The second part of that is true--rights afforded to marriages regarding property/medical/etc. at the state level (and don't kid yourself, this ain't much) are the same with civil unions and marriages. The only legal difference is that your domestic partner is not considered next of kin. To the best of my knowledge, spousal rights include all rights for kinship anyways.

As far as taxes go, Californians use the 1040 just like Nebraskans and Kansans do.

That's the point. Why would I even mention federal when refuting someone's segregation-based separate but equal reference if there is no equal to begin with? I'm well aware the rights don't exist nationwide, pretty sure no one in this thread has refuted that one.

It's really close. I also don't think many people dispute that. There's also a bad track record of really close not staying really true.

Let's talk about your specific concern for a minute, though. You say that people won't go along with sharing the word "marriage" with gays, and they shouldn't even fight for that. It would seem to me that you're just accepting a baseline of prejudice against homosexuality. Wouldn't that be part of the fight, though? Trying to force prejudice out of the picture? Finding equal protection and equal recognition? Pushing for a truly non-prejudicial law?

You're right, it'd probably be easier to accept civil unions with practically equal protection, but is it a proper choice? Really? Why settle for continuing prejudice?

I am called man. She is called woman. We are different. Together we are called people or singularly with no gender mentioned a person. Calling myself a man and her a woman is not sexist. No prejudice exists when I call my girlfriend she. I don't say Civil Union with disdain or a sneer. 90% of the time I just say significant other because I'm not even married to the woman I live with.

Think about it. You're not forcing prejudice out of the picture, you're fighting to redefine a concept that's already set. When I say SSFB (previously defined), I'm actually serious, just that a less ludicrous phrase should obviously be used. You're assuming that it's prejudiced for a religious person to practice their faith and observance of the word Marriage. Even if they don't feel any animosity or distaste for homosexual lifestyle you are forcing that perception onto them because they believe that the definition of Marriage is "One man, one woman". They aren't seeking to deny anyone's rights, they are adhering to what they've been taught. You're now denying their rights.

Sure, people can bring up philosophers of ages gone by who went against the "belief" grain, but if people can't draw a line of distinction between "flat/round world" and "marriage/civil union", then there really is nothing we can do to help them.

My suggestion would have been that Prop 8 target stamping out all inequality not related to redefining marriage. If a form exists with Marriage without mention of Civil Union, change it. Better yet, change both words to a neutral term.

Marriage as a concept is romanced by culture and media. I'd wager that a lot of people who fight for this redefinition were introduced to the marital concept as man/woman, but when their own likings no longer reflected this, they still wanted what they had always cherished as "marriage."

Xavius, I'm not sure why you brought up laws reagarding the filing for a divorce for a marriage that is allready in affect, to prove that before people get married we don't invade thier privacy.

Like I said before, not having children, or not being able to have children, or just being sexually incompatiable is enough reason to file for a divorce or dissolution of the marriage.

Dissolution is a choice that two people make to end their marriage, it is not a requirement imposed...

Divorce and dissolution of marriage are not the same thing as far as catholic church is concerned. That's because there's no such thing as divorce for them - you marry someone for the rest of your life. But if the marriage has been nullified - that's another matter.

Infertility though can only be a valid reason for a dissolution only if it's been concealed by the wife or husband before marriage. Afaik.

Dissolution of Marriage requires, by the law, NO REASON.

Nullity of Marriage requires reasons.

@daganev: I believe he was refuting the claim that infertility is grounds for a divorce. By providing evidence. Someone brought up the concept of it being valid, and he was answering that claim.

@desitrus: See, there's a hole in that logic though, because it also forces those churches that do include same sex marriages from practicing their faith on the matter. The way Prop 8 is currently worded not only prevents two men or two women from being married should they find a church wiling to do so, it also dissolves current such marriages, since they do not fit the state's definition.

@someone: Lack of Next of Kin rights can be devastating too, because it means that your spouse couldn't make medical decisions for you should you become incapacitated, or visit you if you were in critical condition. Unless you also explicitly gave them PoA. Or the like.

Wrong.


And wrong.

Did either of you stop for a second to ask yourselves why divorce courts exist before making these posts? I mean, I quoted summaries of the law above for you.

Aaaaand...



That's a spousal right in California.

infertility == irreconcilable differences

sexually incompatiable == irreconcilable differences

Cliff's Notes comments.

"Irreconcilable differences" applies to a no-fault divorce, in which both parties agree that they simply don't wish to remain married.

Adultery, inability to engage in sexual intercourse, abandonment, abuse, and infertility (which was not disclosed prior to the marriage) are a few reasons for "fault" divorces, in which one party files because the other could be considered at fault in damaging the relationship. (Prior to the introduction of "no fault" laws in various states, if sufficient evidence was provided by the other party, a judge could refuse to dissolve the marriage.)

They're not really interchangeable, and I'd really hope that something like sexual compatibility would either 1) be ascertained prior to getting legally married, or 2) worked on after marriage with the help of counselors, pastors, or what-have-you.

I'm gonna head the counter argument off at the pass and refute it before someone suggests it. The reason it's considered an at-fault grounds for divorce is because of the concealment more than the infertility. Personally if I were getting married, and were in the position that it would be an issue, I'd like to know if my husband/wife was shooting blanks/barren. Or any other long-standing medical conditions (s)he might have. Mostly because I'd like to think that my husband/wife would trust me enough to disclose that fact to me before it became an issue.

I don't know the reason (concealment vs. inability to conceive), but that sounds reasonable. (And most states have no-fault divorce laws at this point... I think New York might be the only one that doesn't, but I might be wrong.)

If that's in response to the last sentence, by the way, I was referring to the "sexual incompatibility = irreconcilable differences" bit, not infertility.

Sorry, sometimes I'm a little unclear when I'm sleepy.

Wow.

People are not only simply voting against this, they are seeking to participate in the legal battles of those gay couples lucky enough to have been married before this vote because they believe that the amendment to the constitution should nullify all marriages.

Also how awesome, in response to companies offering financial support to the anti-h8 groups, the pro-h8 groups actually contactes said companies to demand, or extort as people say, not only matching donations to their cause but the companies withdrawl of support for the anti-h8 groups.

I really shouldn't read wikipedia while on call >_>

CALIFORNIA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 2310-2313




2310. Dissolution of the marriage or legal separation of the
parties may be based on either of the following grounds, which shall
be pleaded generally:
(a) Irreconcilable differences, which have caused the irremediable
breakdown of the marriage.
( Incurable insanity.



2311. Irreconcilable differences are those grounds which are
determined by the court to be substantial reasons for not continuing
the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be
dissolved.


2312. A marriage may be dissolved on the grounds of incurable
insanity only upon proof, including competent medical or psychiatric
testimony, that the insane spouse was at the time the petition was
filed, and remains, incurably insane.


2313. No dissolution of marriage granted on the ground of incurable
insanity relieves a spouse from any obligation imposed by law as a
result of the marriage for the support of the spouse who is incurably
insane, and the court may make such order for support, or require a
bond therefor, as the circumstances require.


Irreconcilable differences is not defined, and can be as simple as 'He pisses me off ALL the time.' There is not even a measure of evidence in 2311, so the Judge/Commissioner is legally forced to agree with statements made by the two parties.

Yrael, that is one ugly dog

Did Yrael just call us all yappy little b****es?