Prop 8?

What amazes me about these posts is that you all fail to quote the section of CA laws regarding Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. It's is Family Code Section 297.5. To me, it's pretty clear that a Civil Union gives the exact same Civic Rights as a married couple. Here's what it says...

297.5. (a) 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.
(b) Former 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 former spouses.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) 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.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from
exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing
rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the
California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic
partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits,
and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered
domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to
third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either
partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as
between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships
registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement
between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed
by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive,
and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement's
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to
1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005.

It's NOT the "exact same." If you are informed, then you know that the "separate but equal" principle that is used to perpetuate discrimination among classes of people was discredited more than a half century ago. All families, whether headed by homosexual or heterosexual couples, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Educational institutions are a place you go to. The reason they were not separate and equal because they were not funded the same.
They were not equal for all. Black families had to drive miles to get to their black school when a white school was just around the block.

With Civil Unions and Marriages it is a grammar change. Like Temples and churches. Both have religious meanings and both server the same purpose but there is a clear distinction between the two.

Bathrooms often have "Men" and "Women". Separate but equal.

A civil union couple goes to the same place a Married couple to get their license. They should have equal benefits and all the bells and whistles of a marriage.

Would you make a law to change the name of all Temples to Churches?
Whether you call it Civil union or marriage it means the same thing.
The same reason we don't call a Menorah a Candle Holder, or a Manger vs a Barn

Except that marriages are understood to carry across state borders while civil unions are not. The ability to call it a "marriage" thus has quite a significant effect. Of course, given the overall opposition to gay marriages, even if California decides one day to qualify homosexuals for marriage, this would not mean that all other states would automatically recognize gay marriages too. But it's still a necessary step. Civil unions will never be the equivalent of marriages until they are federally recognized, and they will never be federally recognized until individual states decide that a civil union is a marriage. That is why having a special category just for gays, for all the good that it unquestionably does at the state level, will have little effect on what is ultimately a long-term problem. Indeed, if your comments are any indication, civil unions simply encourage complacency and discourage attention to the long-term problem of inequality.

Do you honestly believe that the white people in this country could still legally discriminate against black people--keep their children in separate schools, keep them in separate public transportation cars, and keep them wholly segregated from whites--so long as the segregated facilities were funded the same? Should we laugh at you or feel sorry for you? Your ignorance is astounding.




Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law. Because the state government (and not religious institutions) controls entry, any barriers must be (at a minimum) rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in preventing homosexual couples from entering a marriage. It makes no difference that you, in your ignorance, prejudice and bigotry, desire the reserve the "grammar" for yourself.

The Prop 8 legal challenge
by kos
Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM PST
SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed suit (PDF) to halt the enactment of Proposition 8 eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Paul Hogarth reviews the plaintiff's brief:

Prop 8 was not your typical "amendment" that merely tinkers with the California Constitution. It was a drastic revision that deprives a "suspect class" (gays and lesbians) of a fundamental right under equal protection. And a simple majority vote of the people is not enough to take that right away " especially when the purpose of equal protection is to shield minorities. While other courts have upheld marriage amendments in other states, they have different Constitutions " and court rulings have changed considerably in a short period of time. And unlike many states, California has explicitly found sexual orientation to be a "suspect class." If the Court overrules Prop 8, it will be a powerful affirmation for justice " capping what has been a powerful year of "change."

Santa Clara and LA County have joined the challenge.

Even if voters pass a Constitutional Amendment, the courts can still decide if it was merely an "amendment" " or a substantive "revision." And if it was a "revision," voter approval by a simple majority is not enough " it also requires an okay by the state legislature (which probably wouldn’t happen), or a constitutional convention. Why the distinction? Because mere "amendments" tinker around the edges; "revisions" are far more fundamental changes.

And the Courts have thrown out such changes to the Constitution as "revisions" under the right circumstances [...]

Likewise, Prop 8 is a drastic "revision" (if not moreso) because it violates equal protection for a minority group.

