Interesting News in California!

[tdogg]

This is perfect!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html

Not sure if the link will work, you may have to cut and paste onto the web address line but it's worth it. A court ruled in CA that a man must continue to pay alimony to his ex-wife even though she is currently in a registered domestic partnership with another woman. The reason? Registered domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, it does not afford the couple the same rights as marriage. You gotta read the article to get the whole picture, but what great fuel for our fire. Those involved in the SF lawsuits to have the state recognize their marriage (remember when hoards of gays and lesbians were married in SF when the mayor ruled it legal?), are not adding the language from this court action to their action.

This is really great stuff and has far-reaching implications!! :D:rainbow:

[pnggrad79]

Very interesting. I just wonder if California passes gay marriage, would her alimony end? In this case, it pays to be in a domestic partnership! Wow!

[tdogg]

The best part about this news, is the implication it could have in the lawsuits regarding same sex marriages that were performed in SF. The language here certainly identifies the need for everyone to be treated equally under the law, and gives credence for same-sex marriage and full/equal benefits. That's why I find this so exciting. Imagine, a judge not afraid to stand up for what he/she believes is right!! This is a perfect example of why domestic partnerships and the like are NOT the same as marriage legally.

[Daniel]

The California legislature recently sent legislation - again - to the govenor's desk to sign concerning gay marriage. And city counci;s across California have taken notice, many of them voting to endores this legislation. Here's one story of a change of heart- and vote.

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/san-diego-mayor.html

[BruceChris]

Or perhaps I should call it a Recognized Legal Commitment, available to everyone. Civil unions, or marriage, or perhaps just any type of contractual agreement drawn up by any two people.

P&L, BC

[Daniel]

Or perhaps I should call it a Recognized Legal Commitment, available to everyone. Civil unions, or marriage, or perhaps just any type of contractual agreement drawn up by any two people.

This would be great if the culture we lived in would support it. However, as the gentlemen in the link to my former post on this thread has noted, civil unions are anything but equal. And this is born out in the problems that those who have civil unions in NJ are experiencing. Conservatives simply choose to ignore them, reserving the rights of 'marriage' for themselves.

So- unless there is a sea-change in our culture, where the state gets out of the marriage business entirely, and the legal union of two persons will be designated a 'civil union', I believe the only course ahead is nothing less than marriage.

[BrentRichards]

I agree ... the only way I'm in favor of civil unions is if that's what the government offers EVERYONE ... take marriage off the books as a civil institution and let the churches have it. Make civil union the only legal relationship. Then I'll take it as equal for me. Of course, that's not even an option on the table ... so, marriage will do fine for me, thanks. (any takers?)

[u-dog]

If you had arrived 24 years ago I might have been interested... but then you were 14 and I would have been arrested. Oh well.

[BrentRichards]

If you had arrived 24 years ago I might have been interested... but then you were 14 and I would have been arrested. Oh well.

Who says I've "arrived" even now?

[u-dog]

Who says I've "arrived" even now?

YOU ARE A COMPLETE JERK!! You ASKED if there were any takers! I was just being polite! I didn't want you to feel like a TROLL because no one said anything. Yikes! try to be nice and this is what you get. :eek:

[BrentRichards]

YOU ARE A COMPLETE JERK!! You ASKED if there were any takers! I was just being polite! I didn't want you to feel like a TROLL because no one said anything. Yikes! try to be nice and this is what you get. :eek:

Sorry, my sarcasm device is off ... that wasn't a turn-down, it was a self-directed put down ... "I've arrived" is a high self-image statement, right? So "Who says I've arrived?" was a slap at me ... sorry for the unintentional slight. I still love you! :love:

[u-dog]

Sorry, my sarcasm device is off ... that wasn't a turn-down, it was a self-directed put down ... "I've arrived" is a high self-image statement, right? So "Who says I've arrived?" was a slap at me ... sorry for the unintentional slight. I still love you! :love:

well... since I was really just PRETENDING to be offended... I guess I can forgive you :rolleyes:

[tdogg]

The California legislature recently sent legislation - again - to the govenor's desk to sign concerning gay marriage. And city counci;s across California have taken notice, many of them voting to endores this legislation. Here's one story of a change of heart- and vote.

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/san-diego-mayor.html

Read the article, it nearly brought tears to my eyes. Not so much that it was touching the mayor is changing his mind because his daughter is gay, or that he feels that no class should be excluded. (But yes, this is the key thought process that leads to a change of heart/vote.) But, that he would make this stand, admit the change and stand up for his conviction. Great stuff!!!

I need to see about sending an email or card thanking him for his vote. This is a tough one in CA as long as we have a/this republican gov. Had Angelides been elected, though I'm not sure he would have been super effective at everything, he at least vowed to pass the same-sex marriage bill. This is huge here in CA. So far, no veto, but Arnold has promised to veto this bill. I expect it in the next few days...Mark Leno and others will try again tho!

[BruceChris]

I meant lets make marriage available to gays and make civil unions available to straights. For any couple that may not be ready to commit, just yet.

P&L, BC

[Emproph]

Read the article, it nearly brought tears to my eyes.

The man was practically blubbering. I've never seen such a public display of sincerity in all my days. Now I know what the hype was about.


Tearful Republican reverses his stance on gay equality
SnTwrnKb61Q

Ok, we'll see how long they leave this video up.










:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause:

[tdogg]

Wow Patrick, he's a Republican? I actually missed that in the article. Even more amazing.

Yes, very touching speech. I'm sniffling and have to go wipe my eyes and blow my nose. That speech was from the heart. :love:

[Zerbie]

Can't get the video to work. :confused:

[Daniel]

Can't get the video to work. :confused:

When I click it on, I get a message that says that the video is not longer available. Too bad I missed it! :unhappy:

[tdogg]

He was fighting back sobs as he mentioned how he really thought about this issue the night before, when he thought he was ready to veto the resolution. After searching his heart, he decided that he had to do the right thing, that he truly did not feel that civil union was equal, that no one had the right to tell anyone they were not as good as the next person. The most touching words were mentioning his lesbian daughter and the GLBTs who worked for and around him. He said that he would not have been able to look them in the eyes if he vetoed the resolution, that it would have been basically saying they were not as worthy as others (heterosexuals). He hoped for them the same as everyone, to find a mate to share life with and be happy, and have exactly the same protections and rights as any other couple, such as his wife and himself share. Then he walked off with his wife.

Ok, it was WAY more moving hearing it from the source, but that's a very brief and considerably less emotional recap. It was awesome.

[Steven E. Webster]

I agree ... the only way I'm in favor of civil unions is if that's what the government offers EVERYONE ... take marriage off the books as a civil institution and let the churches have it. Make civil union the only legal relationship. Then I'll take it as equal for me. Of course, that's not even an option on the table ... so, marriage will do fine for me, thanks. (any takers?)

I think this point of view is a mistake. It assumes that marriage belongs to churches. It does not. Marriage is essentially a civil institution. That's the historical, legal and cultural fact. Turning marriage into a church sacrament didn't occur until sometime in the Middle Ages.

Protestant churches even treat marriage as a sacrament, even though Protestant theology says it is not a sacrament---so much for consistency.

Remember, also, that marriage is not just something that exists in U.S. law. It's recognized internationally. When we get married we want to be married everywhere we go in this ever-shrinking world. We don't want our legal status changing everytime we cross an imaginary line.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

I meant lets make marriage available to gays and make civil unions available to straights. For any couple that may not be ready to commit, just yet.

P&L, BC

I think the Canadian system is much simpler and more sensible than this. They have Common Law marriage. Essentially you get married simply by cohabiting with someone. "Shacking up" with your boyfriend or girlfriend will get you married, like it or not.

Our friends who live in Toronto says that none of the LGBT friends refer to their "partners" but to their "spouses/husbands/wives" etc. because they're all married!

When you think about it, it makes alot of sense. When two people have lived together for a certain period of time sharing their lives and resources together, they ought to have the same legal protections/rights as married people. What does a ceremony and a piece of paper add?

Steven W.

