Timing of push to legalize gay marriage (in CA) is questioned

Timing of push to legalize gay marriage is questioned

By Bill Ainsworth
STAFF WRITER

January 14, 2005

SACRAMENTO – Legislative backers of same-sex marriage are convinced that California is the great exception to the backlash against such unions evident in the November election.

Instead of retreating, leading gay rights advocates in California are forging ahead with an effort to pass a bill this year legalizing same-sex marriage even though 11 states voted to ban it last fall.


(snip)

Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, said passing a same-sex marriage bill could alienate moderate voters and provoke a backlash that might endanger the rights the state has given to gays and lesbians... In Michigan, for example, voters approved a measure in November that not only bans same-sex marriages and civil unions, but also could eliminate domestic partner benefits in contracts that cover state workers.

Canciamilla is a supporter of the domestic partnership law that took effect in California on Jan. 1. The law provides community property and parenting rights and responsibilities for registered domestic partners, including child custody and support. But it does not allow joint filing of state taxes or include about 1,000 federal marriage rights and responsibilities.

More..


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050114/news_1n14marriage.html

PERIOD!

Isn't that for the Fed gov't to decide?

That would make for an interesting legal case.

What if CA passed a law that said that same sex couples are entitled to all the benefits and burdens of federal law?

What would happen?

Federal Law would take precedent, the law you refer to would be an invalid law.

As you seem to indicate a state may not tell the federal govt what to do, now if you use the interstate commerce clause or other constitutional clauses thats where the Feds derive their power to regulate and to dictate to the states policy and procedures.

do you suppose that the legal interpretation could possibly be that the same rights and privileges apertaining to marriage, as specified by Federal law, would apertain to a domestic partnership arangement in CA?

but in my schooling I learned that the Feds can supercede the states (10th amendment not withstanding).

If a state passes a law that is not in conflict with existing federal law then no problem.

For instance a state could pass a state wide law legalizing same sex unions, or unmarried unions or both if the state so chooses.

This law could then me made to apply to such things as states tax, and benefits and also state legislated property rights, divorce law etc.

The law would not allow couples to apply for or use federal tax benefits or have any bearing on Social Security etc.

See the state can only legislate on a state wide basis, if their laws come in conflict with the federal laws than the federal govt wins.:hi: :dem:

as in this case, doesn't interfere with Federal laws (Federal law doesn't prohibit Civil Unions), merely applies the standard of "if marriages have the right/benefit/responsibility, then so do Civil Unions in CA," how does this get superceded by Federal law?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I neglected to mention that. I believe that ultimatly that is how same sex unions will become legal, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

But when (note not if) the Supreme Court of the US decides that issue (and they to my way of thinking may carve out a small exception for marriage due to the religious and long standing tradition of it) look for all hell (fig) to break loose.

Then the marriage amendment will become alot more viable then it is today, it could pass.

Any way that is a couple years down the road, all this stuff will have to work it's way through the courts.

And don't forget that the SCOCA could find that same sex unions are already protected by the CA constitution (see the San Fran case).

Intresting stuff.

I suppose what is the right time for them. February 30th, probably.

If people don’t keep pushing the envelope, nothing will ever happen! It still amazes me that people are okay with legislating discrimination. I still have yet to hear a good reason for not legalizing gay marriage that isn’t religiously based.

who may or may not be married.

Also, as a SACRED institution, Marriage should ONLY BE PERFORMED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

States should ONLY be granting Civil Unions.

Seperation of Church and State.

Such a simple solution.

And states have been issuing marriage licenses for a long, long time. If it's only marriage when it happens in a church, then the state has no interest in issuing marriage licenses. Since marriages also happen outside church confines, then states have a legitimate interest in regulating and defining marriage.

Here's a simple proposal: If the state doesn't grant all the rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples, don't tax them.

churches for the nod when deciding whether someone is married. States also provide a non-religious marriage "ceremoy," but you really have to ask yourself why do we even need the sham civil ceremony. Why isn't it enough just to apply for the license?

