Patterico's Pontifications

8/3/2005

Dafydd: Domestic Partisanship

Filed under: Court Decisions,Political Correctness — Dafydd @ 5:00 am



[Posted by Dafydd ab Hugh]

A.K.A. “Why I No Longer Support Domestic Partnerships” #23.

This just in: the California Supreme Court has affirmed that private businesses must treat domestic partnerships exactly like legal marriages. Any benefits accorded to married couples must likewise be accorded to domestic partners.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California businesses must grant registered domestic partners the same benefits they give married heterosexuals, the state’s top court ruled on Monday after a lesbian couple sued a country club for discrimination.

The California Supreme Court’s decision expanding a state civil rights law stems from a lawsuit charging the San Diego club with denying the couple privileges enjoyed by married members.

For a long time, I supported the idea of domestic partnerships; I thought it a way for two men or two women to affirm their commitment to each other in a way that was fairly harmless to society. (I always opposed same-sex marriage.)

But now, no matter how much Americans oppose same-sex marriage — and despite California voters overwhelmingly approving Proposition 22, a state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman — the pro-same-sex marriage mob insists on ramming it down our throats. And if they can’t slip it in the front door, they’re perfectly happy to use the back.

When I realized this a few years ago, I changed my mind on domestic partnerships: I still think it’s a nice way for gay couples to commit to each other… but I no longer think it harmless, or even “mostly harmless.” I think it’s inevitably going to lead to full-blown same-sex marriage, unless Californians get up and re-pass Prop. 22, but this time as a constitutional amendment.

Even that might not keep us safe from the rampaging 9th Circus Court; but it’s the best we can do. And this is another reason why I will not vote for any Democrat for president until the crisis of Move-Onanism passes.

A pity, though. It would have been nice for there to be a way for gays to register their commitment to a monogamous or monandrous relationship. Too bad the activists had to go to the mattresses, forcing the rest of us to do the same.

38 Responses to “Dafydd: Domestic Partisanship”

  1. “And this is another reason why I will not vote for any Democrat for president until the crisis of Move-Onanism passes.”

    The natural progression towards liberation and equality is greater than just Move On, and will outlive it.

    actus (a5f574)

  2. “And if they can’t slip it in the front door, they’re perfectly happy to use the back.”

    …freudian slip? 8^D

    Progressives should restrain themselves to pushing for civil unions. In so doing they could remove some of the energy from this debate that is blocking what they – supposedly – want to achieve.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  3. How DARE those darn homosexuals demand that they not be discriminated against?!?!?!?!

    Homosexuals on the golf courses of country clubs. My heavens, the country is descending into hell.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  4. Geek –

    I have no problem with an organization choosing to treat gay relationships just like hetero ones. I could accept a state law mandating such a requirement. But, I just hate a court pretending that there’s a Constitutional basis to make such a requirement.

    David (7fbb2d)

  5. Anyone know if this law applies only to gay couples, or can hetero couples not wishing to commit to marriage become “registered domestic partners” (and thereby get the same benefits as could similarly registered gay couples)?

    Scott (57c0cc)

  6. I think the best way forward on this for employers is to limit the benefits they provide, and instead concentrate on salary. Most benefits should be such things as facilitating daycare for working parents. Health benefits should be paid for by the beneficiary, unless it’s the employee himself or herself. The employer can help by providing access to its group rates.
    I am not a believer that domestic partnerships are equal to marriages, but it’s difficult to accept that employee A should accept a lower salary so employee B can provide unearned benefits to a third party, whether that party is a spouse or a significant other.

    Rick (04f1e7)

  7. Rick

    I don’t think a business should be dictated to on WHAT kind of combo packages of salary/heath benefits/perks they come up with to attract talent.

    If a company finds it’s attracting and maintaining talent with letting family members of the employee fend for themselves so be it. But if a company finds that for them it makes more sense to offer health coverage that includes family members, should we tell ’em different?

    Same thing with benefits being extended to domestic partners. It should be at the discretion of the business.

    Darleen (f20213)

  8. “And if they can’t slip it in the front door, they’re perfectly happy to use the back.”

    Uh, given the topic you might want to rephrase that.

    Ross (3a4385)

  9. Can someone explain why the guy in the next cubicle should get special benefits for his male roommate and I should get none for my male roommate just because he is buggering his roommate and I’m not?