[antonyh]

This is perfect!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html

Not sure if the link will work, you may have to cut and paste onto the web address line but it's worth it. A court ruled in CA that a man must continue to pay alimony to his ex-wife even though she is currently in a registered domestic partnership with another woman. The reason? Registered domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, it does not afford the couple the same rights as marriage. You gotta read the article to get the whole picture, but what great fuel for our fire. Those involved in the SF lawsuits to have the state recognize their marriage (remember when hoards of gays and lesbians were married in SF when the mayor ruled it legal?), are not adding the language from this court action to their action.

This is really great stuff and has far-reaching implications!! :D:rainbow:

Thank you for sharing this. Maybe if heterosexuals realize that marriage inequality hurts them as well, we'll have more advances in civil rights. Maybe we should frame our arguments in a more inclusive way...like gay marriage is good for everyone and here is why....gay marriage is good for heterosexuals because...

[Zerbie]

Oh Antony, THERE you are!

The last few days I've been thinking you haven't been around. Haven't seen much of you.

Glad you're still here.

[BruceChris]

Steven,

Re the Canadian example: It would be nice to have some kind of formalization here. Are you saying then, that if you just move out, you have a Common Law divorce? I have had women roomies before, and the ONLY thing we shared was the rent.

(And in the case of multiple roomies, this would then be Common Law bigamy!)

And these days, does Marriage Equality automatically mean a Common Law marriage for two guys? Just think of the implications for college students, gay and str8.

P&L, BC

[antonyh]

Oh Antony, THERE you are!

The last few days I've been thinking you haven't been around. Haven't seen much of you.

Glad you're still here.

We're in our busy season at work (55 hour +) so I don't have much time at my disposal. You're not forgotten.

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven,

Re the Canadian example: It would be nice to have some kind of formalization here. Are you saying then, that if you just move out, you have a Common Law divorce? I have had women roomies before, and the ONLY thing we shared was the rent.

(And in the case of multiple roomies, this would then be Common Law bigamy!)

And these days, does Marriage Equality automatically mean a Common Law marriage for two guys? Just think of the implications for college students, gay and str8.

P&L, BC

I can't say that I really understand Canadian law. However, I know that when my friend who is living in a common law same-gender marriage in Canada was warned by his personnel manager that his common law husband has legal rights to his pension benefits.

I imagine that there can be legal issues involved in divorce from a common law marriage--in other words, if one partner was a bread-winner and the other a home-maker, the bread-winner might have an obligation to pay alimony to the home-maker. The homemaker might have a claim on a portion of the assets accumulated during the common law marriage. One can see the issues of justice/equity that might be involved in such a situation.

I'm no lawyer and no Canadian. But if common-law marriage can effect pension rights, I bet it has other legal implications.

I suppose it is also possible that a relationship that was ONLY a roommate relationship might not be a common-law marriage, but I could not tell you how Canadian law sorts these issues out. Usually, a marriage is something that has to be "consumated," so if there is no sex, maybe there is no marriage.

Perhaps also in relationships where there is no mixing of assets there may be no legal marriage. But when one has lived with someone closley for many years, it gets harder and harder to not look upon assets as mixed in nature. Typically, though, people who are only roommates will not stay together for a really really long time, and they will keep their assets fairly distinct--no joint checking accounts etc. No jointly owned cars, houses etc.

Steven Webster

[Zerbie]

We're in our busy season at work (55 hour +) so I don't have much time at my disposal. You're not forgotten.

Ahhhh. I've forgotten what your work is, tho I'm fairly certain you once told us. And you were contemplating a change of career direction too, weren't you?

Well - take time for you during this busy season (I'm wondering what on earth it is that September is busy season for, and all I come up with is "baseball" and I'm quite sure that's not your career. . . ah well.)

:D See ya back around when you can come up for air.

[Emproph]

CNN synopsis 1.5 min:

Mayor Reverses Stance on Gay Marriage - 9/20/07
xPl3xrG5_sI

Full speech:

Raw Video: San Diego Mayor Sanders Supports Gay Marriage
SnTwrnKb61Q

[Zerbie]

Oh how wonderful!
I'm so glad. :) Gee, I want to go hug that guy. :p

Thank you very much for posting this, Emp-sweetie. :love: