Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder how many Texas wives know that some of their husbands think they are merely sperm receptacles that can be used anytime the husband gets the urge?
I think there would be A LOT less wives in Texas if they knew.
Wrong. In Texas spousal rape is considered sexual assault it is a second degree felony. The charge of simple battery (3rd degree felony) can also be added if other physical violence occurs.
I would think not too many , because the "State of California " didn't get buried under tons of paperwork
when it " Leaped Frogged " back and forth between Domestic Partnership and Homosexual Marriage......
The state of california had to change several laws to make civil unions equal to marriage. Each of those laws had to go through the legislature. Each of those laws probably had at least one attorney overseeing the writing of it.
Here are a few of the laws that had to be changed:
Quote:
Assembly Bill 25 of 2001
In the first successful expansion of the domestic partnership act, Assemblymembers Carole Migden and Robert Hertzberg, joined by state Senator Sheila Kuehl, introduced a bill that added 18 new rights to the domestic partnership scheme. It also relaxed the requirements for opposite-sex couples, requiring only one of the participants to be over 62 years of age. The expanded rights included standing to sue (for emotional distress or wrongful death), stepparent adoption, a variety of conservatorship rights, the right to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner, certain rights regarding distribution of a deceased partner’s estate, limited taxpayer rights, sick leave to care for partners, and unemployment and disability insurance benefits. Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law on October 22, 2001.[22] Other bills in the 2001–2002 legislative session
During the 2001–2002 session, California enacted five more bills making minor changes:
Senate Bill 1049 (Speier) permitted San Mateo County to provide survivor benefits to domestic partners.[23]
Senate Bill 1575 (Sher) exempts domestic partners from certain provisions voiding wills that they helped draft.[26]
Senate Bill 1661 (Kuehl) extends temporary disability benefits to workers to take time off to care for a family member.[27]
Assembly Bill 2208 of 2004 (Kehoe) clarifies that health and disability-insurance providers must treat domestic partners the same as married spouses.[29]
Senate Bill 565 of 2005 (Migden) allows transfer of property between domestic partners without reassessment for tax purposes.[30]
Senate Bill 973 of 2005 (Kuehl) specifies that domestic partners of state workers are entitled to retroactive pension benefits, even if the worker entered retirement before the enactment of Assembly Bill 205.[31]
Senate Bill 1827 of 2006 (Migden) requires domestic partners to file state income-tax returns under the same status as married couples (jointly or married filing separately), effective in the 2007 tax year.[32]
Assembly Bill 2051 of 2006 (Cohn) creates programs and funding grants to reduce domestic violence in the LGBT community and increases the fee for registering a domestic partnership by $23 to fund these services. The new fees are effective January 1, 2007.[33]
Assembly Bill 102 of 2007 (Ma) allows parties to a registered domestic partnership to legally change their name to include the last name of their partner.[34]
Assembly Bill 2055 of 2010 (De La Torre) extends unemployment benefits to same-sex couples planning to enter into a domestic partnership if one of the partners loses his or her job.[35]
Senate Bill 651 of 2011 (Leno) harmonizes domestic partnership eligibility requirements with those of marriage, which includes the option of establishing a confidential domestic partnership.[36]
Senate Bill 757 of 2011 (Lieu) requires out-of-state insurance providers selling their products in California to provide the same coverage to domestic partners as they do to married couples.[37]
The state of california had to change several laws to make civil unions equal to marriage. Each of those laws had to go through the legislature. Each of those laws probably had at least one attorney overseeing the writing of it.
Here are a few of the laws that had to be changed:
So all that you have proved is that Domestic Partnership and Civil Union and Homosexual Marriage (Federal) is going to cost the Tax Payers here in America....Money....
So all that you have proved is that Domestic Partnership and Civil Union and Homosexual Marriage (Federal) is going to cost the Tax Payers here in America....Money....
No I'm showing that having one name across the board will prevent having to change hundreds of laws.
If it were two separate terms THEN it would require changing laws, documents etc.
There is no such thing as racism. There is no such thing as homophobia. The more you communicate these ideas the more real they become...what does not exist is made to exist- but then we would have nothing bicker about.
There is no such thing as racism. There is no such thing as homophobia. The more you communicate these ideas the more real they become...what does not exist is made to exist- but then we would have nothing bicker about.
I am not sure how you mean it, but I for sure agree -- literally -- that there is "no such thing" as "racism" and/or "homophobia" Reason being the definition is so intentionally broad. That is, the terms are intended to be meaningless or taffy-pulled...so that those who use them can mean whatever they want to mean. Kinda like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrols' "Through The Looking Glass" (i.e. Alice in Wonderland).
No I'm showing that having one name across the board will prevent having to change hundreds of laws.
If it were two separate terms THEN it would require changing laws, documents etc.
BTW we are taxpayers too.
You are going to have to change the definition of Marriage from Marriage to (Homosexual Marriage) and (Heterosexual Marriage) and you are going to have to have written instruction that states that (Two Men) or( Two Women) fit the definition of a Marriage....Just as much as one Man and One Woman , and that definition is going to change
agaiin when One Man is going to have Two,Three,Four or more Women as his Wives.....
Speak for yourself. I'm not the least bit uncomfortable when spending time with my gay friends, as a matter of fact I prefer their company over many of my hetero friends....I have never met a gay person I didn't like, but I can't say the same for those on the other team.
Why do you separate these people into "teams"?
Isn't that discriminatory?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
