I think your information is incorrect on the California law. They appear to be, in every way, equal to the Civil Unions.

Domestic partnerships are registered with the state and grant the same STATE rights as marriages. I imagine some localities could offer more benefits but, since it is state law, no locality could legally abridge those rights and benefits.

Here is the relevant California legal code.

__________________
Jesus Was A Liberal

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

Here are some direct quotes from your article...

Which basically translates they aren't equal across the state. Some areas are allowed to provide more benefits at the direction/consent of the state. Unlike other cities across the nation that have unilaterally decided to offer limited benefits.

__________________

What you seem to have missed is that your quotes come from the section, "Establishment and incremental expansion."

This section is giving the history of Domestic Partnerships in California, not what they are now. What they are now is covered by the California Legal Code that I posted.

BTW, if you scroll down a little from your quotes from the Wikipedia article, you find this.


Further tweaking since 2003 has fixed most if not all of the tax issues differences.

__________________
Jesus Was A Liberal

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

Well I stand corrected in my understanding of the California law. It's still not marriage but it's a damned sight better than what is offered in Texas or the majority of the nation for that matter.

__________________

Thanks! This thread is very informative. For one thing I knew, but really didn't consider the implications of not having federal backing. It's a little clearer to me why all the big push for a national law.

Beyond that may I say that change is always anticipated with a certain amount of fear. Big change-big fear. Information certainly helps disperse anxiety!

Are there any plans for subjective testimony from couples during any real or planned hearings on the matter? I mean, I have been impacted by some of the interviews during the coverage of the illegal marriages etc.

And I know how almost every body is more comfortable around friends and family. But looking at it from a standpoint of selling the public on something, I would (and I'm sure some already do) brainstorm the hell out of, "What are our Universal Positives and how do we bring that to the publics attention?"
THEN, general mom and pop public will care that you aren't treated fairly. I guess I'm crazy but I would be forming organizations that had relevant names like, Gay Men for the Prevention of Hunger; LFAC (lesbians fight animal cruelty; LGKS (Lesbians and Gays helping kids get school supplies).
As a group, you can be powerful, but first you gotta be positive.

That's my opinion, anyway.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

Chiming in after the fact, a couple of observations I have seen as well.

1) There is a misconception about what "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" (DADT) actually does and how it works. I have talked to a variety of people who seem to think it provides restrictions only against gays who out themselves or who use their sexual orientation disruptively.
The truth is that all DADT does is provide a loose restriction to allow a service member a pseudo "5th amendment" capability to not incriminate themselves. Gay military members continue to get kicked out who were outed by no action of their own.
The military law itself EXPLICITLY states that gays are NOT allowed to serve in the military, regardless on whether or not they "Tell".

2) I have talked to a variety of people who are under the mistaken impression that gays have country-wide protection against being fired for being gay. There are about 20 states which have no such protection, and in those states it is perfectly legal for businesses to fire people for being gay.

3) The whole "Gay Marriage Amendment" issue introduces a variety of issues. Some states have their gay marriage amendments worded so that ONLY gay marriage is prohibited. The potential for "domestic partner" legal recognition is allowed, and there is no problem with some companies taking their own initiative on benefits. However, STILL in some of those states, anti-gay initiatives are started to try to misrepresent the wording of the gay marriage amendment to claim it ALSO prohibits domestic partner legal status. California is one such example, and the proponents of the anti-gay marriage legislation actually stated that their legislation would NOT be used for what they later tried to do.

4) Other state marriage amendments are worded more restrictively. They prevent the state from recognizing gay marriage, and they ALSO prevent the state from recognizing anything which could resemble gay marriage. (i.e. they also restrict domestic partner status)
This is also not widely known, and I've come across a few people who are surprised that this reality exists.

Here is the latest information from SLDN, the Servicemenber's Legal Defense Network. (This group is working to get DADT repealed. I am on their mailing list, and urge others to join to end this discriminatory policy.)

SLDN

This is what ENDA is about, for those of you who have heard of this in the news lately. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act seeks to create nationwide protection against being fired for LGBT people. A version of the bill that excludes transgendered people passed in the House recently.

ENDA requires that an employer consider each potential employee fairly on the basis of their ability to do the job, without regard to their sexual orientation, etc., a factor that that would generally have no significant bearing on the performance of their duties.

Of course, the religious right is all up in arms about it, because it would interfere with an employers desire to discriminate against a specific group of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I believe it is exactly this lack of information penetration that the religious right is counting on in order to pass these discriminatory amendments. This has only failed to work in one state so far: Arizona.

The wording of that amendment would have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriage, and they ALSO prevent the state from recognizing anything which could resemble gay marriage. The pro-equality forces managed to get the message out there, so that even those against gay marriage voted against this amendment in sufficient numbers to defeat it.

Moreover, though, these multi-issue amendments have been overturned on Constitutional grounds after passage in a few states. This is because it's not Constitutional to wrap two or more issues into one voting topic. (I know I'm not saying that exactly right, but that's the gist of it.)

Honestly, I think the radical righties that propose, support, and fund the misinformation campaigns around these combo amendments are doing so KNOWING FULL WELL that they will eventually be overturned by state Supreme Courts.

Why would they do this? Gay rights is an evergreen "fire up the base" tactic for the right. The LAST thing they want is for the issue to be SETTLED. If it ever was settled, regardless of HOW it was settled, they wouldn't be able to use it any more to draw that weird but large contingent of voters out to the polls who think that gay rights, stem cells, and abortion are the most important issues our country faces.

Whew. I meant this to be educational, and I got off on an opinion-fueled rant there. Sorry.