Last May, the California Supreme Court found that depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violated equal protection " and that LGBT people are a "suspect class." A "suspect class" is a group that has suffered discrimination and needs protection. The central purpose behind equal protection is to protect unpopular minorities from a political majority who could take away their rights. You can’t simply change the Constitution by majority vote to take away the right of gay people to marry " because that right comes from the equal protection clause. As Herrera wrote in his brief, "without a judiciary that has the final word on equal protection, there simply is no such thing as equal protection."

It's too early to lay odds on the likelihood of success, but my initial read into this challenge is surprisingly optimistic. The legal foundation of the challenge is much stronger than I originally guessed.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6292

I wouldt care if the government quit recognizing marriages al together. I don't care about the governments validation of the relationship I have with my fiance. I take part in my relationship for the benefit of myself and my fiance and hopefully one day our children.

While I sincerely hope to avoid offending you I will attempt to make the case that homosexual and hetero relationships are not equal. I am simply going to point out that there is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a key difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships (or marriages in this case). Most heterosexual relationships (barring any special circumstances) are capable of producing children. I realize that not all will, but the vast majority are capable. A homosexual relationship, on the other hand, must have special circumstances present (scientific intervention) in order to produce children. While reproduction is not the sole role of relationships, it is most certainly a vital role. I also realize that homosexual couple are capable of reproducing through modern health technology. However, technology has also allowed us to join the birds in the air. The thing that keeps us from calling ourselves birds is that we had to achieve flight. It wasn't natural for us. It is for this reason I must deduce that there are key differences between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. The government, I believe, should be allowed to perceive and acknowledge these differences.

That being said, I am not one for oppression and I do realize that our nation is founded in freedom. I have no qualm with civil unions. I see nothing wrong (from a legal perspective) with homosexual couples being granted the benefits that heterosexual couples can be granted. I simply do not think that two things that are not exactly the same should be given the same term.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

and if I have a car and a pickup truck and I state that they are the same, that's wrong. They certainly have their similarities. They both have tires, doors, engines and the like. However, a car is not the same as a pickup truck. A pickup truck can generally haul larger items, fewer people, and gets lower gas mileage than a car. A car can typically haul more people, only smaller items, and gets better gas mileage than a pickup truck. Two items could have all of the similarities in the world and it still only takes one functional difference to negate their equality (I say functional because a red car can do all of the same things as a yellow car, there is no difference in functionality). If I have a car in my back yard that doesn't run and it's up on blocks... it's still a car. It's design, purpose, and characteristics are what make it a car, not it's actual capabilities. Using heterosexual couples that can't have children to advance the position of a type of relationship that cannot at all naturally have children is like stating that a broken car and a truck are the same thing.

Discrimination has become a catch phrase in this country for civil injustice. However, some synonyms of discrimination are "discernment, decision, distinction, difference, and even understanding." - Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition. Discrimination is only wrong when it is used incorrectly. If there is a difference between two things that are being discriminated, it is not a civil injustice, just a truth.

If your argument is that being straight is good because it can produce a baby, it's still a failure to explain why a straight person can marry and a gay person cannot. After all, you don't have to be married to make a baby or raise it. You're argument is not one tailored to combat gay marriage, it's one tailored to assault homosexuality at large.

If it is a government "validation" or "endorsement" to let gays marry, and civil unions are the "same" then how are civil unions any less a validation or endorsement?

Hell, don't stop there, what about driver's licenses? Gays can't make a baby without science, why should the gov endorse their lifestyle with a driver's license?

It is in no way in the interest of the state to discriminate with such a separate but equal system. One that I might add is not even equal. As pointed out, civil unions aren't always recognized across state lines.

You make some crap up about a car and a truck not being the same thing. Nobody is saying that a car and a truck are the same thing, but we can say that they are both automobiles. We can say thy both run on gas. Gay or straight, this is an issue of love. Love is the gas, and saying that trucks aren't the same as cars doesn't give you the right to deny giving gas to the trucks. Denying gas to a truck doesn't make the car run worse does it?


You aren't. You're just making yourself out to look like an uneducated idiot.

