California Proposition 8

[PhantomWolf]

It's not just a little sexist.

More later.

Okay so it sounds a lot sexist....

[PhantomWolf]

Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.

Perhaps we should be though. Why shouldn't we go theorugh the list and see which of the rights should be extended to all couples who are willing to register as a couple. I know that some keep going on about "But it'd mean we have to change so many laws," but come on, is changing unfair laws what we pay politicians to do?

[Meadmaker]

Why shouldn't we go theorugh the list and see which of the rights should be extended to all couples who are willing to register as a couple.

What's the difference between "getting married" and "registering as a couple"?

[Darat]

I'm a tad confused (and I see Meadmaker is asking the same question) what is the difference between "registering as a couple" and "getting married" in your proposal?

[Meadmaker]

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

If we look at the list of benefits of marriage, using the wikipedia list as a good example, it starts with survivor benefits. Why? The answer is fairly simple. These benefits were defined at a time when women had, for all practical purposes, no independent means of economic support. When a woman's husband died, she was likely to be penniless. To rectify that, laws were passed that cared for widows.

Today, things have changed significantly. However, it would be foolish to assume that the situation is completely different than it ever was. The fact is that women are very likely to be dependent on their husband's income, much more so than a man would be on his wife. Those survivor benefits are still important even in today's society.

So, if a woman loses the support of her husband as a consequence of death, would we say to her, "Tough luck. Get a job." Why then would we say that if she loses the support of her husband as a consequence of abandonment?

Of course, in today's world, the sex of the two partners in those scenarios could be reversed, or we could make them the same. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean that the sex of the couple is totally irrelevant. While there are exceptions to every rule, in the general case, men and women behave differently, and are affected very differently by divorce. When a typical 45 year old couple gets a divorce, the man and woman face very different issues. I don't think it is wrong to acknowledge those differences in our legal system.

[Alt+F4]

What's the difference between "getting married" and "registering as a couple"?

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits.

[Meadmaker]

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits.

I was referring to PhantomWolf's proposed scheme.

[PhantomWolf]

I was referring to PhantomWolf's proposed scheme.

Try looking here. (http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/) (though I'd almost say the fees are too high, but then I think it should be free.)


The law is here (is here
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5)

Personally I'd get rid of this part though:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.

[Neally]

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits. Do you have a link to the 1000 list? I can only identify a handful off hand.

[Meadmaker]

Personally I'd get rid of this part though:

That is a very interesting provision. It creates a way for an older man and/or woman to have all the state privileges/responsibilities of a married couple, but none of the federal privileges/responsibilities.


I wonder at the purpose of this provision. Is it to allow people to form some sort of California recognized union, without losing survivor benefits that might be lost upon remarriage? Is it to avoid the more or less automatic inheritance provisions that come with marriage, while allowing older people to create an official relationship?

Does anyone have any idea of how many, and what sort, of people have taken advantage of opposite sex domestic partnerships in California?


I think the very existence of this provision suggests that at least some members of the California legislature recognized that an "all marriages are equal" law really isn't what everyone was looking for.

[Björn Toulouse]

But I'm sure that you wouldn't care if it was between Eve and Lilith.



You got my vote there, Wildy, and personally I am still suspicious about those biblical stories of solitary shepherds and sheep.

[ponderingturtle]

So taking a few of the WP listed rights... you don't think that unmarried couples should be entitled to the follow things?

Not all of them I don't


domestic violence intervention

I don't think the laws should be dependant on married status

next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

I am perfectly fine with this. Just because you are living with a girlfriend, why should you assume that she has primacy in your life?

family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison

In general I am not against some rights, but don't have a problem with the rights being less.

The supremecy of the marriage bond over the blood bond is not a cultural universal.

Access to children's school records

I do not think your parents girlfriend should have access to confidential records. Maybe you have much weaker privacy laws in NZ.

Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime

This should probably be threats made to manipulate the employee.

Domestic violence protection orders
This shouldn't depend on marriage status

Funeral and bereavement leave

I am fine with this depending on marriage.

Making partners medical decisions

I am fine with this being dependant on marriage

Right to inheritance of property


I am fine on this being dependant on marriage.


A lot of this deals with who you feel has primacy in your life you want to make it the assumption that it is who ever you are shaking up with, I think that this is one of the important points of marriage, to give your partner legal primacy in your life.

[ponderingturtle]

I can't make a blanket statement that one or the other should never receive or should always receive alimony in the event of a divorce. However, I think ex wives should receive it a lot more frequently than ex husbands.

Yes, but you can reach that assessment with out any need for baising on the basis of sex in the way you reach any decision. It is true that it is more likely that a man will earn a lot more than his wife, and the wife is often the one who makes carreer sacrifices, but it is the nature of their ecconomic and personal relationships that is the only thing that I think should determine the results.

[ponderingturtle]

Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.

Only those that the state has any control over. IF the partner is injured in a different state then they have none of the rights relating to medical decisions.

[Alt+F4]

Do you have a link to the 1000 list? I can only identify a handful off hand.

