An Intriguing Take on Prop 8
Just saw this in the Chronicle. It's an open letter, from two of Berkeley's own, asking the state for a non-discriminatory alternative to what they see as now-discriminatory marriage. Basically, they want domestic partnerships to be available to straight couples. (Apparently they are currently only available to straight couples when one partner is older than sixty-two. What's with that?) It's an angle I hadn't heard before, and it poses some interesting legal questions.
[Update (Patrick): I would like to make it crystal clear that the authors of the article Dan linked are Boalt 2L's -- a fact I somehow missed on the first read. Props!]
------------------------------------
[Update (Patrick): I would like to make it crystal clear that the authors of the article Dan linked are Boalt 2L's -- a fact I somehow missed on the first read. Props!]
Labels: Prop. 8
posted by Dan at 1:32 PM
10 Comments:
I think the problem with setting up the domestic partnership as a competitor to marriage is it just doesn't sound as good. "I now pronounce you domestic partner and domestic partner." No, it can never compete.
We need a new title, something catchy and tender. How about "companions?" "I now pronounce you companions for life." I like that. Then people will ask "are you married?" And you can be like "F#$@ marriage; we're companions!" Soon everyone will want to be companions, and marriage will die.
Take my domestic partner, please.
10 points to anyone who knows what type of figure of speech that is.
the problem with that challenge is that it can be fixed by a legislative enactment, after which the only distinction between marriage and DP's is that same-sex couples can't marry. the difference would be in label only. the whole point, however, is that names and labels matter. it is touching but totally ineffective from a practical point of view.
5:58, I don't really get your point. Yes, it would be an ineffective means of granting marriage to everyone. That much is obvious. But the change would provide a non-discriminatory alternative to committed couples who are turned off by marriage's post-8 state, and that's all the letter is asking for. Presumably, if many straight couples started seeking dom partnerships, it would also pretty effectively make a point.
For some reason the link on the post took me to Today's opinion page - try this one. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/01/ED4N14DRMH.DTL.
There are also intriguing tax implications. There are plenty of couples who would pay more in federal taxes married than filing as singles. Domestic partnerships provide some state law benefits while avoiding federal tax downfalls.
Wow, I'm a bit behind on this, but the comments after the article are completely idiotic. Doesn't SFGate usually attract a slightly better crowd?
How can you be forced to pay more tax as married? Can't you just file separately if that is the case?
Fixed the link. Thanks, 5:54. By the way, the comments on the article are COMEDY GOLD.
Post a Comment
<< Home