

Until we stop propositions.

Proposition = one issue, narrow minded, ill-conceived attempts to remove the power from our representatives and place it in the incompetent hands of the ignorant poorly educated voters.

Now propositions aren't all bad but there is a glaring problem. They can't be overturned except by subsequent propositions. Propositions are therefore out of the hands of our legislatures (I.E. the guys with higher IQ then the average voter.) and will stay on the books until overturned.
 
SpotsCat said:
I disagree.

I live in a county in Mississippi that is "dry" - no liquor sales allowed.

In 2002 a measure was on the ballot to allow liquor sales and liquor by the drink - it failed by about 3% The pro-liquor forces took this as a sign that they were close, and launched a campaign to "educate" the electorate about the benefits of liquor sales - the jobs, tax revenues, etc... - and in 2004 the measure lost by a larger margin, almost 6% as I recall. They tried again in 2006, and again lost by a still larger margin, about 11-12%.

What was happening is a voter backlash against having to vote on the same issue again, and again, and again. Plus, as the pro-liquor forces stepped up their advertising and rhetoric, the anti-liquor forces did the same.

Now, for the 2010 election, there is a measure to strip liquor sales authority from the province of the county, and turn it over to the individual cities to decide on a city-by-city basis whether or not they want to allow liquor sales. One local city - which is basically nothing more than shopping malls and restaurants like Applebees, Chili's, TGIFriday's, etc... - stands to benefit from this.

There's no doubt in my mind that sooner or later same-sex marriage will be legal in California, it's just going to be a long, hard, difficult and bitter fight.
Click to expand...

Mississippi isn't California. Our history of civil rights and freedoms is a few hundred light years ahead of yours. The two are NOT comparable. While Californians were making mulatos mayors of their biggest cities. Mississippi still had them as house niggers. While we were a free state you guys were fighting for the right to keep slaves. While we were sending the first black representative to Congress blacks in Mississippi were fighting to use the same facilities as whites. As I said. Disagreeing with Jallman about a matter concerning California, with a reference to Mississippi is either pretty dishonest or pretty ignorant of the histories of BOTH states.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Neither can heteros.
Click to expand...

Sure they can, all they have to do si pay for a blood test (in some states) and pay the state fees and they are married, can homosexuals get married the same way with each other, no.

Don't even try to say they are the same. You look more foolish each and everyday.

It's gonna be funny the day gay marriage is legalized, what are you going to do, divorce your wife because of it? After all marriage will be dead to you right?
 
TheNextEra said:
Sure they can, all they have to do si pay for a blood test (in some states) and pay the state fees and they are married, can homosexuals get married the same way with each other, no.
Click to expand...

No see, that's what I'M saying.

Heteros can't simply walk down an isle and say "I do". Heteros have to stay for a blood test (in some states), pay the state fees and sign the license application.
 
Jerry said:
No see, that's what I'M saying.

Heteros can't simply walk down an isle and say "I do". Heteros have to stay for a blood test (in some states), pay the state fees and sign the license application.
Click to expand...

Yeah and what to two homosexuals have to do to get married? Oh yeah, they can't.

Yeah same thing Jerry :roll:

It's clear you purposely misrepresentation what was said in the spirit of gay marriage.

But then that is you, you like making fun of people's misery.

Make's you the Christian I think will burn in hell.
 
devil.gif


"Hey, Jerry. You're comin' with me."


:rofl
 
Jerry said:
Take a partner of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

In other words, forego even the pretense of personal choice, privacy, pursuit of happiness and all those other things that heteros don't have to give up because the religious can't keep their religion in their churches.

No. Never. Not gonna happen.
 
jallman said:
In other words, forego even the pretense of personal choice, privacy, pursuit of happiness and all those other things that heteros don't have to give up because the religious can't keep their religion in their churches.

No. Never. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Your sexual preference is not my problem.
 
Jerry said:
Your sexual preference is not my problem.
Click to expand...

And your moral disapproval is not mine. So stop getting in my way when I attempt to petition the government for the same benefits and rights with my partner that you have with yours.
 
The problem is you have to show how inequality is an issue when the standard of one man married to one woman is applied evenly across the board.
 
jallman said:
And your moral disapproval is not mine.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now that that's settled, want to ride to hell with Capt'n and myself?

We stole full size van from Trump's personal fleet and it has a well stocked wet bar.

jallman said:
So stop getting in my way when I attempt to petition the government for the same benefits and rights with my partner that you have with yours.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you don't want me to have a say, get it the **** off my ballot.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
The problem is you have to show how inequality is an issue when the standard of one man married to one woman is applied evenly across the board.
Click to expand...

The inequality is apparent when I can't visit Joshua in the hospital without paying for legal aid in drawing up contracts and jumping through hoops that you don't have to jump through. The inequality is evident when almost half my holdings are taken by the government when I pass them on to Joshua and yours are not when passing them on to your family. The inequality is exhibited when you may make the choices you wish for your life and I am left having to make the choices heteros want me to make so their sensibilities are not offended by something they shouldn't even be involved in to start with.

**** that. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever make apology for the underlying hatred and bigotry inherent in the argument against freedom and liberty when it comes to gays. I will be goddamned if I ever accept that I am a second class citizen and that my relationship is of any less value than yours or Jerry's or anyone else's.
 
Hatuey said:
Mississippi isn't California. Our history of civil rights and freedoms is a few hundred light years ahead of yours. The two are NOT comparable. At all. Thank God.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct, Mississippi isn't California, thank God! :clap:(BTW - I'm from St. Louis, so snarky comments about The Magnolia State really don't offend me.)

Although California may be a few hundred light years ahead of Mississippi in their history of civil rights and freedoms, Mississippi is only looking at a $480M budget deficit for 2010, while California is looking at a $33.9B shortfall. The Magnolia State may have been behind the curve in civil rights, but they're far and away ahead of The Golden State in terms of governmental fiscal responsibility! :D

Anyway... the point I was trying to make previously - which apparently went past you like a Randy Johnson 4-seam fastball - is that if a special-interest group keeps bringing a previously defeated issue to the ballot time and time again, they run the very real risk of not having it passed, and encountering voter backlash at having to re-vote down an issue that was previously voted down, resulting in a greater margin of defeat.

If you choose to accept that as political fact, or write it off as merely endemic to us redneck, trailer park livin', incestuous, white trash, rednecks is wholly up to you. Just try not to act too surprised should Prop #8 fail again in 2010.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Agreed. Now that that's settled, want to ride to hell with Capt'n and myself?

We stole full size van from Trump's personal fleet and it has a well stocked wet bar.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to go anywhere or have a drink with anyone who believes that a legitimate argument against my liberty and privacy is that I can make the same choices he can and the problem is instantly solved? :confused:
 
talloulou said:
The problem is you have to show how inequality is an issue when the standard of one man married to one woman is applied evenly across the board.
Click to expand...

No the problem is you have to show why it is the business of the the government that they should have a problem with two gays getting married.

Are you saying two gay married people can't raise children when two non-married gay people can?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom