California Proposition 8

[ponderingturtle]

What did we do before wikipedia?

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.

In my opinion, a some of them don't make much sense for heterosexuals anymore, either, but they once did.

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

I know the question wasn't adressed to me, but I'm not in favour of it, but hey, I come from a country where the State is willing to help those in this situation until they get on their feet and get a job.

 

[PhantomWolf]

As I wrote above, a marriage license is both a carrot and a stick. It's an enticement to stay together, not to get together. A couple may not want to take on the responsibilities of marriage. That's fine. But why should the state give them the benefits, then?

So taking a few of the WP listed rights... you don't think that unmarried couples should be entitled to the follow things?

• domestic violence intervention
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
• family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison
• Access to children's school records
• Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Making partners medical decisions
• Right to inheritance of property

"To accept this free cleaning, you also have to sign a contract to pay a monthly fee for regular cleanings, for as long as you own the suite." That's as close as I can stretch this analogy to what a marriage license really means.

But having a marriage licence doesn't actually cost you a monthly or even a yearly fee.

 

[chipmunk stew]

So taking a few of the WP listed rights... you don't think that unmarried couples should be entitled to the follow things?

• domestic violence intervention
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
• family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison
• Access to children's school records
• Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Making partners medical decisions
• Right to inheritance of property

*sigh* I'm not arguing that unmarried couples should be denied all the things that are guaranteed for married couples.

But having a marriage licence doesn't actually cost you a monthly or even a yearly fee.

It also doesn't come with a free cleaning. The point is, marriage carries responsibilities, enforceable by law, that couples shouldn't be forced into just because they live together.

 

[PhantomWolf]

*sigh* I'm not arguing that unmarried couples should be denied all the things that are guaranteed for married couples.

So what things should they be denied? And why?

It also doesn't come with a free cleaning. The point is, marriage carries responsibilities, enforceable by law, that couples shouldn't be forced into just because they live together.

O'm still looking for these responsibilities actually. Best I have seen so far is that getting married makes you a single finacial unit and that it introduces certain pitfalls that mean you aren't allowed entitled to some things single people are. I still haven't seen anything you are expected to so because you are married.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

I can't make a blanket statement that one or the other should never receive or should always receive alimony in the event of a divorce. However, I think ex wives should receive it a lot more frequently than ex husbands.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I can't make a blanket statement that one or the other should never receive or should always receive alimony in the event of a divorce. However, I think ex wives should receive it a lot more frequently than ex husbands.

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

 

[chipmunk stew]

So what things should they be denied? And why?

O'm still looking for these responsibilities actually. Best I have seen so far is that getting married makes you a single finacial unit and that it introduces certain pitfalls that mean you aren't allowed entitled to some things single people are. I still haven't seen anything you are expected to so because you are married.

This is getting way off topic. This has nothing to do with Prop 8 anymore. Please start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

It's not just a little sexist.

More later.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.

Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not just a little sexist.

More later.

Okay so it sounds a lot sexist....

 

[PhantomWolf]

Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.

Perhaps we should be though. Why shouldn't we go theorugh the list and see which of the rights should be extended to all couples who are willing to register as a couple. I know that some keep going on about "But it'd mean we have to change so many laws," but come on, is changing unfair laws what we pay politicians to do?

 

[Meadmaker]

Why shouldn't we go theorugh the list and see which of the rights should be extended to all couples who are willing to register as a couple.

What's the difference between "getting married" and "registering as a couple"?

 

[Darat]

I'm a tad confused (and I see Meadmaker is asking the same question) what is the difference between "registering as a couple" and "getting married" in your proposal?

 

[Meadmaker]

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

If we look at the list of benefits of marriage, using the wikipedia list as a good example, it starts with survivor benefits. Why? The answer is fairly simple. These benefits were defined at a time when women had, for all practical purposes, no independent means of economic support. When a woman's husband died, she was likely to be penniless. To rectify that, laws were passed that cared for widows.

Today, things have changed significantly. However, it would be foolish to assume that the situation is completely different than it ever was. The fact is that women are very likely to be dependent on their husband's income, much more so than a man would be on his wife. Those survivor benefits are still important even in today's society.

So, if a woman loses the support of her husband as a consequence of death, would we say to her, "Tough luck. Get a job." Why then would we say that if she loses the support of her husband as a consequence of abandonment?

Of course, in today's world, the sex of the two partners in those scenarios could be reversed, or we could make them the same. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean that the sex of the couple is totally irrelevant. While there are exceptions to every rule, in the general case, men and women behave differently, and are affected very differently by divorce. When a typical 45 year old couple gets a divorce, the man and woman face very different issues. I don't think it is wrong to acknowledge those differences in our legal system.

 

[Alt+F4]

What's the difference between "getting married" and "registering as a couple"?

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits.

I was referring to PhantomWolf's proposed scheme.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I was referring to PhantomWolf's proposed scheme.

Try looking here. (though I'd almost say the fees are too high, but then I think it should be free.)


The law is here

Personally I'd get rid of this part though:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.

 

[Neally]

Well let's take California as an example. Those persons "registering as a couple" get all the same benefits as married persons under California state law, but the federal government still denies them about 1,000 benefits.

Do you have a link to the 1000 list? I can only identify a handful off hand.

 

[Meadmaker]

Personally I'd get rid of this part though:

That is a very interesting provision. It creates a way for an older man and/or woman to have all the state privileges/responsibilities of a married couple, but none of the federal privileges/responsibilities.


I wonder at the purpose of this provision. Is it to allow people to form some sort of California recognized union, without losing survivor benefits that might be lost upon remarriage? Is it to avoid the more or less automatic inheritance provisions that come with marriage, while allowing older people to create an official relationship?

Does anyone have any idea of how many, and what sort, of people have taken advantage of opposite sex domestic partnerships in California?


I think the very existence of this provision suggests that at least some members of the California legislature recognized that an "all marriages are equal" law really isn't what everyone was looking for.