More proof that our country is going nowhere

I thought that after Tuesday, all of our worries and qualms and debates about Proposition 8 would die down. Apparently I was wrong. No on 8 supporters are forming protests, marching on the LA Temple, and degrading and bashing all those people who voted in support of Prop 8.
The opposition need to understand that what we did, voting on Prop 8, wasn't ignorance, it was standing up for our beliefs, it was protecting an institution that we feel is absolutely sacred and special. It was being informed of the LITERATURE of the proposition and making an intelligent decision based on that information, instead of doing what "everyone else was doing". We were equalizing our rights to worship, to speech, to LIVE. If Prop 8 didn't pass, there would have been lawsuits up the wazoo against those religious groups that did not believe that marriage was anything other than between a man and a woman, it would have TAKEN AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO RELIGION, TO WORSHIP AS WE PLEASE...an institution that has been established since the beginning of this great nation. It is CLEARLY and UNDOUBTEDLY stated in the Constitution...if you don't believe me, then READ IT FOR YOURSELF. Believe me, i took constitutional law, I know those laws front and back. And yes, there have been laws that have changed since the establishment of the United States, but nothing that has deviated from the rights already given each individual in the CONSTITUTION.

The fact that protesters continue to march, continue to persecute those who support prop 8 and is defiling those things that we find most sacred, is WRONG, and they are the ones that are intolerant, not us.

I am not claiming that all those in support of prop 8 are innocent from violence. I am sure there are those extremists who are being hurtful and intolerant, but it shouldn't mean that everyone in support of prop 8 needs to be punished. Focus on those that are guilty of said crimes, not us, not those who only want the best, not the LDS church, who has only stated where their stance is, and has supported and helped anyone, no matter their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, in anything they may need. Look at the facts, and then make your decision. Do not persecute those who are not deserving of it--that is intolerance.

California's Prop 8

This is the legal documentation following the evolution of same-sex relationships that a member of the congregation (who is a lawyer) from my home ward gave in conjunction with his talk given in church about marriage a few weeks ago. For any and all who feel they are informed about the Prop 8 situation in California, read this before you actually start pointing fingers and calling those who are in support of it "intolerant" or close-minded. Be informed. Do your research.

CASE STUDY - THE EVOLUTION AND LEGALIZATION OF 

SAME GENDER RELATIONSHIPS 

 

 1999 - The Domestic Partnership Registration Act is enacted by the California 

State Legislature, establishing a statewide registry for domestic partners.  A “domestic 

partnership” was defined as “two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in 

an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.”  While stopping short of 

affording same gender couples the highly prized term “marriage” and the full range of 

legal rights and obligations associated with marriage, the Domestic Partner Registration 

Act bestowed basic legal recognition, rights, and obligations on domestic partner 

registrants, including hospital visitation privileges and certain employee health benefits 

of a partner. 

 

            2001 - The next several years saw the legislative expansion of the scope of 

benefits afforded to domestic partners.  In 2001, domestic partners became eligible to 

make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, to utilize employee sick leave to 

care for an ill partner or the child of an ill partner, to use unemployment benefits if 

relocated due to a partner’s job, to use stepparent adoption procedures to adopt a 

partner’s child, and the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner. 

 

        2002 - The Probate Code was amended to afford domestic partners the right to 

automatically inherit a portion of the separate property of a deceased partner, and the 

Unemployment Insurance Code was amended to provide for 6 weeks of paid family leave 

to care for a sick spouse or domestic partner. 

 

        2003 - Assembly Bill 205, also known as the California Domestic Partner Rights 

and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (Domestic Partner Act), significantly expanded the 

rights afforded to domestic partners 

 

“in order to secure to eligible couples . . . the full range of legal rights, protections     

and benefits, as well as all of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties to each 

other, to their children, to third parties and to the State, as the laws of California 

extend to and impose upon spouses.” 

 

        2005 - The final draft of the Domestic Partner Act became effective on January 1, 

2005, under Family Code Section 297.5, which provides that:  

 

“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, 

and shall be subject to the same  responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, 

whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, 

government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are 

granted to and imposed upon spouses.” 

 

        2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (b) was added in order to equalize the rights 

and obligations of former registered domestic partners with those of former spouses. 

 

        2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (c) was also added in order to afford a 

surviving registered domestic partner upon death of the other partner the same rights and 

responsibilities afforded to a widow or widower upon the death of a spouse. 

 

        2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (d) further provides that the rights and 

obligations of a domestic partner, former domestic partner, or surviving domestic partner 

shall be the same as those of spouses, former spouses, or surviving spouses. 

 

        2005 - 8 months later in the case of Koebke v. Bermuda Heights Country Club, 

the California Supreme Court discussed Family Code Section 297.5 in addressing the 

marital status discrimination claims of a lesbian couple registered under the Domestic 

Partner Act against a country club that denied the couple benefits extended to married 

club members.  In ruling that the lesbian couple had an actionable claim against the 

country club under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Supreme Court stated: 

 

“a chief goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to equalize the status of registered 

domestic partners and married couples.” 

 

            2006 - The California Legislature amended Family Code Section 297.5 to afford 

registered domestic partners another privilege routinely afforded only to married couples, 

to wit, the opportunity to file income taxes jointly or separately for purposes of state 

income tax returns, with the earned income of jointly reporting domestic partners to be 

recognized as community property. 

 

            2007 - The California Legislature passed a law (Cal. Stat., Ch. 567) allowing  

domestic partners the opportunity to change their name to that of their partner during the 

domestic partner registration process. 

 

            2008 - In the case of In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), the California 

Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry in the State of 

California.  While the decision is widely considered to be a big step, legally it simply 

bestowed the highly prized term “marriage” upon a type of union that quietly albeit 

steadily developed over the last decade.