Conservatives tell court domestic partner rights are illegal (CA)

Conservatives tell court domestic partner rights are illegal
By JIM WASSERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, March 25, 2005



(03-25) 19:41 PST SACRAMENTO, (AP) --


Lawyers for two groups opposed to same-sex marriage told a state appeals court Friday that a domestic partners law giving gay couples nearly the same rights as married spouses is illegal and should be overturned because lawmakers undermined the will of voters.


The law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis and went into effect Jan. 1, represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights after Vermont's recognition of civil unions for gay couples. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.


Opponents of the law told a three-judge appeals court panel that it violates a California ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, while supporters said the law was unrelated to the ballot measure. Proposition 22 passed five years ago with 61 percent support.


"What it does is it undermines Proposition 22," said Robert Tyler, attorney for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/25/state/n183423S79.DTL

to not conflict with Prop 22

they have been plotting it for awhile.

The rightwing websites deliver quite a bit of material for my blogging.

They are going to lose this one, though. One just has to look at the background of Prop. 22. There was no intent to ban domestic partnership rights, and that will easily be proven.

The wingnuts are going to lose this one.

From the Chron story:


This is the text of Prop. 22 — one of the shortest bills in history — in its entirety:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure adds a section to the Family Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of Marriage Act."

SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


CA Secretary of State - Primary Election 2000 - Text of Proposition 22



(Edited to indicate italic text via underlining, since I italicized the whole damned thing. Yeesh.)

Freaks just are looking for new ways to oppress people like me and my wife -- whose MARRIAGE (Wiccan style) hurts nobody.

And by the way, there's nothing those assholes can do to dissolve our RELIGIOUS marriage.

Only the official state recognition of it is lacking as yet.

At least we have a domestic partnership and a big pile of legal paperwork to back up that which we swore to each other on Winter Solstice in 1998.

:grr:

But, but - I thought one of the reasons for not authorizing gay marriages is that gays can have domestic partnerships. Just as good as marriage but not marriage. And now they're trying to destroy the partnerships.

When I heard that the judge called the gay marriage ban unconstitutional because of issues over "separate but equal" that made so much sense to me.

Most people confuse the realities of religious and civil marriage when the truth is that the two are frequently not the same. People get married by a justice of the peace or have a family member get a license to perform the ceremony - purely civil. Or you have a religious ceremony performed that has no civil standing. You can be legally divorced and still have to satisfy your church before they'll perform another religious marriage service for you. Forcing everyone's rights to civil marriage match someone's religious marriage is just wrong.

I'm a slow learner, but I'm finally catching on that the danger to our society isn't from the conservatives - it from the fundamentalists. It's a beautiful thing when someone can say "My faith is everything to me." It's ugly and dangerous when they say "My faith must be everything to you, too."

Kristen,
long-time lurker, occasional poster

that's the very core of the argument.

"It's a beautiful thing when someone can say "My faith is everything to me." It's ugly and dangerous when they say "My faith must be everything to you, too."

That's it, right there. In a nice little nutshell.

By the way- WELCOME to DU!