CA passes Domestic Partners Law & Expands Gay Rights

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Despite the best efforts of gay-hating, bible-thumping, republican neanderthals :p in the CA senate and assembly, a new landmark bill granting domestic partner status to gay couples has been signed.

LATimes.com

SAN FRANCISCO ? Gov. Gray Davis on Friday signed a bill that will give domestic partners in California many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property ? a measure that gays and lesbians hailed as a historic step toward equal rights.

The new law, while stopping short of recognizing gay and lesbian marriage, positions California as a national leader in the rights and obligations it affords gays and lesbians, experts said.

"I think we are at our best when we extend rights to every Californian no matter who they are or who they love," Davis said to cheers from a raucous standing-room-only crowd at San Francisco's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender center in the Castro District.

"I believe to my core that we are all God's children," the governor continued.

Republicans in the Legislature had strongly opposed the measure, saying the state should only recognize unions between men and women.

The law will grant state-registered domestic partners all of the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and duties as married spouses regarding property, children and arrangements after death. It will, for example, give a partner the right to financial support and child custody after a partnership is dissolved, and it will give a survivor the right to collect his or her partner's government benefits. The law also will make partners responsible for one another's debt.

"This is a tremendous leap forward," said Daniel Zingale, the governor's cabinet secretary and a longtime advocate for gay rights. "This takes us into the area of family law, the things which make for the fabric of a committed relationship. It's monumental in a national sense. It positions California in the forefront of equal rights and responsibility for lesbian and gay Californians."

But minority Republicans, who also rejected the bill in both the Assembly and the Senate, said it undermines marriage and subverts the will of voters who passed Proposition 22 in March 2000. That measure declares that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.

"This is a bill that looks at the people of California and says we don't care what you think," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) during a debate in the 80-member Assembly, where the law barely passed by a 41-32 vote with all 32 Republicans voting no.

California recognizes domestic partnerships under legislation signed by Davis in 1999. But gay and lesbian couples have lacked many of the rights enjoyed by married couples, including those relating to family and financial issues.

Under the new law, which takes effect in January 2005, registered domestic partners who have been together for more than five years or who have children must consent to a Superior Court's jurisdiction in the event they wish to separate. If no children are involved, domestic partnerships can be dissolved within the first five years by filing papers with the California secretary of state without involving the courts. The effective date was deliberately delayed a year to give already registered couples time to decide if they are prepared to live up to the law's expanded responsibilities.

Domestic partners in California will still lack many of the rights of married couples, such as the right to file joint tax returns or the rights involving Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits.

"This bill creates a vehicle for rights and obligations in gay and lesbian committed relationships while avoiding the argument over gay marriage," said Zingale. "Most Californians strongly support equal rights and responsibilities for their lesbian and gay neighbors and coworkers, so this is in the mainstream of California thought. That's not to say this is a popular decision with everyone. But it is the right thing to do."

Vermont is the only state that offers comparable rights to gay partners, the result of a state court order rather than legislation.

Zingale said political considerations ? including the current attempt to recall Davis from office ? had nothing to do with the governor's decision to sign the bill.

"That's nonsense, and I feel very strongly about this," said Zingale. "This is a commitment that was forged by Gray Davis decades ago, when there were very few politicians willing to stand up for equal rights for lesbian and gay people."

Assemblyman Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco, stood with Davis during the signing ceremony and declared that the governor's support for the measure showed courage. Leno noted how Davis opponents now wave "Recall Gay Davis" signs at rallies.

The legislation was the logical extension of rights first offered by the 1999 law recognizing domestic partnerships in California, supporters said.

"This second step was on track to happen long before anyone talked about a recall," said Zingale.

Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), author of AB 205 and openly gay, has said she would carry a bill to legalize same-sex marriage "in a hot second" if she thought it could clear the Legislature. But California is not ready for such a measure, she said.

