I noticed back in November 2008 that still hasn't been addressed in the discussion over then neutering of marriage, especially as it relates to California's Marriage Amendment. As I've written numerous times, California already treats domestic partners as spouses.
But notice that such domestic partnerships are only available to same-sex couples, and not offered to both-sexes couples unless one of the individuals is over a certain age.
Where have all these "equality" activists been when it comes to such "inequality"? They keep telling us that domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage, that the word marriage carries with it certain things – which might precisely be why a both-sexes couple might prefer to get a domestic partnership instead of a licensed marriage.
That domestic partnership law proves that state policy includes treating different kinds of relationships differently. I don’t see how the California Supreme Court could order the neutering of marriage licensing without also ordering that domestic partnerships be offered to both-sexes couples whose members are of any adult age. Perhaps all domestic partnerships should be immediately dissolved?
Unless you have been calling for domestic partnerships to be opened to both-sexes couples, you have less credibility if you are now insisting on marriage neutering under the guise of "equality"
At the time I first wrote about this, I said I actually like the domestic partnership law, by the way, and do not want to see domestic partnerships dissolved. However, seeing has how they are used as Trojan Horses to neuter marriage licensing by court, I have since told people in other states they should oppose them. The very people who push for domestic partnership laws turn right around after they pass and call them insults.
But notice that such domestic partnerships are only available to same-sex couples, and not offered to both-sexes couples unless one of the individuals is over a certain age.
Where have all these "equality" activists been when it comes to such "inequality"? They keep telling us that domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage, that the word marriage carries with it certain things – which might precisely be why a both-sexes couple might prefer to get a domestic partnership instead of a licensed marriage.
That domestic partnership law proves that state policy includes treating different kinds of relationships differently. I don’t see how the California Supreme Court could order the neutering of marriage licensing without also ordering that domestic partnerships be offered to both-sexes couples whose members are of any adult age. Perhaps all domestic partnerships should be immediately dissolved?
Unless you have been calling for domestic partnerships to be opened to both-sexes couples, you have less credibility if you are now insisting on marriage neutering under the guise of "equality"
At the time I first wrote about this, I said I actually like the domestic partnership law, by the way, and do not want to see domestic partnerships dissolved. However, seeing has how they are used as Trojan Horses to neuter marriage licensing by court, I have since told people in other states they should oppose them. The very people who push for domestic partnership laws turn right around after they pass and call them insults.
Mr Walrus writes: "I don’t see how the California Supreme Court could order the neutering of marriage licensing without also ordering that domestic partnerships be offered to both-sexes couples whose members are of any adult age. "
ReplyDeleteCourts consider the cases that are brought before them. They do not self-initiate constitutional review of laws as they are passed. The only way the court would take up a review of the domestic partnership law(s) would be in some of the good people of California were to file a complaint pertaining to those particular laws.
It is possible that the court's ruling on some other case might establish a precedent effectively invalidating the domestic partnership laws.
The Domestic Partnership law was was invoked in the court cases and used as a justification for neutering marriage licenses. Neutering marriage licenses but not putting gender integration into the domestic partnership law was selective, arbitrary, and inequality.
Delete