Libertarian Party of California Backs Domestic Partnership Initiative

Takenaga has his history all wrong,

but whatever.  I'm not against this initiative, but I'm concerned with false reassurances like this one

When questioned about allegations that California married couples would lose rights in other states or countries if the initiative passed, Shams replied that this is a false dilemma: "In Denmark, my parents were joined in a civil union. What they had in actual fact in Denmark is called a marriage here. When they moved to the United States, they had no trouble getting it accepted as such. The same should be true for Californians moving to other places."

Unless specific legislation is passed in Congress and each state, a heterosexual CU or DP will be no more recognized in most states than is a same-sex one.  You cannot compare the treatment of foreign nationals with the treatment of actual American citizens.  Foreign countries have all kinds of explicit agreements with our federal government on this stuff.  States don't.  At least, not at this point.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 14:11:13 PM CDT

CIVIL MARRIAGE -INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING.

Civil marriage is understood worldwide. It is international case within the EU and elsewhere, that only civil marriage is reciprocated within the world.

Again, this is yet another heterosexist strategy to either appropriate the culture and nomenclature of marriage or else no one can have it. This is a ploy, however, because there would never be a national US universal acceptance of changing marriage to partnerships. Forget state to state laws.

Japan, which has just accepted foreign same-sex marriages for its citizens, who for example, marry in Canada will be reciprocated and accepted as legal for gays in Japan. It does not accept civil partnerships in the United Kingdom for example as equal to marriage.

The Republican Scandanavian countries have marriage. What confuses the writer is that the civil marriage is contracted before the Mayor ( or his representative )at City Hall. That is all that is needed, yet if they are Lutheran etc...they will go to the Church to receive the Sacrament. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, all constitutional monarchies, the Lutheran Church is the official church of the nation and of the Royal Families.

Do not be fooled. Marriage is Marriage. It is the only document that produces federal rights in the US if you are straight....and the only document that is reciprocated worldwide. Any other information is pure rubbish.

 

---

by: BISHOPRAYMOND @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 17:25:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey bishop....

that's the whole point of this initiative....the "people" voted that here in California marriage was one man one woman...now out of protest some people are proposing basically doing away with calling a state legal relationship 'marriage'.

Same name for everyone...

Couple years back up in Washington after the State's Supreme court ruled that marriage wasn't a right required to give to everyone because, gee after all, marriage was for procreation, a group registered an initiative there for the ballot that required married persons to get and fulfill a 'procreation' certificate within three years..

Both of these initiatives are good theater and promote discusion.  I would sign this petition for the California ballot if it was presented to me.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 18:29:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

several european countries have more than one "flavor"

of marriage(ish) to choose from.  the netherlands is a good example.  you can get married or you can get a civil partnership which covers less legal ground.  both are open to and used by s-s and d-s couples.  i'll leave it up to you to do the research on sweden, because it is clear that you really need to do some research.  you seem to have some very strong opinions without bothering to get the facts first, if i may say so.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 18:35:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Need to have 200

 ballot initiatives on the ballot.  Load that sucker up with serious and laughable initiatives.  Make it so part of the initiatives require a NO vote to get what you want.   Have a few protecting the mating habits of tree frogs.   Make it unconstitutioal for the grocery clerk to squash a loaf of bread.  No eating cabbage on Tuesdays.  Then slip a few serious ones in between, that way voters will truly have to study to make sure they vote correctly.

 Oh the fun of outlawing eating the center out of a oreo cookie a violation of the constitution.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 21:32:59 PM CDT

Um

"anyone that wishes can still have a traditional marriage ceremony performed by their church."

A: that was already true with the secular definition of marriage as a legal contract, and

B: this wouldn't address the social aspects, which shouldn't just be ignored; straight people would still run around claiming to be superior and that God is on their side. Which I don't think should have anything to do with the secular law, but then don't pretend this would solve the "culture war" either.

---

by: Eshto @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 22:38:55 PM CDT

What this WILL do

is reveal the hypocrisy of the people who only want to "protect the word."

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 23:02:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

why is the fact

why is the fact that marriage was originally a civil legal institution and NOT a religious rite always ignored in these discussions?  It was the religious institutions that stuck their noses into the "marriage" business, not the other way around.

Marriages used to be considered not worthy of even being "blessed" by the church inside the church building.  When a couple wanted their "marriage" blessed, their clergy person would step outside onto the steps of the church to perform the blessing.  Marriage was considered to "icky" an institution to be blessed inside the church.  

---

by: timNC @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 23:06:17 PM CDT

It's ignored because

addressing it would require admitting that the theocratic right wing has been lying, and doing that is currently unacceptable to the mainstream media.  Even implying that their "deeply held beliefs" suggest ignorance of history is out of the question -- so we'll continue to have the media repeat every lie the right wing tells about us, their rewriting of the history of marriage included.

---

by: M @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 01:06:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Domestic partnership

Why does there even have to be the assumption that a domestic partnership involves sexual partners? Is there any reason that a domestic partnership couldn't be like a business partnership, just... well, "domestic"? By having a domestic partnership with full rights, it could be between any two adults, for whatever reasons. There are many examples of possible reasons this arrangement might be desirable: an elderly aunt being cared for by a niece, or two widows who aren't interested in getting remarried, two confirmed-bachelor brothers, etc. There is no implication of any particular relation, but just a mutual and legal arrangement, with given rights and responsibilities. (And it requires a legal procedure to dissolve it.)

Then churches are free to perform, or deny, any kind of "marriage" they want. It's just that a religious marriage has no legal implications. They could even allow someone to marry his dog, if they wanted. But it would be no more than that, a religious ceremony.

-Ted

---

by: mandt @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 00:10:00 AM CDT