What rights do gay, committed couples not have in California that married folks do?

This isn't a passive aggressive attack on the desire to call a partnership between two people of the same sex a marriage, it's just honestly a question...

What's the difference in terms of afforded rights between a gay couple in a domestic partnership and a married couple in California? I understand the importance of "marriage" to the gay community. It not a matter of terms or semantics, it the recognition of equality. It's important. However, did the recent Prop 8 failure really change anything?

Well, for one thing, they cannot (after Prop 8) marry.

No.

Straights have the right to get a certificate of marriage issued by the state of California.

Two gay people of the same gender do not have that right.

is that the ONLY difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

Not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to figure out if there is any difference

You are succeeding.

Keep up the googling and wikipedia reading, and eventually you will have your answer.

including the right to file jointly, to have their estates go tax free to their spouse, social security survivorship rights, and on and on and on...

Or would Prop 8 have granted them those rights?

Prop 8 has no effect on straight married couples.

A loving gay couple get in an accident in Tahoe across the state line for example, and that civil union means nothing, they can still keep a gay partner from visiting in the hospital for example.

would it make a difference in Tahoe? Wouldn't Tahoe simply not recognize their marriage?

NORTH CAROLINA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE UNIONS PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES

There's no need to get defensive... it's a legitimate fucking question. I'm not against marriage for same-sex couples.

On the other hand, I really want to know if there is any substantive difference other than the certificate.

"Civil unions" could carry precisely the same benefits, but would still convey second-class status.

civil union or their domestic partnership, they HAVE no rights

How many states are there that offer these rights? 5 or 6?

what is it about that you don't understand?

that doesn't mean they WOULD have rights in those states... right?

States like GA, NC, FL, etc DO NOT RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX UNIONS

PERIOD.

of CAPS, without actually answering his question. I don't know the answer either, so I'll rephrase it for him, and you can either answer it or say you don't know:

Considering the following two statements:

1. A domestic partnership, issued in CA to a same-sex couple, is not recognized by other states.
   
2. A marriage certificate, issued in CA to a same-sex couple, is recognized by other states.

Is neither, one, or both of these statements correct?

That's what the OP is confused about.

The only thing I could find is that there is no "marriage certificate" and that they can't file joint state income taxes (although one site said they could).

A legal contract made in one state must be honored in all others. It was the basis of the Dred Scott decision.

Has this issue gone to the Supreme Court yet? From a constitutional perspective there's really no doubt about it.

our union would not be recognized by NC

I wonder if anyone has challenged that before the Supreme Court yet.

'cause it says that no state has to treat a same-sex relationship as a marriage nor will the Federal govt treat relationships as marriages. Which is relevant to my situation since my partner is a federal employee. I get none of her bennies nor do I get any kind of survivor bennies (retirement etc)

Neither did a lot of people who voted against it.

I could understand if no one wants to take this to the Supreme Court if they think they'll lose anyway. Just because the Constitution grants a right doesn't mean that every court will recognize it. But there's precedent to strike down DOMA and force all states to recognize gay marriages made in any other state. Maybe now is the time to push the issue.

It specifically deals with state governments recognizing the issuance of licenses, certificates, etc from other states.

don't feel like you have to support full marriage equality?

Why else would you ask this question?

WTF?

If you want a clear answer about the legal differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, I suggest you ask a lawyer in California instead of a bunch of people on a discussion board.

People have tried to answer you in a variety of ways, and you keep asking for a strict clarification. I don't think you'll be satisfied with any answer unless you hear it from a lawyer.

Knowing the legal differences between civil unions and state recognized marriages will give a person ammunition when someone says to them that civil unions are juts as good as being married so Gays don't really need marriage and what is the big deal.

do not have any legal standing in terms of private entities.

Their employers are not bound by DPs to offer benefits to partners of employees, and if they do those benefits are counted as income and are taxable on state and federal levels.

Private entities also can deny things like hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions to Domestic Partners.

DPs also aren't recognized outside the state of California.

Thanks

bottom line.

If a particular group is treated differently--in any way--what message does that send to the people who are being discriminated against? It marginalizes them. As you can see from the numerous threads and intense emotional reaction here, they hurt as a result of this marginalization.

Legalities aside, the reason I oppose a ban on Gay Marriage is because it is not in the spirit of the United States of America. It is causing significant pain to a group of people who have done nothing to hurt anyone, and who simply do not deserve this treatment.

We've been through all of this before with other "groups." I am confident these bans will be overturned, but still: There is the cruelty aspect.

The people behind these propositions wanted to hurt a group of people who have not harmed or done anything to any of us.

We need to figure out what is wrong with the American Psyche that we would want to hurt these individuals.

That's my two cents.

I'm going through the process now of figuring out how I can help in this fight. Because this is just as wrong as anything can be.

other than the right to be "married".

about this too.

I need to get up to speed. Apparently, for example, if I were Gay and my lover was hospitalized I might not be able to obtain visitation rights. There are also more technical taxation and insurance issues, but I'm definitely ignorant on this front.

Good conversation though.

Mike

My understanding at least.

Thank you for asking it and welcome to DU.

But that's it.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/gaymarriageinformation/f/CADPvsMarriage.htm

Obviously, as I said, "marriage" isn't a small thing and it certainly marginalizes the group. However, that argument holds little weight to some fence sitters.

I hate when people assume that a question can only be asked in the negative.

I'll bet there are some lawyers that are pissed.

can you please post the differences and help to educate those who want to know? Putting this into focus will help others see why this is an important issue...
Thank you

in all states.

