Equal Rights

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 2:35 PM GMT
    It would seem two HETROsexual college students may have the answer. If gays can not marry, now one should be able too. Starting a petition to take the word "Marriage" completely out of the Califonia State Constitution. Making "Domestic Parntership' the new words and equal for all.

    How would you feel abotu giving up on "Marraige" in exchange for "Domestic Parnterships" completely equal to everyone else's?

    I would be for this change.

    SACRAMENTO -- California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

    Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

    The proposal is in response to a voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed in November. The new measure would repeal the ban, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Tuesday that supporters must gather nearly 700,000 signatures by early August to get the initiative on the ballot.

    The measure is the grassroots effort of two heterosexual college students.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 9:22 PM GMT
    Where do I sign?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 10:02 PM GMT
    I would view this as a positive step, but I think there are primarily 2 issues here.

    1. Separate is not equal.

    That's the only thing wrong with "domestic partnership" over "marriage". And the fact that up until now not only was it separate, it wasn't equal anyhow. For example, nearly 20 years ago the City of Ann Arbor introduced a "domestic partner registry". That's nice and great, but even we registered, it's still up to the employer to determine if a "domestic partner" will get health benefits, etc. The registry is a nice token gesture, but has no legal impact.

    So if the entire state throws out "marriage" and institutes "domestic partnership" for everyone, that resolves this issue, except:

    2. What are the implications on the federal level?

    Does this mean that other states can discriminate against all "domestic partners" because they aren't married? Which in practice would mean that in many cases others would chose to discriminate only against gay "domestic partners" but not straight "DPs" who they might choose to view as "married" under their own state law.
  • metta

    Posts: 39078

    Mar 11, 2009 10:03 PM GMT
    I like the idea but do you really think that straight couples who are currently married would vote for that? To bad it could not be designed so that if it loses, then everyone could get married.



    California Voters are still split on marriage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2009 10:08 PM GMT
    Unfortunately it will never fly because of the stigma attached to the expression "domestic partnership," which was basically the angle the Supreme Court took on their decision from 2008 -- nomenclature matters, whether we like it or not. Heterosexuals could never be convinced to vote in favor of it because they know, historically & socially, "domestic partnership" implies a devalued, less respected relationship. It would make a lot more sense to petition for "civil union" as the official nomenclature.

    So I don't know what the petitioners believe they themselves are trying do, unless make some kind of "statement." Because asking the voters to choose "domestic partnership" over "marriage" is absurd. It doesn't matter if the proposed amendment would elevate "domestic partnership" to the same status as marriage. It's all in the "name." Voters on the whole, since most are of average intelligence with mediocre creative powers, or none at all, aren't really opened-minded, enlightened or progressive enough to overhaul the institution, which apparently has been around in its present form since the days of Abraham and before. Who knew.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 12:50 AM GMT
    Below is a posting that I placed on another thread. But it seems to fit here too:
    For the longest time now I have been exceptionally vocal in my opposition to Civil Unions instead of marriages for gay couples. To me Civil Unions always felt like we are getting scraps thrown down from the lofty heights of the “breeders” tables. (I know, I know, some of you hate my pet name for the hetero population. (And yes, I consider my parents, hetero relatives and hetero friends as "breeders.)) But the fact that we accept these mere scraps from these “breeder benefactors” instead of a marriage equals to theirs appalls me.

    I received in invitation to my first cousin’s wedding in the post this past Saturday. Now of course I’m not even considering attending for the fact that I will not step foot inside a church, nor attend any religious ceremonies. (I think by now everyone who knows of me from some past thread postings, know I HATE religion of any kind.) **PLEASE THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR SOME RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT RELIGION DEBATE!!**

    However I find myself in the midst of a revelation now. icon_eek.gif All of this time I have been so angry about we Gays not being allowed by the “breeders” to get married, that I’ve realized that if we were deemed worthy of participating in this archaic religious melee’ of marriage, I wouldn’t ethically be able to take part due to my hatred towards religion. icon_evil.gif

    It has dawned on me that if the term Civil Union applied to both the Gay community and the “breeder” couple that gets “married”, (for lack of a better term), in a non-religious setting, then it would be equal. What are your thoughts?

    Cheers, Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2009 1:15 AM GMT
    My stand comes from trying to separate church and state. Everyone would enter into civil unions to create the legal bonds of "marriage". Those that what to be joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of their church could go that route also. Call the latter Marriage is you want but it would have no legal basis.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Mar 12, 2009 1:26 AM GMT
    Daytona saidMy stand comes from trying to separate church and state. Everyone would enter into civil unions to create the legal bonds of "marriage". Those that what to be joined in holy matrimony in the eyes of their church could go that route also. Call the latter Marriage is you want but it would have no legal basis.

    This!

    (and change the word in local/state/federal government references and rights/benefits to "civil unions" too. What's not equal then?)