During months of discussion and debate, AB 205 was amended to remove provisions that would have granted joint-filing tax rights and other rights to gay partners, in part because of potential conflicts with federal tax law and the potential negative impact on the state budget, said Zingale.

The final version of AB 205 does not allow domestic partners to file joint tax returns or grant the Social Security, immigration and family leave rights that the federal government bestows on married couples. But legal experts say it puts California second behind Vermont ? where civil unions between gays are recognized ? in terms of the benefits and duties awarded same-sex partnerships.

Supporters who testified in the Legislature included Lydia Ramos, 48, of Pomona, who lost her partner of 14 years in a car accident. Her partner's family prevented her from making funeral arrangements and for several weeks took custody of the 12-year-old daughter whom the couple had raised together.

"All I wanted was my child back," said Ramos, adding that a domestic partner law would have prevented any separation.

There are roughly 21,000 registered domestic partnerships in California. Same-sex couples and couples in which one partner is older than 62 can qualify by attesting to the secretary of state that they are living together, are older than 18 and agree to be jointly responsible for each other's living expenses.

Goldberg said she expects many domestic partners to cancel their arrangements before the more expansive requirements of the new law take effect. But over time, she predicted, more committed gay couples will register.

In the Legislature, Goldberg portrayed AB 205 as a step toward fulfilling the liberty and equality promised in the California Constitution.

Responding to Republican opposition, Democrats argued that Californians distinguish between marriage and greater rights for domestic partners.

"A majority of Californians support the concepts in this bill and would vote for it themselves if they had the chance," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood).

Goldberg said she had worked closely with Davis' staff on the bill.

The governor, who usually avoids taking a stand on legislation until it reaches his desk, had said last month that he would sign the bill.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
gray davis is signing any bill that comes across his desk. this is why the law says that the recall election must happen within 60 days--the sort of pandering is sickening. he is trying to save his politcal career at the lasting expense of CA.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If Davis figures the majority of the folks favor this action isn't he doing the will of the majority? If only a minority favor it then isn't he voting against his best interest?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: kaizersose
gray davis is signing any bill that comes across his desk. this is why the law says that the recall election must happen within 60 days--the sort of pandering is sickening. he is trying to save his politcal career at the lasting expense of CA.
Yeah but as long as it benefits you and your partner why should you complain?

 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
What the hell is "domestic partner status"?? Why shouldn't gays simply be allowed to get married like everyone else?

N
 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Napalm
What the hell is "domestic partner status"?? Why shouldn't gays simply be allowed to get married like everyone else?

N

Because they'll want to raise families and Jerry Falwell will have a heart attack. This will be blamed on Davis and the entire Christian Right will decend on Sacramento and disrupt the traffic. This will cause folks to miss work get paid less, pay less in taxes and the budget deficit will grow and Davis will get recalled again.. DP status does not close the loop on the aforementioned and is, therefore, fiscally prudent.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
Disagree..............This is separate but equal and we know that ain't equal.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Don't you think that marriage violates the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State. The ACLU should step in and file suit to bar marriage and just set up domestic partner agreements then it would all be equal.
Given that the monument in the courthouse porch had to go so should marriage. Especially, when performed in a church and then recognized in law. While I'm at it.. church bells should be muted also.. bong, bong, bong, at the unungodly hour of 7am.. (as I just got hit with a shoe thrown by my domestic partner)

I can see the lesbian point of view... I'd not want to live with a guy either. It is the Gay guy whose mind set befuddles me.. but, whatever floats your boat... so to speak.. :)
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
Disagree..............This is separate but equal and we know that ain't equal.

It's not speparate but equal, since it is a completely different situation. No matter how you describe, a gay couple IS different than a heterosxual relationship (I know that this probably comes a shock to some of you). So, how can they be granted "equal" status to a married, heterosexual couple if the two situations are not equal? Quit comparing apples to oranges.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
Disagree..............This is separate but equal and we know that ain't equal.

