California Rules For Same-Sex Couples
According to the LA Times today, the California Supreme Court decided 6-0 on Monday that businesses must give spousal privileges to registered couples whether they are married or domestic partners. The case involved a lesbian couple who sued a country club in San Diego after it denied golfing privileges given to married couples. The couple claimed the country club was violating a state civil rights law, which ultimately California's Court upheld.Though a clear victory for domestic partner advocates, there is some concern that this might confuse the same-sex marriage debate. By giving spousal rights to state-registered domestic partners, the main contention for same-sex marriage advocates has now been removed. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer backed the Supreme Court decision, but believes that because same-sex couples have the same rights under domestic partners laws, there is no need for granting these couples the right to marry.
This might become the basis for a prolonged debacle over the discrimination issue and make the right of marriage a moot point. The idea of "separate but equal" might extend the gay marriage ban under the banner of good segregation. Rather than dealing with real prejudices, this decision might lead to a slew of "lesser evil" laws that will still deny fundamental rights to homosexuals but claim that other compatible rights will take their place. This claim assumes that there are irreconcilable differences between heterosexual and homosexual freedoms, so thus only equivalency is possible.
And that is the travesty in this decision. I hope this will be just another step on the long road forward not another step backward into bigotry and discrimination.
posted by the prisoner @ 12:33:00 PM
6 Comments:
I guess that is a silver-lining at least. What happens though when more businesses leave California, the housing market collapses, and the State starts a free-fall from 6th largest economy in the world?
Also, what is your position on churches being forced to marry same-sex couples?
Well, I don't believe that allowing homosexual partners the same privileges that heterosexual partners enjoy will cause a collapse of everything America holds dear.
But I don't believe the government should have been in the marriage business to begin with. It should be solely religious or social. So, churches should not be forced to marry same-sex couples unless their denomination decides to do so. The government should have no say so when it comes to the churches or other religious organizations.
We'll have to wait and see how far the collapse falls. A couple more questions in the meantime - why isn't a Catholic wedding among the "same privileges that heterosexual partners enjoy"? The Mormon Church can't legally marry a husband to 2 or more wives - are you saying that prohibition is O.K.?
why isn't a Catholic wedding among the "same privileges that heterosexual partners enjoy"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought only Catholic heterosexual partners could participate in Catholic weddings.
As for Mormon Church, I have nothing with consenting adults forming whatever relationship they want to.
As I said before, the government shouldn't even be in the marriage business. Any group should be able to claim the rights granted to marriage couples or take away those rights from everyone.
My hypothetical above assumes 2 Catholics in good-standing (just of the same-sex). You are saying it would be acceptable for the Church (as opposed to the country club) to discriminate there? Even if you think so, are you sure your fellow gay-activists do?
I disagree with the country club decision because of it possibly denying same-sex marriages down the road. Equating a non-profit organization (Church) for a private for-profit company (country club) is ludicrious. The comparision is tenuous at best.
But with the government being in the marriage business, then there might be pressure on an anti-gay priest to marry a couple if they want to have the force of law in marrying people. That comes with the territory.
As for the good-standing Catholic gay couple, though an individual congregation might embrace them, it is against official Catholic dogma. So, as the Church is concerned, they would not be considered in good-standing unless they made some attempt at rejecting their homosexual lifestyle. Ironically, Catholic dogma also espouses that homosexuals are born that way. So their claim is "It isn't fair, but you have to reject your feelings while heterosexuals don't have to." Ridiculous.
As for my "fellow gay -activists," we are united on ending descrimination based on sexual-preference, specifically homosexuality. Does that mean I am not an individual and tow some stupid party line on this?
No. And I am sure there might be other issues "they" might disagree on me on. After all, there are quite a few gay men in the Republican Party, so I sure don't see eye to eye with them most of the time. Republican gay men are actually predominantly in the pro-same-sex marriage camp regardless.
Post a Comment
<< Home