Comments on: Prop 8: Elton John is Wrong – An Explanation as to Why “Civil Unions For All Couples” Won’t Work.

By: Omar

Omar — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:57:41 +0000

This is perfectly doable, however it needs to be done gradually.

By: Omar

Omar — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:50:11 +0000

This homo sapiens is right. The plan to implement this is easy:

1. Get civil unions for both same and different sex couples approved in all the states.
2. Demand recognizion at the federal level.
3. Start getting more rights, immigration, benefits, etc…

This should happen letting marriage the way it is. Also this unions should not assume, presume or require sexual cohabitation between the members.

By: Topkitty

Topkitty — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:34:58 +0000

Why must it always come down to it’s easier to let Gays get married. From reading your article and seeing everything it would take to get the legislation passed in Congress. Which I have said over and over until my face is blue and my tongue is tired. Is the only solution to this I can see. I have to disagree, I think the Civil Union would be easier for non-traditional marriages, and leave the traditional marriages as they are.

Of course, Civil Unions with all the rights of traditionally married couples would only be acceptable, but I think it’s do able.

By: StayWoke

StayWoke — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:57:46 +0000

As Audre Lorde said, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”.

We need NEW tools. WE have the intelligence, compassion, and fortitude to craft these tools. What is so wrong with REAL CHANGE; REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE? Why the intransigent desire to cling to an outmoded legal term; marriage? In this society, by its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive legal term for use in a country that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I can not disregard my neighbor’s SINCERE belief that if they condone “gay or same-sex marriage” they are condeming their souls to Hell. I can not disregard the fact that if my life partner gets a job in another state, we can’t move there if the state doesn’t legally recognize OUR union. This is why Federal Civil Unions for all legislation is a USEFUL new tool.

By: Johnny California

Johnny California — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:34:48 +0000

We respond here: http://johnnycalifornia.com/?p=1938

By: Professor Kmiec

Professor Kmiec — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:22:08 +0000

Thank you for this thoughtful response to my commentary. Here are just a couple of additional comments to consider:
1. The Governor has an obligation to ensure that the laws of the state are evenhandedly applied; in light of the California Supreme Court holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class, that obligation arguably includes construing the California family code, including any undefined term such as “spouse” in the RDP statute as well as any of the other general family code provisions articulating the importance or significance of the family in a way that does not differentiate on the basis of sexual orientation;
2. It is well settled in the case precedent of the federal and state courts that equality can be ensured by either granting a new right or withdrawing an existing one. Thus, equality can be provided either by extending marriage to same-sex couples (this path is, of course, blocked by proposition 8, itself) or withdrawing, prospectively, from “marriage” licensing altogether;
3. Even if the Governor took the most conservative view of his administrative, regulatory authority and found the existing family code insufficient to issue such regulations, at a minimum, the Governor could propose the civil union for all idea as a remedial option for the court to consider on Monday through the Attorney General who is required to give his views in briefing; the remedial power of the court to construe existing code provisions is arguably more expansive than the Governor’s administrative authority alone; you’ll remember that both the Vermont and Massachusetts courts gave the legislature a period of time in which to enact appropriate legislation to bring their respective states into compliance with the equal protection holdings in favor of same-sex couples in those states;
4. yes, state civil unions would not confer any federal marriage rights so long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was in place; but a California marriage license issued to a same-sex couples would have been equally ineffective to convey federal rights; if federal rights are to be provided, DOMA will need to be modified or repealed;
5. the establishment clause problem is capable of being addressed in the drafting of either administrative regulation or legislation; specifically, regulation and then any confirmatory or validating legislation would provide that going forward civil union status within the state of California substitutes for the past practice of marital licensing issued under the family code;
6. What then is the value of a religiously granted marriage license? the marriage bond and any certificate issued by religious organizations governs status only within the church community; it would have no operative effect in the state or federal secular systems; for those of us who believe that marriage is a status authored by God himself, this is not insignificant even as it has no temporal effect; importantly, separating state granted civil union from religiously granted marriage does avoid the encroachment by the state on private religious belief that was occasioned by the California Supreme Court decision without proposition 8; so too, the proposed separation of function also avoids the imposition of religious belief upon nonbelievers that is implicit in the passage of proposition 8.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful exposition of the issues involved in the pending litigation. Hopefully, these additional thoughts suggest that the proposed compromise outlined in my San Francisco Chronicle essay is more tenable than perhaps first thought. In any event, both these thoughts and those offered initially, I hope do convey the importance of demonstrating respect for the dignity of all Californians and the continuing importance of observing religious freedom in ways that proposition 8 did not successfully address.