• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California Proposition 8

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

Not all of them I don't

[*]domestic violence intervention
Click to expand...

I don't think the laws should be dependant on married status
[*]next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
Click to expand...

I am perfectly fine with this. Just because you are living with a girlfriend, why should you assume that she has primacy in your life?
[*]family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison
Click to expand...

In general I am not against some rights, but don't have a problem with the rights being less.

The supremecy of the marriage bond over the blood bond is not a cultural universal.
[*]Access to children's school records
Click to expand...

I do not think your parents girlfriend should have access to confidential records. Maybe you have much weaker privacy laws in NZ.
[*]Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime
Click to expand...

This should probably be threats made to manipulate the employee.
[*]Domestic violence protection orders
Click to expand...
This shouldn't depend on marriage status
[*]Funeral and bereavement leave
Click to expand...

I am fine with this depending on marriage.
[*]Making partners medical decisions
Click to expand...

I am fine with this being dependant on marriage
[*]Right to inheritance of property
Click to expand...

I am fine on this being dependant on marriage.


A lot of this deals with who you feel has primacy in your life you want to make it the assumption that it is who ever you are shaking up with, I think that this is one of the important points of marriage, to give your partner legal primacy in your life.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can reach that assessment with out any need for baising on the basis of sex in the way you reach any decision. It is true that it is more likely that a man will earn a lot more than his wife, and the wife is often the one who makes carreer sacrifices, but it is the nature of their ecconomic and personal relationships that is the only thing that I think should determine the results.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Only those that the state has any control over. IF the partner is injured in a different state then they have none of the rights relating to medical decisions.
 
Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?
 
Meadmaker said:
The usual excuse that I have heard is that it would make the paperwork too complex.
Click to expand...
This is an overly-simplified explanation of a legitimate consideration in drawing the line at two.

If I have two spouses, and I get in a car accident and drop into a brain-dead coma, which one gets to make the final call to take me off life support? If I die, how are my assets divided? Which spouse gets shouldered with my debts? If one or both of my spouses also has a second spouse, are the new debts and assets transferred through my spouse to her spouse?

Am I eligible for health benefits from both of my wives' employers? Am I eligible to my wife's husband's benefits?

I wouldn't classify it as a complex paperwork problem. I'd call it an impossibly complex legal problem.
 
balrog666 said:
Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?
Click to expand...

Well the rights that marriage grants are not well designed to work for more than two people.

changing marriage so that it would work for multiple people is much more complex than extending its protections to more couples.

Such a change unlike homosexual marriage would need to involve the rewriting of many if not most laws and regulations that recognize marriage.
 
chipmunk stew said:
This is an overly-simplified explanation of a legitimate consideration in drawing the line at two.

If I have two spouses, and I get in a car accident and drop into a brain-dead coma, which one gets to make the final call to take me off life support? If I die, how are my assets divided? Which spouse gets shouldered with my debts? If one or both of my spouses also has a second spouse, are the new debts and assets transferred through my spouse to her spouse?

Am I eligible for health benefits from both of my wives' employers? Am I eligible to my wife's husband's benefits?

I wouldn't classify it as a complex paperwork problem. I'd call it an impossibly complex legal problem.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it is impossibly complex, just incredibly complex. And any solution would not match how some people want their marriages organized.

I just don't think that you will get the polyamourous and say those in favor of old fashioned polygyny to agree to a form that multiple marriage should take.
 
Gee, why limit marriage to just two consenting adults - why not three? Or a dozen?
Click to expand...
Why limit democracy to just men and women? Why not children and animals? Why can't I vote for several candidates at once? Why can't I have my vote count for 149 people? I mean, if we're going to tear down the tradition that's made democracy so strong for thousands of years, why stop at letting women vote?

Same logic.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am not sure it is impossibly complex, just incredibly complex. And any solution would not match how some people want their marriages organized.

I just don't think that you will get the polyamourous and say those in favor of old fashioned polygyny to agree to a form that multiple marriage should take.
Click to expand...
You're right. To be more precise, I'd call extending marriage to multiple spouses, in (or close to) its current form, a nearly-impossibly complex legal problem.
 
chipmunk stew said:
You're right. To be more precise, I'd call extending marriage to multiple spouses, in (or close to) its current form, a nearly-impossibly complex legal problem.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, and one that you can not get the people who it would apply to, to come to an agreement over its form.
 
skeptigirl said:
Goodness, no one has yet posted a link to "Prop 8 - The Musical".

3:16 minutes of wonderful merriment and political commentary. :D
Click to expand...

Good find, very amusing.

When I first listened to it, I thought they were singing Obama Nation rather than abomination cause hey, after all the president elect is a big no-no on gay marriage.
 
skeptigirl said:
'Obama Nation' is in the lyrics as a parody to 'abomination'. I think that part is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I get it. :)

Obama was quite the politician when it came to Prop 8. He came out against it, while at the same time stating he was opposed to gay marriage. Thus we welcome yet another hypocrite to Washington. Say hello to your Jesus-boy Obama supporters.

And yes, I'm pissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom