Of course! A Supreme Court has never overturned a previous decision. What was I thinking!Rollo Tomasi wrote:That's exactly what it means ... unless you amend the Constitution. And amending the Constitution to take away what has already been found to be a fundamental constitutional right, in this case same-sex marriage, is fueled by nothing other than homophobia.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:See footnote 24 on pages 42-44 of the decision (discussing 9 differences between marriage and domestic partnership laws).
You did notice my "noticable" qualifyer, right?? Let's take a looksee at these differences, shall we?
the domestic partnership provisions require that both partners
have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established (§ 297,
subd. (b) (1)), there is no similar requirement for marriage.
Damn them!!!!!
although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order.
How dare they! Homosexuals should be able to enter arranged marriages, too!
to establish a domestic partnership,
the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry for such partnerships (§ 298.5, subds. (a), (b)); to
marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county
recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics. (§§ 306, 359; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102285, 102330,
102355.)
Now even the records are homophobic!
although the marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public (§ 500 et
seq.), the domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.”
This couldn't be amended?
although both the domestic partnership and marriage
statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership ormarriage under the same limited circumstances, a summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners’ joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become
effective without any court action, whereas a summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses’ joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment; in both instances, the dissolution does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and
during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution.
Its the court's opine that domestic partnerships should be more difficult to dissolve? Have at you!
although a proceeding to dissolve a domestic
partnership may be filed in superior court “even if neither domestic partner is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed” (§ 299, subd. (d)), a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a
resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution.
See above. 4 out of 5 Homophobes™ agree: Domestic partnerships should be harder to dissolve. The unwillingness for some to enter them because of the difficulty dissolving them aside, the animosity homophobes™ have towards domestic partnership is clearly shown!
in order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program (see Sen. Com. on Appropriations, fiscal summary of Assem. Bill No. 205 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Aug. 21, 2003; 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f)(2)(C)), the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such] long-term care plans” (§ 297.5, subd. (g)), which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee’s spouse, it may not provide coverage
for an employee’s domestic partner
And when a state supreme court decision Trump's federal law, let me know. This ruling didn't change this.
an additional difference stems from the provisions of
California Constitution, article XIII, section 3, subdivisions (o) and (p), granting a $1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who owns property valued at less than $10,000; however, as the Legislative Analyst explained when this constitutional provision last was amended in 1988 (see Ballot
Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) analysis by Legis. Analyst of Prop. 93, p. 60), few persons claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner’s exemption on the same property (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 205.5, subd. (f)), and the homeowner’s exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners. (See § 297.5, subd. (a).)
Domestic partners of deceased vetrans owning property valued less than $10k in CA our outraged, I tell you. Outraged!!!!
......and why would they apply for the larger homeowner's exemption, anyway
one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in
§ 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner.
Hmmm, amend the existing legislation, or thow the baby out with the bathwater?
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Since when did homophobia or any kind of discrimination become in need of protection?
Thank you for reminding me of the uselessness or arguing with a zealot.
Bare assertion fallacy on, good buddy.