It's not speparate but equal, since it is a completely different situation. No matter how you describe, a gay couple IS different than a heterosxual relationship (I know that this probably comes a shock to some of you). So, how can they be granted "equal" status to a married, heterosexual couple if the two situations are not equal? Quit comparing apples to oranges.
Yup, this may come as a shock to you but the same thing applied once to interracial marriage. You see, interracial marriage isn't the same as same race marriage. You do see that, don't you?

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
Disagree..............This is separate but equal and we know that ain't equal.

It's not speparate but equal, since it is a completely different situation. No matter how you describe, a gay couple IS different than a heterosxual relationship (I know that this probably comes a shock to some of you). So, how can they be granted "equal" status to a married, heterosexual couple if the two situations are not equal? Quit comparing apples to oranges.
Yup, this may come as a shock to you but the same thing applied once to interracial marriage. You see, interracial marriage isn't the same as same race marriage. You do see that, don't you?

Once again, you are taking marriage out of context. Marriage is te legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A white woman is a woman, just as a black woman is a woman. However, a white man is not a white woman. It is wrong to deny a marriage to people based on their race. However, it is not wrong to deny a marriage to people that do not fit the definition of a marriage. Why should a man be able to buy a happy meal and play in the McDonald's playset if he is over twelve and over 48 inches tall?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113Once again, you are taking marriage out of context. Marriage is te legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A white woman is a woman, just as a black woman is a woman. However, a white man is not a white woman. It is wrong to deny a marriage to people based on their race. However, it is not wrong to deny a marriage to people that do not fit the definition of a marriage. Why should a man be able to buy a happy meal and play in the McDonald's playset if he is over twelve and over 48 inches tall?

Taking marriage out of context? Marriage is what we decide marriage is. If we all agree that marriage is the permanent attachment of a big boulder to your leg via a chain, then that is marriage. The problem is, some of us disagree on how to define it. What give you the right to define it for someone else? Or are you Moses, coming down the mountain with your divine assertions?
 

SSibalNom

Golden Member
Aug 13, 2003
1,284
0
0
I don't really see the advantage of having the government recognize marriage at all, besides the certain governmental incentives, which just discriminate against single people. If people have kids, married or not, they should get breaks here and there, but the gargantuan machine known as government shouldn't have anything to do with it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Domestic partnership is a cop out. They should be able to get married and feel the same kind of commitment as other lovers.

I agree that it is a cop out, but from a practical standpoint it makes sense. I personally feel that gay people should be able to marry (I am not gay), but I realize that there are many Americans who are unwilling to accept that.

Domestic partnership at least gives gay partners many of the same rights and obligations as straight partners. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. As time goes on and society becomes more accepting of gays, perhaps marriage will be allowed by law.
Disagree..............This is separate but equal and we know that ain't equal.

It's not speparate but equal, since it is a completely different situation. No matter how you describe, a gay couple IS different than a heterosxual relationship (I know that this probably comes a shock to some of you). So, how can they be granted "equal" status to a married, heterosexual couple if the two situations are not equal? Quit comparing apples to oranges.
Yup, this may come as a shock to you but the same thing applied once to interracial marriage. You see, interracial marriage isn't the same as same race marriage. You do see that, don't you?

