Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Wa State voters approve "Everything but Marriage" bill, Maine votes to repeal it

ljs

By ljs
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

HailYeah

HailYeah

Posted
Posted
You know what's really pathetic? That this is obviously a discrimination-by-class issue, that the federal government should be fixing (or in today's politics, the liberal party), yet the government is ignoring it or worse, sticking by the status quo. So it ends up being left to ordinary citizens to deal with in referendums, and is relegated to a state's issue rather than a Constitutional protection issue. It's a total cop-out by the Democrats, who should be rallying behind full legal gay marriage. And who should've filibustered DOMA. Pathetic!

1. Due to Defense of Marriage Act, a couple marrying in a state that grants full state rights (such as California) cannot have that marriage recognized if they move to a state that doesn't. So, that's not like "normal" marriage.

2. Also legislated via DOMA, a same-sex couple receives no federal benefits that opposite-sex marriages do, even if they were in a civil union, and even if a state like Massachusetts grants them full state marriage rights.

No civil union in the US has all the same perks as a federally-recognized marriage.

Wait, so you're saying its a Civil Rights issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ljs

ljs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I still don't believe there are gays in Idaho. :D

:wavetowel

To you anyway. Makes no difference to me. I don't care if two women want to get married, as long as they are the same race.:silly:

good thing a black woman and white woman werent trying to marry in Lousiana...

Larry, I'm trying to find the exact 'script' of the law, but here is what i have so far per a ballotwiki. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Referendum_71_(2009)

Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

The State of Washington has had a law on the books for several years that grants domestic partnership rights. The 2009 law that is the subject of this petition expanded the rights available under pre-existing law to:

  • Add registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples.

  • The remaining areas of state law include adoption, child support rights and obligations, pensions and other public employee benefits.

  • The right to receive notifications and benefits allowance as partners of victims.

  • Business succession rights.

  • Legal process rights (the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge).

  • Allow domestic partners to use sick leave to care for a spouse.

  • Grant to domestic partners the right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.

  • Grant to domestic partners the right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits.

  • Grant variouis other insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.

The pre-existing law granting domestic partnership rights:

  • Provides hospital visitation rights

  • The ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations

  • Inheritance rights when there is no will.

  • Gives domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

  • Grants opposite-gender seniors the right to register as domestic partners.

The pre-existing rights will not be changed regardless of what happens with Referendum 71.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted

OK bit confused here. The Washington law is "everything but marriage." I assume that means it does not recognize these unions as marriage but provides all the de facto benefits of a marriage. I thought that is what the big hang up is in the gay community (ie they want fully recognized marriages approved by all as such, civil unions not being enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perky72

Perky72

Posted
Posted
OK bit confused here. The Washington law is "everything but marriage." I assume that means it does not recognize these unions as marriage but provides all the de facto benefits of a marriage. I thought that is what the big hang up is in the gay community (ie they want fully recognized marriages approved by all as such, civil unions not being enough).

Well, it provides the de facto STATE benefits of marriage. Not the 1138 federal benefits of marriage. Also, it only provides the Washington State benefits. A couple with a gay civil union there is stuck there if they want to continue receiving their benefits; if they move to a state that doesn't recognize their union they will be out of luck.

Civil unions are not enough for equal rights, as long as the above differences in rights remain true. And obviously, as long as many states don't offer the same benefits to civil unions as they do to marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ljs

ljs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As far as I know the right to marry is not denied to anyone.

um, I am not allowed to get married to the person I would want to marry. I see where you are going with it- your response would be, "but you could marry a man." well, that would be about the same as if you did.

I am not saying there isn't a penalty. But this has nothing to do with marriage laws and everything to do with SS laws.

you really think people are going to be able to change federal SS laws?

OK bit confused here. The Washington law is "everything but marriage." I assume that means it does not recognize these unions as marriage but provides all the de facto benefits of a marriage. I thought that is what the big hang up is in the gay community (ie they want fully recognized marriages approved by all as such, civil unions not being enough).

which is something I laughed at. Basically this gives every single right to a couple that "marriages" have, just not the name. That is the heart of the issue- the rights.

A very close friend of mine was injured in a Ski-Do accident nearly 10 yrs ago. She suffers issues with her pancreas, is in and out of the hospital and can no longer work. She and her partner have been together almost 20 yrs now. 4 yrs ago her partner was fired from FedEx due to taking too many sick days when her partner had surgery and was in the hospital for 3 weeks. They were not covered as spousal sick days. She had been employed by FedEx for 17 yrs, and never had any discipline issues. She spoke to several attorneys, but there is nothing she could do- FedEx had every right to fire her.

Now with this law, she would never have lost her job.

Those are the things people are wanting-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

I do not like the idea of civil rights issues being a majority rules situation. I guess it gives the idea more "credibility" or something. But when would inter-racial marriages have become legal in all 50 states with this approach?

I have a feeling that Ted Olsen - of all people - is going to make this issue go away for good once he is done with the Prop 8 case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...