Posts Tagged ‘marriage equality’

Domestic Partnership Recognized, but still 400 laws are out of reach?

Friday, April 13th, 2007

Ya, I’ve been following the whole marriage equality issue… at least in Washington State (trying to find a bastion on the West Coast). And yes, it something we might be thinking about.

So ya, I don’t know if it’s pretty words or not, but there are arguments that allowing this quasi-state of a recognized relationship is just clouding the real issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to be married. It’s mostly the right-winged people who are saying this, probably because making such a huge step would be shot down easily. To me, baby steps. I don’t think that it is a slippery-slope way of doing things… It’s more like saving money, penny-by-penny, where we all probably can’t save a thousand dollars at once today, but we can do it if we take baby steps over time - it leads to a positive, thought-out conclusion. Well, I’d like to hear what y’all think… because I still think this is about money… Take a look: Gay rights bill for couples passed; Governor plans to sign domestic partnership law

Update: thanks for the comment. Ya, I was wrong. Well, I should be more precise. My ‘bastion’ would be to actually allow gay marriages to happen. Domestic partnerships, though a step, still leaves out many marital deductions. I want a West Coast’s Massachusetts. Ooooo, let’s take bets on which of the Pacific Ocean touching states would allow gay marriage first. Hawaii, anyone?

Update again: K, Mr. Editor-in-Chief. Your all or none approach won’t get us there. I’m all about the rights, and more so about the money. So, I agree with you that this domestic partnership thing is not enough due to some 400 laws are still out of reach - and I’m just saying that most of those rights have to do with money issues, i.e. not being able to deduct for a spouse, or not being able to take an exemption upon death, or something. We need to start asserting our rights to the same marital ‘money’ rights.

I kind of believe Washington will beat out the other two West Coast states in allowing gay marriage… why? Being a native skews me a bit. West Coast sucks, hunh? Where did you meet your Aussie guy? Wasn’t your fling in LA? Give me a break, the surfer dudes are totally hotter than your pasty pale suit-and-tie lackies. Oh wait, put a surfer dude in a tie.. heh heh, hot… like opening a well packaged present. (Am I blogging correctly?)

Italy, Gay Marriage, and not all Catholics…

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007

So, ya, out of this qr group, I’m bent on an issue… This one hits a bit closer to home than the Washington State article on the same topic. Read the link. ( Italians rally for gay and unwed couples’ rights. ) So, it crosses a few issues and you can’t really determine how many of the “for over a million Italians who are not linked by religious marriage but want their rights recognized” Italians ARE gay (where I’m going to assume that most of them ARE Catholic).

The main part of the linked article that I particularly like:

“But one leader of rights group Arcigay, centre-left deputy Franco Grillini, said Italy had nothing to fear since 20 other European countries already had ‘much more radical’ laws. ‘None of these countries has seen the apocalyptic forecasts about the fate of the traditional family come true,’ he said. ‘On the contrary, Denmark, the first country to introduce gay marriage, has a higher birth rate than Italy.’”

Though statistics prevail, it’s still a vote. I wonder if Italy has the same marital deductions as we do here.

_____

On a side note: Seattle’s Catholic Archdiocese has been getting some religious flak:

One of Hunthausen’s (who’s no longer in position) most controversial acts was to permit a homosexual group, Dignity, to hold its own Mass in his cathedral. “They’re Catholics too,’ he explained. “They need a place to pray.’ Same thing happened in Detroit.

Yay!? (Marriage Equality in Washington State?)

Friday, March 2nd, 2007

Washington State is about to pass (hopefully) some rights for marriage equality. (Seattlepi Link) Though not on the same level of saying ‘marriage’, it is in the right direction. You’d think this would be an easy thing for us, but Washington State has this thing called the Cascade Mountains that divides the state into two parts, two near-polar personalities, that of eastern washington conservatives and western washington liberals.

But to hear a democrat senator (Sen. James Hargrove, D-Hoquiam) say “… this bill discriminates against married people,” gives me chills. The quote didn’t indicate how this senator got to that conclusion. Thank god for Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island, tried to be the voice of reason: “My good friend (Sen. James Hargrove, D-Hoquiam), who just said that this bill discriminates against married people — no it doesn’t, because married people already have all these rights.”

Rightly so. It’s way better (easier?) to go after the legal rights associated with being in a married-type relationship…

Here are the hope-soon-to-be rights:

- Health care facility visits.

- Ability to grant consent for health care for a partner who is not competent. The patient’s provider could receive patient information.

- Title and rights to cemetery plots and rights of interment.

- Right to control disposition of a deceased partner’s remains, including right to make anatomical gifts, authorize autopsies and consent to remove partner’s remains from a cemetery plot.

- Inheritance rights when the partner dies without a will.

tucked away (about marriage equality)

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

i was looking at an article as to how a cup of cocoa could help brain activity, or something. i didn’t get to the article because ‘i spied’ one of those ‘click here to watch video’ boxes. this one about marriage equality. it was from yahoo. tucked away somewhere. well, maybe it wasn’t tucked away before, but i haven’t seen it. well, to tell the truth, i’ve not been thinking about gay marriages (or as how my editor wants us to put it ‘marriage equality’). i’ve not googled “gay marriage” for a very long time. but the ‘marriage equality’, from my (and probably from Joffre’s initial take) view, it’s about rights

(though i don’t know if he knows what ‘important’ rights are granted, per se).

i’m talking about monetary rights, of course. when it comes to these subjects, i’m not into symbolism as much. but i do care about being able to claim those marital deductions, joint filings, ‘come as a couple - you get a discount’ ads ^.^.

that’s where the arguement should be. the inequality to gain those ‘filingstatus’ rights. it shouldn’t be a religious issue. should barely be a ‘who should raise a child’ issue (that should be left to those adoption agencies). it should be about the immediate rights when two people get marreid, that of taxes, property, medical, and estate planning. i heard it came to an issue of procreation as to why gay marriage rights wasn’t passed at the supreme court level in washington state. (a punting move by the court to get the legislative to make the laws, which was punted before by the legislative to the court system, i think) ‘procreation’? are you telling me that washington state won’t allow marriage equality because there’s a ‘rational basis’ or (whatstheotherterm?) ’strict scrutiny’ (do these even apply?) level of analysis telling gays to procreate? i’m sure if you tell a gay couple that they can’t get married because they have a ‘duty’ to procreate, you’ll get a ‘gotoheck’ answer.

anyways…

this video [click here], was nice. wasn’t demanding anything. wasn’t being confrontational. it was to the point. and it, on the back end, proved a point. just live and let live? (and give me my ‘powerofattorney, maritaltaxdeduction, communityproperty, jointtenanc, medicalrights, and otherthings’ like other couples) i’m probably wrong hunh? u.u

(i didn’t read the legal pleadings - i’m sure they’re available online - but if i were these attorneys representing gay couples for marriage equality, i’d sue for monetary and tax bias given to ‘filed’ married couples by the government…. or something. none of this feelyfeely stuff. we’re americans. we may not all talk ‘religion-ish’ but we, for sure, talk ‘capitalism-ish’)

gay marriage in massachusetts

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006

Megan

Friday, August 4th, 2006

260 million?