Isn't California already this way ? Domestic partners have all the same rights. They don't want the rights, they want to use the same terminology --married.
No, California is not like "like that", at this time. California only recognizes opposite gender civil unions, and marriages. Further, according to the federal government; only States currently are recognizing same gender civil unions or same gender marriages.
This does not sound like a major distinction, unless you understand all of the implications in which "marriage" is given freedom and protections and how they are recognized.
What if your spouse is in an accident in another state while on the way to a seminar?
Does that state have to recognize your "marriage" for rights to be included in care, finances, possible death and burial,.
Will you health benefits change in different states when you travel?
What about interstate trade? Will your business be affected if your spouse is not recognized?
What about credit? What if our spouse has better credit than you and you need a cosigner because your marriage is not recognized?
What about the basic stuff everyone takes for granted. Like picking your kid up from school. Signing a check or sharing a bank account.
State employees civil unions medical benefits may be recognized, or rescinded at any time; because the Federal DOMA laws are infuriating unclear, (unconstitutional because they must be concise-) and they directly are misguided.
An example- The DADT has been rescinded. However, a soldier recently retired and upon pre-retirement phase paperwork, was instructed to fill out paper work for names of spouse and any dependents currently under the age of 21. That soldiers retirement package was denied and re-written without the soldiers signature, so that the retirement offices could delete the name of a same gender name on the application under spouse.
According to Federal DOMA laws, any states where an employer recognizes same sex spouses is merely doing so as an act of goodwill, and the employer may rescind those rights without the employees having any legal recourse.
Earlier this year, in the State of Washington, the Supreme Court heard a case in which an employer denied coverage of an employees spouse because they felt the DOMA was not legal. The Supreme Court in an absolutely amazing twist of candid BS, stated that because the company had already allowed payout of some of the costs of healthcare previously, must maintain that one account, but is not legally obligated to accept any further DOMA requests for health benefits; regardless of the companies previous stand on open marriages.
The Stonewall riots and the massacre of Harvey Milk is just a tiny little dent in the greater fight that gays have in gaining acceptance in mainstream America. So yeah, if you really want to understand the complications in DOMA/marriage/civil unions, then you need to understand what the definitions are in each States legislation, as well as the current Federal definition.