Considering that some of the benefits refer to widows of the Civil War, many no longer apply today. I'd say there are about 500, but if there were only one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States

[Meadmaker]

Yes, but you can reach that assessment with out any need for baising on the basis of sex in the way you reach any decision.

No.

Nature discriminates on the basis of sex. I don't see why I shouldn't.

[Alt+F4]

Nature discriminates on the basis of sex. I don't see why I shouldn't.

Yes, nature does discriminate, why should government?

[balrog666]

Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?

[quixotecoyote]

Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?

Good question.

Why not?

[Meadmaker]

Good question.

Why not?

The usual excuse that I have heard is that it would make the paperwork too complex.

[chipmunk stew]

The usual excuse that I have heard is that it would make the paperwork too complex.
This is an overly-simplified explanation of a legitimate consideration in drawing the line at two.

If I have two spouses, and I get in a car accident and drop into a brain-dead coma, which one gets to make the final call to take me off life support? If I die, how are my assets divided? Which spouse gets shouldered with my debts? If one or both of my spouses also has a second spouse, are the new debts and assets transferred through my spouse to her spouse?

Am I eligible for health benefits from both of my wives' employers? Am I eligible to my wife's husband's benefits?

I wouldn't classify it as a complex paperwork problem. I'd call it an impossibly complex legal problem.

[ponderingturtle]

Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?

Well the rights that marriage grants are not well designed to work for more than two people.

changing marriage so that it would work for multiple people is much more complex than extending its protections to more couples.

Such a change unlike homosexual marriage would need to involve the rewriting of many if not most laws and regulations that recognize marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

This is an overly-simplified explanation of a legitimate consideration in drawing the line at two.

If I have two spouses, and I get in a car accident and drop into a brain-dead coma, which one gets to make the final call to take me off life support? If I die, how are my assets divided? Which spouse gets shouldered with my debts? If one or both of my spouses also has a second spouse, are the new debts and assets transferred through my spouse to her spouse?

Am I eligible for health benefits from both of my wives' employers? Am I eligible to my wife's husband's benefits?

I wouldn't classify it as a complex paperwork problem. I'd call it an impossibly complex legal problem.

I am not sure it is impossibly complex, just incredibly complex. And any solution would not match how some people want their marriages organized.

I just don't think that you will get the polyamourous and say those in favor of old fashioned polygyny to agree to a form that multiple marriage should take.

[Safe-Keeper]

Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?Why limit democracy to just men and women? Why not children and animals? Why can't I vote for several candidates at once? Why can't I have my vote count for 149 people? I mean, if we're going to tear down the tradition that's made democracy so strong for thousands of years, why stop at letting women vote?

Same logic.

[chipmunk stew]

I am not sure it is impossibly complex, just incredibly complex. And any solution would not match how some people want their marriages organized.

I just don't think that you will get the polyamourous and say those in favor of old fashioned polygyny to agree to a form that multiple marriage should take.
You're right. To be more precise, I'd call extending marriage to multiple spouses, in (or close to) its current form, a nearly-impossibly complex legal problem.

[ponderingturtle]

You're right. To be more precise, I'd call extending marriage to multiple spouses, in (or close to) its current form, a nearly-impossibly complex legal problem.

Pretty much, and one that you can not get the people who it would apply to, to come to an agreement over its form.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Goodness, no one has yet posted a link to "Prop 8 - The Musical" (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones).

3:16 minutes of wonderful merriment and political commentary. :D

[Alt+F4]

Goodness, no one has yet posted a link to "Prop 8 - The Musical" (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones).

3:16 minutes of wonderful merriment and political commentary. :D

Good find, very amusing.

When I first listened to it, I thought they were singing Obama Nation rather than abomination cause hey, after all the president elect is a big no-no on gay marriage.

[Skeptic Ginger]

'Obama Nation' is in the lyrics as a parody to 'abomination'. I think that part is hilarious.

[Alt+F4]

'Obama Nation' is in the lyrics as a parody to 'abomination'. I think that part is hilarious.

Ok, now I get it. :)

Obama was quite the politician when it came to Prop 8. He came out against it, while at the same time stating he was opposed to gay marriage. Thus we welcome yet another hypocrite to Washington. Say hello to your Jesus-boy Obama supporters.

And yes, I'm pissed.

[Safe-Keeper]

'Obamanation' seems to be a pretty typical insult from the religious fundamentalists and others who seem to think him the Anti-Christ or something.

[gumboot]

I find it quite surreal and mind-blowing that some countries still do not recognise Gay Couples. Then I find it even more surreal and mind-blowing that my own country only did so very recently.

What is wrong with us? There is absolutely no justified reason for not giving Gay people equal status. Nada. Zilch.

[Redtail]

I find it quite surreal and mind-blowing that some countries still do not recognise Gay Couples. Then I find it even more surreal and mind-blowing that my own country only did so very recently.

What is wrong with us? There is absolutely no justified reason for not giving Gay people equal status. Nada. Zilch.

Well gay rights are special rights and thus (in a way) they are taking rights from us and giving them to the gays thus the reason is justified.

(Of course using that convoluted logic I have a justified reason to insist one of the cats at this rescue is a vampire...)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, now I get it. :)

Obama was quite the politician when it came to Prop 8. He came out against it, while at the same time stating he was opposed to gay marriage. Thus we welcome yet another hypocrite to Washington. Say hello to your Jesus-boy Obama supporters.

And yes, I'm pissed.Yeah, on the one hand they claim to be for change, then on the other they seem afraid of pissing off too many voters. Clinton did the same with the 'don't ask don't tell' policy.

[Alt+F4]

Another reason to support gay marriage, it might help save the economy:

A recent study (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-SameSexMarriage.pdf) (.pdf) conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government extended the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, gay weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

[Bill Thompson]

I was for Gay Marrage but have any of you watched the Yes to Prop 8 ads on YouTube that the Mormons put out?

Let me play the devils advocate for a second. Some of the gay people I have met say that they were molested as a kid and that is why they are gay or that their mother wanted a girl.

Now, even WEB MD admits that some part of being gay is genetic and envoronment might also play a role. Does that even matter? Are all gay people born that way? Does having an envoronmnet that confuses kids (as the LDS ads seem to imply) actually MAKE people gay.

[GreNME]

http://a.media.community.abcfamily.go.com/images/obvious_troll_preview.preview.jpg

[linusrichard]

Er.

I think most people believe that being a redhead is caused by genetic factors. I believe that. What if it were discovered that having red hair was actually caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors? Would that fact (if WebMD "admitted" it) justify discrimination against redheads?

[Bill Thompson]

So is there no potential new proposition that could overturn Prop 8 or is the issue cast in stone for good in California?

[linusrichard]

So is there no potential new proposition that could overturn Prop 8 or is the issue cast in stone for good in California?

Yes, Prop H8 could be overturned by the same process that put it in. It is not cast in stone for good.

[Cavemonster]

Does having an envoronmnet that confuses kids (as the LDS ads seem to imply) actually MAKE people gay.

The American Psychological Asociation thinks otherwise.
Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents."

So do a lot of other people
Norman Anderssen, PhD, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bergen, Norway, et al. wrote in a Feb. 2002 article, "Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents. A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000," published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology:

"Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men..."

There is no reason to think that having same sex parents is "an environment that confuses kids". There have been many studies of gender identity, sexuality and many aspects of the emotional health of kids raised by gay parents and NO evidence that they experience any undue confusion or any kind of ill effects whatsoever.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, Prop H8 could be overturned by the same process that put it in. It is not cast in stone for good.

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.

[linusrichard]

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.

Good point - either way, the answer to the question is "yes," but you're right, if removing it is a "revision," then a different process is required.

[ZirconBlue]

That all depends on if removing it is considered the same level of constitutional modification as adding it was. If the court rules that it requires the higher form, then it could be much harder to remove than it was to add.


Such a ruling wouldn't make much sense, though, would it? Surely, removing rights is not a lesser modification than restoring them?

[ponderingturtle]

Such a ruling wouldn't make much sense, though, would it? Surely, removing rights is not a lesser modification than restoring them?

Depends. Adding something to the constitution migth be easier than removing the same thing.

I am taking nothing for granted with regards to how california treats its constitution.

[linusrichard]

Depends. Adding something to the constitution migth be easier than removing the same thing.

I am taking nothing for granted with regards to how california treats its constitution.

I agree. There is almost no precedent within California on the subject, and what precedent there is is pretty much impossible to apply to this, because the subject matter is so different in every case. And there is no precedent, AFAIK, outside of California, because only California, AFAIK, has this amendment/revision distinction. So it's all about just arguing it out and seeing how it's decided. Or, if you want to be cynical, what the justices had for breakfast that morning.

[Bill Thompson]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/181230.asp
and
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/05/microsoft-donates-100000-to-approve-r-71



Asserting itself as a powerful advocate for gay rights, the Microsoft Corporation donated $100,000 to the campaign trying to approve Referendum 71, a report filed today with the state Public Disclosure Commission shows (.pdf (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/default.aspx?batchnumber=100326938&formtype=C3)). If voters approve the measure, they will uphold the state's domestic-partnership law, but a recent poll shows that only 51 percent of likely voters support the referendum.

This took guts. Microsoft's brazen role in R-71 will outrage the Ken Hutchersons of the world, who pressured Microsoft for years to back off from supporting gay-rights legislation. And it could also summon conservative interests—e.g., the Mormon Church—to dump money in on the other side. After October 12, state rules block any person or group from donating more than $5,000 to the campaign.

Microsoft's donation is larger than all the contributions combined for the campaign to reject R-71, called Protect Marriage Washington, run by a handful of Christian extremists who have reported only $55,217 in contributions.

Microsoft, which historically has supported gay rights, was highly criticized in 2005 after it took a neutral stance on a state bill that banned discrimination against homosexuals. Gay-rights proponents, The Stranger and Microsoft employees claimed the software company bowed to pressure from the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a Redmond pastor who threatened a national boycott of Microsoft if it supported the bill.

CEO Steve Ballmer later reversed Microsoft's position (http://www.seattlepi.com/business/223353_msftgay07.html), saying "that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda." Fifteen days earlier, the bill had been defeated in the state Senate by one vote. It was subsequently approved during the next legislative session.