Still Voting against Prop 8, but:

[howeird]

I blame the drugs. My feeble brain kept confusing "no" with "yes" and I completely botched what I was trying to say. This has now been corrected. Because all the discussion here was based on my totally confused writing, I have killed all comments. Please feel free to comment on the new! improved! posting. My apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.

---

After talking to someone who had been married to a lawyer about domestic partnerships vs. marriage, I decided to actually ask a lawyer, who pointed me to the actual law.

Opponents of Prop 8 rail about how the Proposition will ruin their lives. Turns out the only thing Prop 8 will do is deny same sex couples the ability to be issued a marriage license and be married "by the authority vested in me by the State of California". It won't remove any rights which domestic partners already have. It also won't remove any Federal rights, because the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) already does that.

 You can read the domestic partnership law here, but this is an excerpt:

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5 
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.

---
So it boils down to an emotional issue. I'm all for emotions, and romance, but they have no place in the law. I am against Prop 8 because the law has no place in my bedroom. If I could, I would remove all marriage-related laws from the books. They violate my right to equality under the law as a single person.
 

Comments

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

That's not quite true, there are number of rights that are not rights (contract law provisions, etc.) that can be (and have been) denied to same sex couples that aren't actually married.

See, if an insurance contract (for instance) were to stipulated spouse or married partner, they can choose to exclude someone who's merely their domestic partner. If they're married, that's not an issue. It's 'easier' to change the definition of marriage than it is to change all of these 'rights'.

See, if one of them were in intensive care, and their partner were of the opposite sex... they'd be allowed access regardless of whether they're married or just a girlfriend. If their partner were of the same sex, outside of areas like the bay area, they're likely to be blocked. At least in this case they can say they're the spouse and resolve the situation.

I agree with you on the involvement of the government. I'd rather see something like paperwork for a civil union that grants all of the 'rights' of marriage, minus tax benefits for marriage (I'm okay with tax benefits for dependents)... and then let "marriage" be defined by whatever organization that will perform the service for you.

But that's not going to happen. It's too big of a change, and the people that "got theirs" are going to defend it tooth and nail.

What's sad is that the government got involved in marriage in the US in the first place to block mixed race marriages, so the arguement could be made that the institution of marriage is almost by definition exclusionary.

People should all have the same rights. Period.

[howeird]

there are number of rights that are not rights (contract law provisions, etc.) that can be (and have been) denied to same sex couples that aren't actually married
Not any more. Because of the abuses you mention, the current law was put into effect in 2007. The first paragraph of the act couldn't be clearer.

What's sad is that the government got involved in marriage in the US in the first place to block mixed race marriages
Horsepucky. Marriage has been a function of government since the middle ages. It was put in place to preserve the rights of heirs whose daddy may have boinked the hired help. Some states added miscegenation to existing laws.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Marriage has been a wealth-building tool as long as it has existed. It's the classic method for the wealthy to retain their wealth.

Since the birth of the middle class in the late middle ages, it has been extended to people who weren't necessarily wealthy to start out. It's still the classic method to retain and build wealth (which is why divorce has such awkward financial effects).