Well, no, but (at least as it pertains to the IRS) that’s a federal law that wouldn’t have been altered by the outcome of Prop 8.
As i understand it, gay married couples (and, indeed, people in civil unions) can file their California state taxes jointly, but they have to file their federal taxes separately, as individuals. I imagine, given the already rather byzantine nature of tax procedures, that the different filing procedures causes these folks some additional angst and paperwork at tax time.
I say we make a vote. Non-white people can enjoy all the rights of human beings, we just won’t call them “human beings.” Think that’d fly?
I didn’t think so. Same thing with the word “marriage.” You call something what it is, because to do otherwise is to imply second-class citizen status.
So you think that there should be a separate institution for gay people (civil partnership), that is equal to the institution enjoyed by straight people (marriage).
Yeah, no bigot has ever shared that belief about anything. :rolleyes:
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn’t know what the specifics were, just guessing. I believe that even gay couples can benefit from a good tax preparer who knows his/her way around the byzantine nature of tax procedures. I know I do.
But as it stands now, despite the Full Faith and Credit Clause, California domestic partnerships do not grant gay couples the same rights as marriage would because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Right?
Portability across state lines. If I get a domestic partnership in California, I’m not married in Massachusetts. I also don’t have a domestic partnership in any other state in the union, even those that have their own domestic partnership laws.
In addition to that, a separate legal institution for gays remains vulnerable to laws specifically crafted to disenfranchise gays. As it stands, a law could be passed reducing the rights of domestic partners without affecting married couples. If there were only one marriage law, gays could not be targetted without also affecting straights. Considering that the actual goals of the Prop. 8 movement (your own personal beliefs aside) is to, in fact, reduce the rights of homosexuals, this is not an unwarranted concern.
Actually, even if Prop 8 had been defeated and same-sex marriage were still available in California, other states would not be compelled to recognize California marriages. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act specifically says that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage conducted in another state.
So far, the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases challenging DOMA, and there are also legal scholars who believe that, even if DOMA is repealed (something that is apparently on Barack Obama’s agenda), the Full Faith and Credit Clause would still not require recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages, particularly if those states have passed their own laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Yes, it’s already been turned into a joke, a mockery. Sorry about that. “We” didn’t do it. the damage was already done. This is a very weak excuse that won’t hold water. The issue wasn’t even about the WORD marriage. It was about the rights and privileges that are associated with it.
Minor things that people “like you” take for granted.
The ability to love and live with the person of your choice, and not having to worry about some employer or bureaucrat “taking exception” to it.
The ability to take care of that person in sickness and in health, and in the end of a hopefully long and happy life, to bury them according to their wishes.
The ability to provide health coverage and life insurance in case something happens.
And ummmm a few other things.
So, no, your argument is weak. I suggest you rethink it.
The separate but equal nonsense you allude to has been covered in other threads. Feel free to search if you’re interested. I’ll just let you know here and now that the analogy you wish to draw fails.
No, there’s not. The concept of competing rights means that if you give someone the right to do one thing, you’re taking away the right of someone else to do another thing. Allowing gays to marry does not prevent anyone else from doing anything, so there’s no question of competing rights.
Is it really that difficult to understand that the one right (to marry) opens up several other rights (listed above) and protections that are unavailable or not provided otherwise.
What’s the question? What rights would gay marriage supersede?
Well, I would like to think that it would have been a step in the right direction. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but there are usually pioneers and I thought California was going to be one. Shame really.
Prop 8 had no effect on any of the things you mentioned. Once again: gay couples enjoyed those rights in California before the vote and after. Nothing changed except their ability to “marry”.
So, no, your argument is weak. I suggest you rethink it.
That’s not what I meant. In the abortion issue, we have the competing rights of the mother and the unborn baby. In this issue we have the rights (perceived, but let’s assume real for now) of gays to marry and the right of the individuals in a society to shape that society.
Like what? I’ve asked several times. Did you read the California law I supplied a link to? Please list these rights you assume are being denied gays in California.