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  10. Doc don’t go there. Who knows what the courts might require next?

    john (fb05db)

  11. How about group marriages?

    TCO (3c2924)

  12. “Can someone explain why the guy in the next cubicle should get special benefits for his male roommate and I should get none for my male roommate just because he is buggering his roommate and I’m not? ”

    There’s more to marriage than buggering. At least for most people.

    actus (a5f574)

  13. I thought that Move-Onanism was cute. ‘Cause like, they’re on the internet, people on the internet like to look at porn, Onan was a masturbator, except he actually was just the first advocate of the pull-out method, which is how George Bush got that girl pregnant. I’m just glad she got an abortion, ’cause otherwise Bush would have shit all over his face when he talked about family values. ‘Cept now he has shit on his face when he talks about a “culture of life.” But that mostly comes from the fact that he has signed off on more deaths than anyone alive in America ‘cept maybe his dad.

    Well, now I know why gay people can’t get married. Because it’d be all hypocritical–I mean if they get married, then they’re probably going to want to get divorced, and right now the group of Americans with the highest divorce rate is Conservative Evangelicals, and they wouldn’t want anyone to challenge their record. However, that is mostly due to the fact that they are ungodly pricks, so if they let gay people get married, then maybe they’d be less fascist in their marriages and stay married more often.

    George IV (f5c6db)

  14. OK, Actus, what is there to gay marriage or civil unions that is so special that it demands that society provide special privileges that aren’t available to single people?

    They aren’t lonely like single people so they deserve special privileges? They have someone they can rely on to help them out in emergencies so they deserve special privileges? They have someone close to talk to about their problems so they deserve special privileges?

    None of those seem any better than buggery as a reason why they should be treated better than me.

    Help me out here, Actus.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  15. When I realized this a few years ago, I changed my mind on domestic partnerships: I still think it’s a nice way for gay couples to commit to each other… but I no longer think it harmless, or even “mostly harmless.” I think it’s inevitably going to lead to full-blown same-sex marriage,

    And this will be a disaster exactly why…?

    Bill Quick (779d15)

  16. “OK, Actus, what is there to gay marriage or civil unions that is so special that it demands that society provide special privileges that aren’t available to single people?”

    Pretty much the same thing that sets married heterosexuals apart from single people.

    “None of those seem any better than buggery as a reason why they should be treated better than me.”

    I’m very sorry that this is how you understand your relationships which are not marriages. Marriages isn’t like having a roommate. It isn’t like being single.

    actus (a5f574)

  17. This explains the Left’s obsession with judicial nominees. Democracy is the kiss of death to these people, so the courts is all they’ve got.

    Carlos (98df3a)

  18. Well, I have to take that snippy and content-free reply from Actus as an admission that he can’t think of any reason to give special privileges to gays who happen to be in a marriage or civil union. Can anyone else answer the question?

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  19. Bill Quick: the reason that gay marriage would be a disaster is because the gay rights crowd would then use the activist courts to destroy freedom of religion in this country. A legal acceptance of the principle that homosexual sex is on equal footing with hetreosexual sex would lead to every religious institution that opposes homosexual activity being sued out of non-existence.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  20. “Well, I have to take that snippy and content-free reply from Actus as an admission that he can’t think of any reason to give special privileges to gays who happen to be in a marriage or civil union”

    Its the same reason we give it to heterosexual marriages. This really isn’t that hard to grasp. In fact its the essence of the demand for equality.

    “A legal acceptance of the principle that homosexual sex is on equal footing with hetreosexual sex would lead to every religious institution that opposes homosexual activity being sued out of non-existence.”

    religious institutions that oppose unmarried heterosexual sex aren’t being sued out of existence, even though we have legal acceptance of that. Well, except when their priests are pedophiles. But that’s not really consensual sex activity, nor anything like a legal acceptance.

    actus (a5f574)

  21. I thought that people should be given the latitude they desire in sexual matters, but the concern for the strength and reproductivity of future generation, sways me to emphasise heterosexual marriage. .. unless such sufficient time like 500 years has passed where homosexuality has proven itself a viable and productive force and option.

    I wanted to know what Seth or Jane Roberts thought and sensed from one of her/his books that, its okay and that sexuality is more complicated than we can gather or fathom, and that, more importantly is the quality of the relationship, whether truly loving or not of the other and each other.

    Jane Roberts is in the league with some of the well known psychics of America.

    Yi-Ling (0ba7e6)

  22. “Democracy is the kiss of death to these people…” Wasn’t it the Republicans in 2004 who were talking about how we lived in a “Republic” and not a “Democracy” and therefore majority rule shouldn’t determine who is president? Anyways, our founding fathers would be quite adamant on this point–majority rule doesn’t equal democracy. Otherwise there is no point in giving “individual” liberties which are delineated in the constituion.

    John Locke (f5c6db)

  23. Actus: The reasons we do it for heterosexual marriages don’t apply to homosexual marriages. Homosexual sex can’t led to kids and society has no particular interest in making it easier for one member of a homosexual couple to not work. So your claim boils down to “we do it for equality” and then the obvious question is why married gays should require equal treatment but not single people.

