In some (normal) families one of the spouses stays at home and takes care of the housework even through they have no kids.
In some families one or both of the spouses sleep around, with or without the other spouse’s OK. I wonder if the later happens materially more often in same-sex families than in normal families.
dlv: “more paranoid piffle?” What planet are you on? How does my assertion indicate paranoia?
Orangecakes: see if you can follow me here -
-
The dicussion in the paper could’ve been about the CITY providing benefits,
-
to “domestic partner” couples who,
-
had registered under the STATE law, and
-
therefore it’s a CITY decisioin on how to implement the CITY responsibilities under STATE law.
Go figure.
In that case, I’d oppose it tooth & claw.
Monty, since I LIVE in the CITY and STATE in QUESTION, I can unequivocally tell you that there IS no STATE domestic partner LAW in OHIO, and LAKEWOOD is considering OFFERING domestic partnerships for CITY EMPLOYEES only, while the CITIES of CLEVELAND and OBERLIN wait to see what LAKEWOOD will do since they ALSO have similar QUESTIONS pending before their RESPECTIVE city COUNCILS. So quit with the condescension, OK?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Nice point, Monty. I’d suspect most people who aren’t actively involved in local government do not realize that in most places a large share of what the city/town/village does is done because state law mandates that they do it.
“Primarily homosexual partners”??
Well, this allows several possible interpretations:
- Measure the sexual encounters of the beneficiaries, and only extend it to those who have over 50% homosexual encounters.
- Measure the sexual orientation of the beneficiaries, and only extend it to those whose Kinsey figure is greater than 3. (Talk about thought policing!)
- (Removing tongue from cheek) Benefits are available to all registered partners, but newspaper is shorthanding the information to indicate that the orientation of the predominant share of registry users is homosexual.
Phil…on behalf of all of us, thanks for the clarification. But, like Monty, we weren’t aware of anything other than OC’s OP. And Monty’s spelled-out logic (which I for one didn’t see as condescending) would make sense of what was going on if there had in fact been a state law requiring city regulations. What with FormerAgent and a few others having brought up state laws or their lack, I confess I was a bit confused about who was actually doing what. OKay?
Please allow me to throw this into the debate:
If equal privileges are to be given to all domestic partners, why not multiple partners - In cohabitation and marriage? It seems to me that the current marriage laws and morals stem from a biblical origin which also frowns upon homosexuality.
If we toss the homosexuality prohibition and welcome all sexual predilections unto our institution of marriage, doesn’t it make sense to toss the monogamy principle and welcome all polygamists?
Other than morality (and insanity) what are the sound societal arguments against polygamy?
Hell is Other People.
Poly, normally I actually rather ENJOY Monty’s condescencion. I just didn’t get enough sleep last night.
Anyway, the reason this is becoming an issue at this time is that Lakewood has probably the largest concentration of homosexual residents in NE Ohio, and the city is taking the first baby steps towards legitimizing their unions. As I mentioned, this proposal will extend to city employees only, but Oberlin and Cleveland are waiting to see what happens before they vote on their own proposals. If these three rather large and influential cities take this step, it will eventually reach the state level and extend to all citizens.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
I raised this pount earlier in the thread. I agree that there should be a way for more than two people to enter a marriage contract that the state would enforce. Please note however that the Bible[sup]*[/sup] has nothing disparaging to say about multiple partners. Indeed, many important Good Guys in it had multiples wives.
[sup]*[/sup] Obviously, I’m not referring to the New Testament.
manda jo said:
Still not strictly true.A common law marriage does not only involve living together, but also representing yourself as married. You could live with someone for any amount of time, and if you never refer to each other as husband and wife, respond no to the question “Are you married?” and in general give people no reason to believe you’re married ,you won’t have a common-law marriage, and won’t need a divorce. By registering for a domestic partnership, you’re explicitly not claiming to be married .Also, as far as I know in New York, domestic partners have no legally enforcable right to support by the other partner during the relationship, as husbands and wives do.
Child support,custody and joint property issues have to be worked out regardless of the original relationship.If the relationship, (marriage or not )continues,child support and custody are not issues for practical reasons. If the relationship ends ( marriage, living together or even a one night stand)custody and support become issues. The same thing goes for property. If my brother and I buy property jointly, and we have a falling out, the property would still have to be divided in some way.
Doreen
An interesting point about gay marriage - it WAS legally sound in Illinois (starting FROM when I don’t know) until about 1982, when it was abolished by executive order by Jim Thompson.
While the original statute may not have specifically protected gay marriages, it did not prohibit them.
The sad thing was that gay couples who were previously married, had their marriages dissolved by this meisterstuck of innanity.
Even sadder is that many in the community felt it was due to Big Jim needing to appear on the right side of the fence in regards to an issue around which floated many rumours of a personal kind. (was that vague enough to avoid slander?)
The meeting is tonight so I will try to appraise you tomorrow.
Okay,the meeting was last night.The vote won’t be taken til,I believe,MArch,but it was SRO.Totally packed. People got up to speak. Lots of old men,saying they had fought for their country and the young peoples rights.There were definitely more opponents there.A young woman got up and cried because she couldn’t marry her love(a woman).They started out taking money:that financially it would cost each taxpayer(?) roughly 300 a month for these benefits. Then every decided it was really about whether people who werent legally married deserved the same status of men and women who are married. I’ll have to get more info from my friend,my son got bored and we left early.
Thanks for attending the Lakewood Council Meeting last night (Jan 10th), Orangecakes, and for your report. Today’s Plain Dealer said that there was some talk of putting the matter on a city-wide ballot. Any truth to that? Can you tell which council members are for and against the measure?
PLdennision - What info do you have that the Cities of Cleveland and Oberlin are closely following Lakewood’s decision (or indecision, for the time being)? Personally, given Lakewood’s demographics and reputation as a haven for gays, I don’t think Lakewood’s decision vis-a-vis domestic partners will ultimately carry much weight in Ohio beyond Lakewoods’s own borders.
Patrick, some of the PD articles I read prior to the meeting indicated that Cleveland and Oberlin city councils were somewhat fearful of being trend-setters on this issue, and wanted to wait and see. (Cleveland city council afraid to do something? Perish the thought!) I’m surprised Oberlin is waiting; the Oberlin College campus has some fairly liberal residence rules, and the campus usually has a liberalizing effect (to an extent) on the city, but we shall see.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
They will be voting on it Tuesday,I believe.I read 3/4ths of the council is for it,so I believe it’ll pass.We’ll see.
Orange,
Any update on the vote?
Not yet.I’ll have to call the church folks(obviously against it) to see.
Gee whiz,every time my threads die,someone pushes them back up again.Ow!
My friend did say,that if it Does pass,theyre gonna try to get a referendum vote to repeal it.
Indeed, the government should stay out of the ‘marriage’ business entirely, and provide ‘civil contracts’ to any two or more people that want them. There should be no penalties or privileges given to either homosexual OR heterosexual relationships, only preset legal arrangements regarding things like custody, inheritance, medical guardianship, sharing of fortunes/debts, etc.
Ideally, this contract would be a convenient way to bind yourself to one or more other people for a set period of time with a whole bunch of configurable options so that we don’t end up with lawsuits over things like custody of the child of a gay couple, medical guardianship rights of the parents vs. the gay partner, etc.
For a radically different atmosphere, take a look at the debate about this on the LBMB board (where I’ve spent eons trying to explain my civil contract idea):
http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-bbs/Forum8/HTML/001850.html
Meara