California Domestic Partner Law Effective Jan. 1

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122704calPartner.htm

A California law granting same-sex couples nearly identical legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses will go into effect New Year's Day.

The law expands legislation passed in 1999 that allowed California gay and lesbian couples to register as domestic partners. In 2001 the Legislature gave registered partners the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, to sue for a partner's wrongful death and to adopt a partner's child.

[Kikosexy2]

1. It's...

not marriage but a step...YEEEAAAAHHHH!!! But will Gov. Groper kill it?

[Florida_Geek]

2. As I understand it

this also covers all unmarried couples.

[Kikosexy2]

4. Sooooo..

fabu! But will Gov. Groper kill it? That freakin' android Gov. gives me the willies!

[Mz Pip]

7. Ahnold supports gay rights

He had the Traditional Values Coalition in a huge tizzy a few months back for signing some domestic partners legislation. Don't know if was this bill or not but that whack job Lou Shelton was all frothy and hyperventalating over it.

Ahnold would never make it though the primaries even if there was a Constitutional ammendment allowing him to run. The fundies would never support him.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[jdj]

15. but it is a brave new world. Look what specter went through,

I'd personally love to see a steelcage match between Gropinator and Dobson.

[Chipper Chat]

5. This will also cause a lot of young heteros to avoid "tying the knot"

by opting for domestic partnership (like in Norway).
So much for the "protectshun of marriage."
Lou Sheldon: Take your amendment and shove it!

[Be Brave]

3. Aaaaah, California the progressive state.

Way to go, California!

[eleny]

6. I hope that soon someone asks Dreier how he feels about it

[VegasWolf]

19. Hah! ask his boyfriend too. n/t

[Clayt]

8. The Governor can't kill it.

It was already signed into law by Governor Davis and takes effect on January 1.

It does not cover unmarried couples. Only those who file as domestic couples, which in this case is limited only to same-sex couples over 18 and opposite sex couples over 62 (I may have the age of the opposite sex couples wrong). The reason for offering domestic partnership for older opposite-sex couples is because they can lose certain tax benefits, etc. if they marry.

Basically what the law does is add "or domestic partner" everywhere in the California codes where the word spouse appears.

[hollywood926]

9. in defense of Ahhhnold...

he wouldn't kill it even if he could. He's more liberal than John Kerry when it comes to social issues.

[silverweb]

10. Marriage in all but name.

According to this LA Times article, a domestic partnership is pretty much equivalent to marriage in all but name.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-domestic1jan01,0,7970132.story

I hope this catches on among all couples, hetero and GLBT. Leave the term "marriage" for the religious ceremonies and the term "domestic partner" for the courts.

[StuckinKS]

11. The problem is...

that a state issued domestic partnership confers NONE of the rights afforded married couples at the federal level and there are over 1,000 of these rights. California's law also will not allow for joint state tax filing for DPs because the tax rules are so connected to federal taxes.

I also believe that if we could just change the debate on same-sex marriage and make it clear that no one is talking about "religious marriage", we might pick up more support for same-sex "civil marriage." The MSM never makes that distinction. Just this morning, my local paper in Wichita did an article about two preachers who will again be seeking a constitutional ban here in Kansas. The writer even included a box listing all the major religions' views on same-sex marriage as if this is only a religious issue. Aaaargh!

[silverweb]

12. I didn't realize that.

How can federal law come up with 1000 marital rights that cannot be applied at the state level? Egad! Do you have a reference for this that I can read?

Your points are well taken. I guess we have to stick with making this purely a civil rights issue -- Equal rights and treatment for everyone. Period. Why this simple principle cannot be applied is something I just cannot fathom.

:shrug:

[Misunderestimator]

14. Federal Benefits denied gay couples:

Follow the links on the page to read about
* Retirement plans
* Continued health insurance
* Social Security Survivor Benefits
* Taxation of domestic partner benefits

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=14362&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Misunderestimator]

16. An even better list provided as part of a GAO Defense of Marriage report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[skysurfer]

18. Exactly!

I still have yet to read or hear a logical argument against allowing gay couples to go to city hall and be married by a justice of the peace. While I realize that marriage has a religious meaning for some people, it does not for many others. Unfortunately, we've once again allowed the religious fundamentalists to take an issue, twist it around, and beat it into people's heads.

[pacifictiger]

13. its a start.

I seem to recall voting rights for women began happening on a state by state basis well before the federal level.

[jdj]

17. It feels so much to me like two nations now.

It spits in the faces of our soldiers that religious leaders like Dobson will get up in arms about gays but there's nary a peep from them about this war or the lack of body armor or armored humvees. It just isn't right.

[GOPBasher]

20. That's progress!

Yeehaw!!! It's not quite marriage, but it's pretty close.