Don't settle for anything less ...

[Pookie]

Don't settle for anything less than equal rights. Here's another example that there are those that would try to take away what protections, privileges, and rights we already have, or are gaining ...

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging California Domestic Partnership Law that Offers Protections for Same-Sex Couples

September 9, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SACRAMENTO--A Superior Court judge here has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to block legal protections for same-sex couples that are to go into effect in January 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union announced today.

The court rejected claims by deceased Senator Pete Knight and Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families that the new domestic partnership protections guaranteed under AB 205 were in violation of Proposition 22, which states that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid in California."

"This was a baseless and hurtful attempt to deprive lesbian and gay people of much needed protections for their families," said Bob Kearney, Associate Director of the ACLU of Northern California. "We’re relieved the court has cleared this hurdle so that there is no question that families headed by same-sex couples will be protected when the law will go into effect in January."

Equality California as well as 12 California couples who are registered domestic partners petitioned the court and were allowed to participate in the lawsuits filed by Knight and Thomasson. Seven couples and Equality California are represented by the Law Office of David C. Codell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU affiliates in Northern California, Southern California and San Diego, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Lambda Legal represents five of the couples.

"We’re grateful that the court has dismissed this harmful lawsuit. But by noting the many ways that AB205 differs from full marriage rights, the court’s decision demonstrates how same-sex couples continue to be discriminated against by California law," said ACLU attorney Christine Sun. "AB 205 is certainly a step in the right direction, but lesbian and gay Californians will only have true equality once the state allows same-sex couples to marry."

AB 205 provides basic protections and imposes significant responsibilities on registered domestic partners in California. Protections for families headed by same-sex couples include: community property, mutual responsibility for debt, parenting rights and obligations such as custody and support, and the ability to claim a partner’s body after death. The law does not allow for joint tax filing and certain other protections under state law, and does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that married couples enjoy.

The ruling in the case, Knight v. Schwarzenegger, was issued late Wednesday. The decision is online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16414&c=101

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16417&c=101

 

[glamorilla]

"don't settle for anything less than equal rights..."


words to live by.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

Here's my position. I think that the marriage thing is fine. I support that. There should be equality. Aside from this issue and the occasional bigot, I think we're getting closer.

However, I also think the hate crime legislation and laws need to go. You can get slapped with a hate crime when, in most cases you didn't even know the person you were getting into it with was gay.

So yeah, I think equal rights are necessary, but I also think that the extra protection is out of line with the whole equality argument. The same laws that protect me from getting a beat-down are sufficient for a homosexual. There should not be an extra charge.

Take it as you will. I'm not trying to offend anyone... I hope this doesn't sound harsh.

 

[DirkPryde]

Though in theory, you have to prove the person was beaten "because" they are gay etc Isn't the point to try and prevent people from suffering at the hands of others "because" they are a minority or whatever.

Like if someone gets beaten because of, say a bad debt, and that person happens to be gay, then hate crime does not apply because of the motive ?? I know things always get twisted.

Is that the idea or am I off here ?

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

Right, and what worries me is that it seems that if the person turns out to be gay, in today's courts, you're gonna get that hate crime thing too, even if you were totally unaware.

Right now there's a precedent for it, but maybe once the marriage thing passes, it'll go down. Who knows.

 

[Pookie]

However, I also think the hate crime legislation and laws need to go. You can get slapped with a hate crime when, in most cases you didn't even know the person you were getting into it with was gay.

You can't be charged with a hate crime based on sexual orientation if you're not aware of a person's sexual orientation. Hatred for the sexual orientation of the victim has to be expressed in some way as part of the crime.

So yeah, I think equal rights are necessary, but I also think that the extra protection is out of line with the whole equality argument. The same laws that protect me from getting a beat-down are sufficient for a homosexual. There should not be an extra charge.

There are no "extra" rights in hate crime laws. The laws protect everyone, and not just one sexual orientation, race, sex, etc. It doesn't just protect gays from straights. It protects straights just as well. Hate crime laws allow for stiffer penalties based on the motivation behind a crime. There are numerous other laws just like this one. Being convicted of someone's death carries different penalties based on the circumstances or motivation. There are plenty of other examples.

Take it as you will. I'm not trying to offend anyone... I hope this doesn't sound harsh.

No offense taken.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

I know how the laws are supposed to work, but I also know what the current legal precedent is, and right now homosexuals are extremely powerful in the legal system. Things get distorted. That is what I'm saying.

 

[Pookie]

I know how the laws are supposed to work, but I also know what the current legal precedent is, and right now homosexuals are extremely powerful in the legal system. Things get distorted. That is what I'm saying.

What current legal precedent are you referring to?

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

I'm still talking about the hate crimes thing, but am now generalizing into how homosexuals seem to be winning a lot of their cases now. The courts are becoming very liberal, and I think there's a "pity" factor in the decision process now.

Maybe I should've been more clear. Sorry about that.

I haven't researched it too much, so I can't really give a bulleted list of points. I just dropped by to give a different view on the matter. If I get some freetime, I'll check it out and find examples and whatnot of what I'm referring to, and make a new thread sometime in the future here.

Have fun.

 

[Pookie]

I'm still talking about the hate crimes thing, but am now generalizing into how homosexuals seem to be winning a lot of their cases now. The courts are becoming very liberal, and I think there's a "pity" factor in the decision process now.

Maybe I should've been more clear. Sorry about that.

I haven't researched it too much, so I can't really give a bulleted list of points. I just dropped by to give a different view on the matter. If I get some freetime, I'll check it out and find examples and whatnot of what I'm referring to, and make a new thread sometime in the future here.

Have fun.

I was talking about the hate crime laws as well. I'm not aware of any cases being won by prosecutors without justification as described in the law, although I'm sure there may be exceptional cases. I'd be curious to see if you could show there is widespread misuse of the hate crime laws by prosecutors involving homosexuals.