T
K
O

I'm also optimistic.

Security for the civil rights of individuals and minorities against majoritarian oppression is the core feature of a constitutional republic. The framers provide that security through constitutional checks and balances and constitutional gurantees of due process and equal protection. If a mere majority of voters may cast their votes to amend their state constitution and extinguish constitutional security for an entire class of people, and yet retain that security for themselves, then they have rendered the equal protection clause meaningless, have rendered the courts powerless to exercise their constitutional role designed to secure the rights for individuals and minorities, and have essentially extinguished their constitutional republic. That is a major revision of the constitution and the state's form of government that cannot logically nor legally take place on the mere whim of a majority of voters (in this case 52 percent).

As I mentioned before, voter initiated exceptions to the equal protection clause cannot coexist in the same organic document as the equal protection clause itself. If the people of California want to form a pure democracy, they must first repeal the equal protection clause in its entirety. If they do so, however, they should be aware that the federal constitution guarantees to every state in the union a republican form of government. If the people are stupid enough to scrap their equal protection clause, Congress has the power to punish the entire state by refusing to seat their elected congressmen and senators. Congress may also view the act as an insurrection requiring other severe sanctions or even military intervention.

The civil institution of marriage is the primary means by which our civil government regulates individual rights and duties with respect to all family units that live within the state. Marriage may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with civil law. The State has a compelling interest in enforcing your legal duties to your spouse and children to ensure that your future family does not become a burden to the State and the taxpayers.

Maybe someday you and your fiance will have children, but the ability to procreate is NOT a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license. Your marriage will be valid whether you have children or not. If you could care less about the civil institution of marriage, then why are you engaged to be married? More importantly, why do you think it's within your right to deprive an entire classes of persons of the same right that you reserve for yourself? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Instead of lecturing to me or other people on this board, perhaps you should work on the flaws in your own thought processes that embrace hypocrisy, prejudice, and bigotry. There is something seriously wrong with a person who favors and supports majoritarian oppression of individuals or minorities.

Hmm Debra you just prove my point the license is there for the benefit of families with children, even if not all families will contain children.

As a class it is many times more likely that heterosexual will have children inside the family units then gay couples will.

Therefore the right to claim that license and it benefits for gay couples on it face is a great deal less then straight couples.

How did what she post in any way prove that?



T
K
O

The civil institution of marriage is the primary means by which our civil government regulates individual rights and duties with respect to all family units that live within the state. Marriage may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with civil law. The State has a compelling interest in enforcing your legal duties to your spouse and children to ensure that your future family does not become a burden to the State and the taxpayers.
.............................................................................................................
Read the above posting carefully

if it violates the constitution, then there should be no arguing whatsoever, just take it to the supreme court. But MANY do not think it violates the constitution and you can argue all you want but there seems to no no clear evidence of such case. Isn't that why we voted instead of using judicial means to settle this case? If you can't accept this, there can be no discussion in the first place anyway

My argument has always been that to be granted the same rights and priveleges does not necessarily mean we have to use of the same term. Men and women are called different things due to their differences yet still are given equal rights by the government. A homosexual union or partnership can be given the same rights as a homosexual marriage.

I believe the use and acceptance of different terms would make people on both sides happy. That's all

No that's not why California voted. A majority/popular vote will not settle whether or not something is constitutional. It settles what the majority is. The majority can very well want something which is in direct conflict with the state and federal governing documents.

This is exactly the point in which the court should be involved.
K
O

That would be a good argument if women did in fact have the same rights. They are as is paid less for equal work and also denied access to jobs such as ground combat positions in the military.

A special note on female soldiers: They do in fact see a great deal of battle, but because they can't be a part of the front line, they are denied the training which they need.



1) Civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriages. Civil unions are not recognized by every state, marriages are. A marriage license issued in FL still means your married if you move to NM etc.
2) Both sides would not be happy with your solution. That's the point of all this.

T
K
O

source?

I'd like to see what you are quoting. Otherwise, I think you're just making this up.

T
K
O