Once again, you are taking marriage out of context. Marriage is te legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A white woman is a woman, just as a black woman is a woman. However, a white man is not a white woman. It is wrong to deny a marriage to people based on their race. However, it is not wrong to deny a marriage to people that do not fit the definition of a marriage. Why should a man be able to buy a happy meal and play in the McDonald's playset if he is over twelve and over 48 inches tall?
We are evolving and you want to cling to the past. Just as interracial marriage isn't marriage in the past so too do you wish to pretend that same sex marriage isn't marriage. To differentiate on the basis of race in no less logical than to differentiate on the basis of gender. Your viewpoint is bigoted because you want to divide on the superficial meaning of marriage instead of the essential meaning, the intention to form a life-long loving commitment conferring obligations and oath. You are up in your head theorizing when you should be in your heart. The context you say I'm taking marriage out of is superfluous invention.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
You're right. I do want to cling to the past. I want to return to a time when this country had morals. How can I argue anything with any of you, if I am automtically labeled a bigot or a religious zealot? You refuse to admit that there is a distinct difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. If you can't see beyond this simple point, you are brainwashed and I need not waste my time.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If you wish to return to the age of morals, when ever that may have been, that is fine. You'll have to have the USSC rule accordingly. The issue is in the context of the existing "Equal" and "Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. The argument centers on this. We, Society, have agreed, via USSC opinion that some issues require changing. Those that do not provide equal whatever need to be amended to provide equal whatever. OR some folks will be less equal than others. It is a legal argument as well as a moral one. One need not compromise their morals to comply they simply should allow others to exercise their choices without bible thumping righteous indignation thrown upon them..

You see, The 14th Amendment has been seen to mean just about everything so every one can play as they see fit. In Law, that is. Our founders are probably wondering what did they do so wrong.. or see I told you life would change over time.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You're right. I do want to cling to the past. I want to return to a time when this country had morals. How can I argue anything with any of you, if I am automtically labeled a bigot or a religious zealot? You refuse to admit that there is a distinct difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. If you can't see beyond this simple point, you are brainwashed and I need not waste my time.
You have summed yourself up nicely. I can't see what you see because it isn't there but in your head. The criterion by which you distinguish are all a product of your mind.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Don't hide behind the "Equal" and Protection" of the 14th Amendment. There is nothing in this country that a heterosexual can do that a homosexual cannot, and homosexuals are even more protected than heterosexuals when it comes to legal issues. Let me ask you, should illegal aliens be given all the rights that are granted to legal U.S. citizens? Of course not! So, why should homosexuals be allowed to get married when they do not meet the requirements of such an act? They are not being denied any right that heterosexuals have. A heterosexual cannot be wed to someone of the same sex, and neither should a homosexual. Homosexuals can still live together and prosper in this country, but they should not receive the benefits of marriage. I am not against homosexuality even though I disagree with it. People have every right to choose to be homosexual. They can even be "domestic partners", but they cannot be married. Period, the end.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You're right. I do want to cling to the past. I want to return to a time when this country had morals. How can I argue anything with any of you, if I am automtically labeled a bigot or a religious zealot? You refuse to admit that there is a distinct difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. If you can't see beyond this simple point, you are brainwashed and I need not waste my time.

Maybe we don't want your morals. Especially if they're used to divide and segregate. Ever consider that? Besides, last time I checked, this country wasn't a theocracy. Who are you to drag the whole country towards Christianity? Is your own faith that lacking?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,633
6,454
126
Period, the end.
-------------
Well that's just the last recourse of the bigot. He can't explain why he's right but he just knows he is because his bigotry informs him so. No wonder you assume homosexuality is a choice. Makes your bigotry sound like it's them instead of you. Try to see you are just completely irrational.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Where did I ever say that I was a Christian or that I wanted to separate and segregate people? Oh... that's right, I didn't.

However, it is pretty obvious that you are anti-Christian. That's pretty tolerant of you...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where did I ever say that I was a Christian or that I wanted to separate and segregate people? Oh... that's right, I didn't.

However, it is pretty obvious that you are anti-Christian. That's pretty tolerant of you...

Maybe you should consider signing up then? Your personal agenda matches 100%. Let's take a look based on threads you've recently posted in:

1.) You're opposed to gay marriage, or even domestic partner status.
2.) You're against abortion and think it's murder.
3.) You either listen to Rush Limbaugh or you defend him (for some reason).
4.) You've thought about starting your own "Caucasian Club" for some time now.
5.) You think global warning is some kind of fraud.

I could go on, but I'll let your record speak for itself...