States should only be interested in the rights/burdens part of marriage. They should grant licenses to anyone who wants to sign up for those rights and burdens.

They should let churches make their own decisions about who is "married."

States should also get rid of the civil ceremony. It's a expensive symbol and a waste of time that doesn't really do anything very important from the state's perspective.

(Do we require people to have a ceremony when they buy a house or when they pay their taxes?")

churches for the nod when deciding whether someone is married. States also provide a non-religious marriage "ceremoy," but you really have to ask yourself why do we even need the sham civil ceremony. Why isn't it enough just to apply for the license?

States should only be interested in the rights/burdens part of marriage. They should grant licenses to anyone who wants to sign up for those rights and burdens.

They should let churches make their own decisions about who is "married."

States should also get rid of the civil ceremony. It's a expensive symbol and a waste of time that doesn't really do anything very important from the state's perspective.

(Do we require people to have a ceremony when they buy a house or when they pay their taxes?")

and states will HAVE To issue Civil Union Contracts because of Civil Rights and the need to protect people equally.

If two people wish to join their households and incomes legally ... then the Law must account for that.

to file income tax as "married" - or just cancel these different tables

and to automatically grant all rights of inheritance that are now given to married couples

both will have same rights.

You maintain that marriage is a sacred institution, and I maintain that it is a secular institution, and that Christian churches have only been "sanctifying" marriages since the Council of Trent (approx. 900 years ago), and provide numerous Internet citations to support my viewpoint?

Marriage CAN'T be a sacred institution unless ALL churches have the same validity! If all churches have the same validity, why are Catholics killing Anglicans (and vice versa) for being of a different faith? Why do Christians tell people in other faiths that they are going to hell? Why are so many wars fought over religion?

Because even the practitioners of those faiths acknowledge that all faiths are NOT created equal, and therefore, marriages "sanctified" in other faiths should have no bearing on the acts of the faithful.

Marriage is a secular practice that predates any religious practice used in this country, and MUST remain so, even if the State chooses to extend the honor of performing those marriages to churches of all recognized denominations.

Just because there have been SOME secular marriages doesn't mean MOST or ALL were.

Even more importantly, the IDEAL was NOT secular.

And again, as a Cultural Anthropologist, I will simply point out that Humankind has only recently seen Institutions deriving their power from the Will of the People.

and used by wealthy men to protect their property and to assure that their wives would perform their wifely duties. Prior to that, the Greeks used marriage for similar purposes, as did the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, etc., and in fact in some of these cultures, it was ILLEGAL for churches to perform the wedding rites! Further, in most of Europe, weddings were seen as being a secular matter until the COuncil of Trent decided that the church should be involved.

YOU decided I failed because of the quotations I used to show WHEN the christian church became "interested" and decided to make it a religious rite (two different times, almost 1000 years apart), and by intentionally misinterpreting what I put in my posts, and by failing to follow up on any of the research I suggested. I only FAILED because you are too obtuse and fixated on your opinion to entertain any serious research on the subject!

Should churches maintain their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform interracial marriages under any circumstances?

If a Church won't marry a couple for whatever reason enshrined in their dogma... and a couple WANTS a Religious-Type contract... then they just need to find a Church who WILL.

Should the KKK be able to get tax exempt status as a church?

marriage is a civil contract

if churches and temples and mosques or covens want to bless these civil contracts, they can go right ahead

I would legally seek relief via the IRS...a special "gay" deduction on my taxes. Gay people pay the same taxes as everyone else, but without the same rights and benefits in return, like all the other taxpayers. Of course, it's not the same as being treated equal, but it certainly would get Washington and the freepernation's attention if gays were allowed to pay less than their asses!!! You know how much they hate their hard earned bucks going to taxes! My sister's girlfriend actually came up with this idea one night around the dinner table - I thought it was a great idea.

If somebody doesn't understand the significance of performing forbidden marriages on Valentine's day, maybe they should look up St. Valentine.