And that would have happened pretty soon. The Constitution says that a marriage in one state has to be recognized in all other states. I don't think it would take too much work to prove that.

Then those couples would have had every right and security afforded to those of us who are already legally married.

So something that was very close is now further away.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

That isn't an amendment, and the Constitution trumps all else, so if it wasn't added as an amendment to the Constitution I think that could get struck down by the SCOTUS if challenged too.

I was thinking that you meant that once a couple got married and it wasn't recognized by another state, that they'd have a supreme court case on their hands that would force recognition by the other states under equal protection.

The Constitution says that a marriage in one state has to be recognized in all.

Then we have a bunch of states that have things a lot like DOMA, and DOMA itself. But those conflict with the Constitution, and unless we have a majority of judges who are there for some reason other than to uphold the Constitution (and I know we have SOME like that but not all), the Constitution should win. No other laws, no state's constitution, can trump the federal Constitution.

have specifically asked gay couples woh are married in MA or CT and then move to another states NOT to sue until they are sure the votes are there on SCOTUS.

They may have five now (Kennedy is the fifth), but they would like to wait until it is a certainty.

and with Obama choosing future justices, I bet it'll happen within a few years.

is that Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, much to the chagrin of the religious right, wrote the majority opinion in the last two landmark gay rights cases. Both of which laid the foundation for an equal protection argument, which is where most folks think this will eventually be won.

I wonder why I never heard many people talk about this.

a great many people only hear (and think about) SEX.

That's why no one wants to discuss it.

As if hetero marriage is ONLY about the sex.

Christ on a crutch – when will we grow up?

particularly few boards that I participate in, primarily for black women, and this question came up a lot. The reasoning is that since more people would be ok with domestic partnerships than gay "marriage", that it should be ok as long as the rights are equal. If us straight people don't know the real differences between the two then we have no response to that question. While many might have a problem with "marriage" I bet a lot would agree that gays should have equal legal rights (adoption, etc) so if people explain how the legal rights are not equal then I bet some minds would change.

Period.

It isn't about semantics. It is about essential equality.

They had a right that had **finally** been acknowledged just denied them. When you lose a right, that's called a loss.

And to the implication .....

...... how did that "separate but equal" shit work out ...... yanno? :shrug:

of the marriage business all together. Civil partnerships should be the government standard, if someone wants a wedding ceremony let them go to a judge or a friend, or a church to preform a 'marriage ceremony ', but it should have only a private status and not a governmental one

Marriage, as currently consitituted in the U.S., is a very flawed institution. I would much rather see it become a private matter between two individuals, with all the legal aspects decided between them, and drawn up in a private contract. It is particularly bizarre that anyone would want to get married in CA, with it's antedelluvian alimony laws.

I am a gay man, and it rather astounds me that the highest goal of gay people these days is to plunge into the same relational cesspool that has plagued the lives of our straight brothers and sisters. I see no advantage in an "equality" that reduces our relationships to a legal definition. Further, why should married people have any special rights at all? That is the real discrimination that disturbs me.

Instead of pushing for the right to marry, why not fight for equal rights for single people? That would have the same legal results, and would take nothing away from anyone.

The highly emoptional reactions here illustrate that for many gay people, this isn't an issue of legal equality, but rather a psychological need for approval from society. Well, no legal decision is ever going to achieve that. And really, who cares? Fuck society.

I am old enough to remember when the gay rights movement was an integral part of the whole counter-culture movement. It was deeply leftist and radical. To see it reduced to a dreary quest to become just as boring and conventional as straights is deeply depressing to me.

As I understand it, the bulk of the rights that married straight people have that domestic partners do not have are Federal in nature. Prop. 8's failure would not have changed those.

I used to do taxes back in the 1980's, even got a stint working for H&R Block back in 2005 so I could check their online employee database on tax laws in other states. For Massachusetts, it was clear, a same-sex married couple could indeed file jointly, but only for MA state income tax. For the Federal tax, they had to file as single individuals, if there were a qualifying dependent, one of the couple could file as head of household.

To my knowledge, nobody's brought a suit as far as the federal appeals court system to have a state recognize a Massachusetts same-sex marriage under the full faith and credit clause. It hasn't been long since MA allowed out-of-state couples to marry there, so it's still early in the legal process.

However, when it gets to the US Supreme Court, what then? The only Justices that President Obama is likely to replace are ones that are already on our side. Not everything is recognized across state lines, just try expecting that with a concealed carry permit. In that example, the courts have recognized that states have the right to set their own public policy, and clearly, just about all of the "one man one woman" laws and amendments have been adopted in the last decade, so they're not "old law" that we've quietly evolved away from.

When Loving vs. Virginia struck down interracial marriage laws in 1967, there was only a small handful of states that had those post-Civil War laws on the books, and they were infrequently enforced. Homophobia has spread widely across this country, and by votes of the people. It's hard for me to imagine the Court as currently constituted using the language of Lawrence vs. Texas (which struck down laws on private behavior) to make the leap to striking down these bans, which deal with how a society is required to treat a same-sex couple. A vote against equality would remain as precedent for decades to come.

By the time a Supreme Court of the far future took this issue up, it would be most helpful if at least half of the states allowed gay marriage. That means that in addition to having it in the states where there is no constitutional prohibition (such as Washington and New York), we're going to have to convince some states that have stained their constitutions in this way to repeal those amendments. Seeing California join the list of states that need this type of change is obviously disconcerting to those of us who know what needs to be done to change this situation.