Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Donestic Partherships Are Not Marriages By Another Name


(PHOTO: Bob Paris & Rod Jackson--NEVER MARRIED)
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday shocked many by asking lawyers battling over same gender marriage whether the state's Domestic Partnership law provides all the benefits of marriage, and whether the term "marriage" has special legal significance.

First, with all due respect to the high court, it is a dumb question. On its face, a Domestic Partnership is not the same as marriage. For example, poor Erik Menendez got married while in jail but because he's in for life, he gets no conjugal visits with his wife. But a Domestic Partnership has to be entered between two persons of the same gender (or of the opposite gender over 62 yrs old) who live together first. [Let's not assume that cell mate can enter into a Domestic Parnership for the saek of this argument, OK) Byt excuse me, but in a traditional marriage, the couple do not live together until after they marry and in these modern times, sometimes they never even live together. Domestic Partners, on the other hand, must live together first. So could poor little Erik Menendez enter into a Domestic Partnership with a man from the outside (if he was gay and I am not saying anything about his sexual orientation), the answer, on the face of the law, is NO. But if a prison er is in a Domestic partnership prior to entering prison, in certain situations, they could have conjugal visits.

No further briefing is needed if one reads the requirements for entering into a Domestic Partnership as compared to entering a Marriage.

Also, a Supreme Court Justice could officiate at a wedding by solemnizing it. A Domestic partnership has to be notarized. Domestic partners are denied the ceremony and the honor and privilege of having a judge, justice, or religious leader officiate the ceremony. The two are not the same and it is a dumb question.

The dumb question came in a request for supplemental briefings in legal challenges by the city of San Francisco and gay-rights advocates to the state law that limits marriage to a man and a woman. That question, along with others seem to indicate the justices are trying to determine whether the Domestic Partnership law makes same gender marriage unnecessary.

The attorney representing San Francisco said the questions showed that the court was "wrestling with the issues."

Typically, the court does not ask for additional written arguments in most cases.

In its first question, the court asked the lawyers to compare the legal rights, benefits and obligations of marriage to those offered to registered domestic partners. "Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware," the order said. It is an odd question because it seems like they are going to weigh the differences. Chilling, isn't it? At least they are apparently starting to see that they are separate and not equal. If they thought otherwise history dictates that they would not have asked the question.

The Domestic Partnership law provides most if not all of the state benefits of marriage, but does not accord same-sex couples "the universal recognition by society of what that relationship means" according to the attorney representing San Francisco.

The court also asked whether the state Constitution permits the Legislature to call marriage by some other name. And the justices asked lawyers to address the fundamental constitutional "right to marry" and its implications.

Finally, the court asked lawyers to discuss whether a 2000 ballot measure that said marriage only between a woman and a man was valid should be interpreted as prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages that have occurred in other states or countries, as well as same-sex unions in California .

The court asked for written responses to the questions by July 18. After reviewing the briefs, the court will schedule oral arguments on the case, which will be followed within 90 days by a decision.