News of a court ruling in California:
The state Supreme Court, in a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, ruled that businesses have to give registered domestic partners the same benefits extended to legally married spouses.
Oh, no. Is this another case of ‘activist judges’ legislating from the bench and creating new rights that don’t exist? No. It’s judges making a ruling based on California’s new domestic partnership law:
Because the domestic partnership law did not take effect until this year, Shiner said, the court found “that the distinctions the club made up until that time were legal and valid.”
Club? Yeah, country club. The case was brought by a woman who wants her domestic partner to be able to join her to play golf on her country club membership. It somehow would have been more satisfying if the case involved a joint bank account, or hospital visitation rights, or something more mundane than a country club membership. Nonetheless, it’s a step in the right direction for same-sex families.
Associate Justice Carlos Moreno, who wrote the decision, included this comparison of marriage and domestic partnership:
“In both cases, the consequences of the decision is the creation of a new family unit with all its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as legal rights and obligations,” Moreno wrote.
The San Diego Union-Tribune: Domestic partners supported by ruling
We haven’t talked about this issue much here. Is there a logical argument against gay marriage that goes deeper than the semantics of the traditional definition of the word? Many say that ‘the sanctity of marriage’ needs to be preserved. Should a government based on a constitution that provides for the separation of church and state be involved in preserving the sanctity of anything?