    As to religious freedom: the fact that they haven’t won already doesn’t mean that they aren’t winning. The gay activists have been very effective in using the courts to force society to accept their lifestyle. Gay marriage would be one more step in the process and it would give them a great deal more leverage in court. Obviously they will exploit this leverage and the liberal judges will be delighted to help them.

    If we want to know what the future holds, we need only look to Canada and various European countries where it is against the law even to express your religious opinion that homosexual activity is wrong.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  24. John Locke

    Nice argument, but you are either intentionally or accidently leaving out the part where the citizens of the state of California actually put the question to a binding vote. That is democracy.

    Defense Guy (e22433)

  25. Doc, of course it’s true that “homosexual sex can’t lead to kids”, but that hasn’t stopped same-sex couples from having and adopting children, and in what I think are surprising numbers considering the biological, legal, and financial hurdles. You mistake the equality argument to be focused on the adults, when society’s interest in marriage is the nurturing of children. It benefits no one to have some children raised in relative instability, without adequate protections, on account of their having gay parents.

    Nels Nelson (741fd5)

  26. “So your claim boils down to “we do it for equality” and then the obvious question is why married gays should require equal treatment but not single people.”

    Because they’re not single. There are plenty of ways to raise kids without having sex to have them. Like our own current supreme court nominee shows.

    “If we want to know what the future holds, we need only look to Canada and various European countries where it is against the law even to express your religious opinion that homosexual activity is wrong. ”

    We certainly can look to those societies for their advances in tolerance, but not really for their infringements of speech, as they don’t have first amendment doctrines like we do.

    actus (cd484e)

  27. Sorry, adoption doesn’t work. Single people can adopt as well as gay couples. What if my single male roommate adopts a child and I want my spousal insurance to go to him so he can stay home and care for the kid?

    So here is where it stands: no one has yet given me a reason why gay couples should get special privileges that aren’t available to single people except for some vague appeal to “fairness” that inexplicably leaves single people out of the fairness equation and children, which, once you bring in adoption, do not distinguish between gay couples and singles.

    Anyone? Anything at all that makes gay couples like married couples in a context that makes sense for giving them special privileges that are not avaliable to single people?

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  28. “Sorry, adoption doesn’t work. Single people can adopt as well as gay couples. What if my single male roommate adopts a child and I want my spousal insurance to go to him so he can stay home and care for the kid?”

    Then you make a domestic partnership and get that. Everyone will be happy and joyous for your new civil union.

    “Anyone? Anything at all that makes gay couples like married couples in a context that makes sense for giving them special privileges that are not avaliable to single people? ”

    You really can’t think of what makes gay couples different than single people? Like love, relationships, making plans, building a life, all that stuff? You don’t notice that in couples, that doesn’t happen with straight people?

    actus (cd484e)

  29. You really can’t think of what makes gay couples different than single people? Like love, relationships, making plans, building a life, all that stuff? You don’t notice that in couples, that doesn’t happen with straight people?

    Actus, do you think it’s rhetorically clever to keep answering a different question than the one that was asked or are you really just dense? The questions isn’t “what makes gay couples different than single people?” the question is “why do gay couples deserve special privileges that single people don’t get?”

    If you don’t have an answer to the question I asked, there is always the option of not answering it.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  30. “The questions isn’t “what makes gay couples different than single people?” the question is “why do gay couples deserve special privileges that single people don’t get?””

    And the answer is that they’re treated differently becuase they’re different than single people. Because they’re more like married people than single people. And I don’t thikn that people are getting treated that special, and that married people are that privileged.

    actus (a5f574)

  31. Actus: once again you have answered a different quesiton than the one I asked. I didn’t ask why they should be treated differently, but why they should get special privileges. Your claim that married people aren’t getting special privileges is a bit obtuse in view of the fact that I have been using a specific example of such a privilege during this discussion.

    As of now, Actus, I’m considering you a troll. You constantly twist my words and take quotes out of context and you seldom actually respond with any content. Your answers always seem to boil down to “that’s obvious” or “I can’t believe you don’t know that”.

    Either you don’t actually have any answers or you are being deliberately obnoxious. Either way, you are a troll.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  32. “Actus: once again you have answered a different quesiton than the one I asked. I didn’t ask why they should be treated differently, but why they should get special privileges.”

