California court upholds domestic partner law

[david m]

Law doesn't contradict gay marriage ban, court rules

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A California law granting domestic partners nearly identical legal rights as married couples does not conflict with a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a state appeals court ruled.

California's domestic partner law represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights short of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legalized, and Vermont, which recognizes civil unions for gay couples. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal said Monday that the law did not undermine Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. That measure was "intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages," the three-judge panel said.

The ruling upheld a trial judge's decision in favor of the domestic partner law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. There are now about 29,000 couples registered as domestic partners, according to the secretary of state's office.

The Campaign for California Families had challenged the domestic partner law. Randy Thomasson, executive of the Campaign for California Families, said the group would appeal and move for another ballot initiative that would end domestic partnerships.

"This ruling gives impetus to the push for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the clutches of judges and politicians," Thomasson said.

But Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a pro-gay rights group, said the ruling "confirms the common-sense understanding that people in California have that domestic partnership and marriage are different."

Last month, a San Francisco County Superior Court judge ruled that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman were unconstitutional, as was Proposition 22.

The ruling was appealed and will likely go to the California Supreme Court. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he opposes gay marriage but would not try to amend the state constitution if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling.

[tardfarmer]

It flies in the face of Prop 22 though!

And what can these chocolate starfish punchers do now that they couldn't do before?

Have they heard of wills?

[tardfarmer]

The ruling upheld a trial judge's decision in favor of the domestic partner law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis.

I rest my case.

I think that old commie had a chunk of kielbasa up his tailpipe for years.

[david m]

ORIGINAL: tardfarmer

It flies in the face of Prop 22 though!

how so? they aren't married.

[tardfarmer]

how so? they aren't married.

technicality.

If you pass a law that allows me to wear a uniform, badge, gun etc. but tell me I cannot be called a police officer, whats the frickin' difference?

What it boils down to is the rectum riders CAN already have wills, they can fist each other until the cows come home etc. etc.

there was NO NEED for this "recognition". it provided absolutely nothing they couldn't do before, it merely got the perverts 1 step closer to legally sanctioning of playing house.

[datamax]

damn liberals



wonder is they're 1st cousins ?

[Aught Six]

technicality.

That's all it takes. They need to write a new proposition and think a bit more carefully about diction.

If you pass a law that allows me to wear a uniform, badge, gun etc. but tell me I cannot be called a police officer, whats the frickin' difference?

The difference is the level of authority. Much like the case above.

[kevin1]

Coming from the land of granola(fruits , nuts , and flakes) it doesn't surprise me a bit . It's apples to o-rings , er , oranges , but they voted for that crap .

In my mind I can see Fagifornia sinking into the ocean , and no matter how patient I try to be it just can't come fast enough ...