    What’s “special” to you is the same as different in this case. So i’m answering your question.

    actus (a5f574)

  33. doc rampage— There is no excuse for your continuing dialogue with actus. He like all liberals nowadays is incapable of thinking beyond his prejudices and fanatically held dogma. Consider, for discussions sake, the present argument about gay marriage which came about because the Mass. Supreme Court decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right and the fear that through the “full faith and credit” interpretation of the U.S. Constituion would require that all other states enforce those Mass. gay marriage provisions. In the period before the Mass. Court decision, there was a huge scandal involving the homosexual priests of the Catholic church molesting HUNDREDs of THOUSANDS of boys. Talk about a cognitive disconnect!! So what was the Liberal’s response in Mass. to this homosexual problem? Why gay marriage of course. Consider the argument of liberals concerning the Iraq war that it was a unilateral war. How could they make that argument when in fact there were over thirty other nations helping the U.S. and Britain? Once again cognitive disconnect. Consider the social problem that only 46% of black males graduate from high school and only 15% graduate from college while over 36% of black females graduate from college. only 32% of white males graduate from college.Note that 35% of all black males have been in prison. So why is national health care, gay rights, hating republicans and anti-war politics the entire basis for the Democratic agenda? There was not one mention of the problem of male education and incarceration in any of the left’s agendas. The reason for this is that the Liberals quit solving problems decades ago and have been on a political jihad ever since. Actus and his fellow liberals are in fact intellectual ciphers filled by the New York Times and the rest of the Liberal MSM. Like the DAILYKOS readers, he yips and yaps to whatever tune is played. If he is told to lay down, roll over and bark like a dog, he lays down, rolls over and barks like a dog. There is not one independant thoughtfrom any of these ciphers. If there were ANY thought going on in the liberal side of politics, then you would have education of males as one of their top priorities so as to lower the unbelievable huge numbers of males in jail. Whenever white males are less likely to graduate from college that black females and black males are nearly nonexistant in colleges except for athletic events,you would think someone might figure there is a problem. But noooooooo. YEH–gay marriage along with national health care and the environment are the main needs of this country yada yada yada yip yup yip yup. No need to think for yourself when you’ve got Kos and the other boobs doing it for you. yip yip yup yup yip yip yup yup.

    john (fb05db)

  34. Does this mean that in California one of the members of the gay couple can tee off from the womens’ tees?

    On a more serious note, the domestic partnership issue is being peddled as a commitment / love/ relationship issue when its mostly an economic issue. Part of he answer is for companies to offer fringe benefits in the form of cafateria plans where employees of equal position are provided with an equal dollar amount for fringes, regardless of their marital / sexual preference status and they select what fringes to purchase. You wnat health insurance for your wife, child, gay partner, pick that. Your single, put the extra dollars into retirement accounts or extra vacation.

    Denis (3bbdd4)

  35. Denis: I don’t believe economics is what is really driving this. What is really driving this is an effort by gays to use the courts and the buraucracy to make an end-run around democracy and force people to accept their behavior. Any form of discrimination is viewed (rightly) as a sign that their behavior is still not perfectly accepted and so it is attacked.

    That’s why the Boy Scouts were sued. It wasn’t because some poor man felt his life was meaningless if he couldn’t be a scoutmaster, it was because the Boy Scouts declined to endorse the idea that gays are no different from heterosexuals. That’s why gay men can now adopt little boys even though it puts the children at grave risk. And that’s what the fight over gay marriage is really about.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  36. “In the period before the Mass. Court decision, there was a huge scandal involving the homosexual priests of the Catholic church molesting HUNDREDs of THOUSANDS of boys. Talk about a cognitive disconnect!! So what was the Liberal’s response in Mass. to this homosexual problem? Why gay marriage of course.”

    Uh, priests don’t have much to do with gay marriage. The catholic church needs to fix its house, and there’s not much liberals can do for it.

    actus (cd484e)

  37. Darleen (#7):
    In case you’re still on this thread;

    “I don’t think a business should be dictated to on WHAT kind of combo packages of salary/heath benefits/perks they come up with to attract talent. ”

    I don’t disagree, but what should be and what is don’t always mesh. I know that there has always been a fair amount of friction between singles and marrieds in the workplace over benefits, long before the issue of gay unions was on the radar. There have been cases of male and female homosexuals getting married to each other for the benefits, while maintaining their lifestyles in secret. I doubt that companies really want to get involved in policing all this, so it’s simpler to keep it all in cash. The “cafeteria plan” mentioned above represents a step in the right direction, but in my experience, “activists” still try to modify these plans to help out with their idea of social justice.
    Without saying what should be required, I still think that the total benefit package an employee receives from an employer should be as purely as possible a function of the employee’s value added score, without regard to his or her personal circumstances

    Rick (04f1e7)

  38. yeah…I’m sick of the married people too. you’re already getting a steady supply of sex and food. Why should I stand the Xmas duty as well…

    TCO (3c2924)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1031 secs.