Prop 8: Stay On Same-Sex Marriage A Burden For Elderly Couples

latimes.com:

Reporting from Palm Springs-- Derence Kernek and Ed Watson live together each day in fear that they won't be able to pledge "till death do us part" before it's too late.

Watson, 78, is in rapidly failing health, afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

A federal appeals court ruled last week that same-sex marriage will remain on hold in California until a judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional makes its way through the higher courts -- reviews expected to take a year or more.

Read the whole story: latimes.com

Comments

[mrbarth]

12:36 PM on 04/25/2011

Here in Canada my partner and I have the same rights as a married couple. In fact we could get married if we want and it would be legal (except once we cross the border into the US). We chose not to have the rice and the cake mainly because my partner isn't all that mushy gushy, and since common law works just as well for straights as well as not so straights, we chose that. Gay couples are considered "a family" here in Canada in rights of immigration and adoption. I will inherite his Canada Pension (should he go straight to hell first), our home (after we put a new roof on it I hope) and our dog (should she not run under a bus in the meantime). And the sky hasn't fallen up here at all. Our B&B has been host to many GBLT honeymoons as well as straight ones. Sure, not everyone likes that fact that our yard looks better than the rest on our street, but not everyone likes the flavour of the tea either. With more important social issues facing the USA, can't these anti-what evers focus their attention on something more Christlike? Like feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, helping Lohan and Sheen get clean and sober?

[Hedcutter]

09:28 AM on 04/05/2011

I have changed my opinion on same sex marriage. After having a new introspective concerning a couple that has lived near me for many years, I no longer think that same-sex marriage should not be legal. They are of the same sex, and appear to me to be gay. They appear to be at least middle-aged, but not yet seniors. We have never had a conversation, and somehow we have managed to not ever say hello to each other. However, looking at them in a new light, I want them to have the privilege and the right to know the positives, and negatives, that marriage, to whomever your "pursuit of happiness" includes, can brings to a relationship.

[ninthraphael]

08:26 PM on 03/31/2011

what's really the problem with same sex marriage? as if gays are out to force straights to marry them...let us separate religion from civil..ban gay marriages in the church- and let the civil union takes place. aand make the church pay taxes too!

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:37 AM on 04/01/2011

There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. And we are not going to take a second-class thing like civil unions. We want nothing less than legal CIVIL marriages. There is already no way to force a church to marry anyone of who it disapproves. Fundies already know this...they just use this as a tactic to scare the ignorant.

I think it is past time for the churches to start paying taxes as well. If they want to meddle in politics they can bloody well PAY for the privilege.

[CoastalNC]

09:54 AM on 04/25/2011

I have married 3 times and only one of those marriages was at a church. My two marriages at the justice of the peace were considered marriages and not "civil unions"...why should gays not have the same rights that I have had, they live here just like I do.

[Bill J4321]

12:10 PM on 03/30/2011

Odd. Very odd.

That heterosexuals are so very capable, either via nature or nurture, (both being the responsibility of heterosexuals) of creating millions and millions of LGBT children.

Odd. Very odd.

That so very many of those who created (either via nature or nurture) the millions and millions of LGBT children have made it their life's work to make sure those children are brutalized, dehumanized, degraded, and punished by the very government those gay people work to support.

Odder still: That heterosexuals present this as the MORAL position.

Abuse, dehumanization, brutalization and degradation of human beings is a faulty, faulty hook on which to hang one's morality hat, no?

Morality indeed, folks.

Morality indeed.

(Especially directed to you, RitaJoseph. Your lack of shame at the immorality you publicly spew tells the world everything it needs to know about you, dear heart. No doubt in this gay man's mind that your greatest contribution to the planet will be your eternal exit from it.)

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:32 PM on 03/30/2011

Interesting that they don't "get" that they create GLBT people--we don't pop up out of nowhere. Yet in their arrogance they see fit to discriminate against us and try to keep us with as few rights as possible.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:55 AM on 03/30/2011

Thank you! It is exactly a case of civil rights. I was so happy to see that Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were able to exchange vows in that small window of time before the haters in California had their little victory. Hope they enjoy it because sooner or later it will be gone.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:51 AM on 04/01/2011

There is actually someone who is more of a hater than RitaJoseph over on the posting about the Colorado Civil Unions bill being killed. I mean this woman is just incredible I am posting her post below this one to let people see what we are up against.


The hatred of women like this is why we have to have our rights declared and backed up by the courts. DOMA needs to go and our rights need to be nationwide so that we don't have to keep fighting state by state by state...over and over again in many cases.

[IfIonlyknew]

03:08 PM on 03/29/2011

At least they found love......

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:34 AM on 03/30/2011

Undoubtedly, but they should be able to wed before one of them dies.

[IfIonlyknew]

10:33 AM on 03/30/2011

I agree.

[BeninOakland]

01:26 PM on 03/29/2011

for those of you challenging rita joseph, she is a professional anti-gay agitator. Google her name and you will see. she is not interested in what you have to say, or how much she distorts.

[Concerned Citizen in CA]

04:31 PM on 03/29/2011

Looking at her profile and her previous posts, it looks like she started her account on HP last month with the main objective of being an anti-gay agitator. Thanks for the heads up Ben!

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:11 PM on 03/29/2011

Thanks for the heads-up, Ben!

[RitaJoseph]

02:33 AM on 03/29/2011

Sentimentality is no basis for legalizing 'same sex' marriage.
In the International Journal of Human Rights 14.7 (2010), Jakob Cornides, enunciates the incompatibilities that prevent 'same-sex marriage' from serious consideration as an issue of 'equality'.
Cornides points out that "the institution of 'marriage' does not have the purpose of 'rewarding' people for loving each other; for this reason, the argument that homosexually oriented people, too, are capable of 'loving'...is of no relevance."
Cornides can find no legitimacy in human rights law for changing the meaning of ‘marriage’.
"...if 'family' is no more to be defined by descent or marriage between persons of the opposite sex, by which other criteria shall it then be defined? Created as a pre-requisite for same-sex 'marriage', the adoption of children by same-sex couples, etc., this new concept turns 'family' into something of an artificial construct, removed from biological reality: the arbitrary invention of a legislator, which at any time could be replaced through another arbitrary invention of another legislator as mores once again change. If this is accepted, a legislator's imagination is limitless: every constellation of two or more persons could be styled a 'marriage' or 'family', and the traditional meaning of both terms would be undermined or even disappear altogether. Labeling all and sundry as 'marriage' and 'family' could be an efficient way of destroying the traditional and logical meaning – perhaps more efficient than abolishing it directly'."

[2crudedudes]

10:32 AM on 03/29/2011

This isn't about sentimentality. It's about death benefits.

But I find it interesting that in defending your view of marriage, you appeal to emotion over the words 'marriage' and 'family'. There is no reason why the word 'marriage' should even be defined as "male-female". It's a legal contract independent of religious affiliation.

And of your "artificial construct", are you telling me that foster parents and infertile people should not be allowed to marry either? Because their families are also "artificial constructs".

[carmenalex]

11:09 AM on 03/29/2011

What b.s.
"the institutio­n of 'marriage' does not have the purpose of 'rewarding­' people for loving each other; for this reason, the argument that homosexual­ly oriented people, too, are capable of 'loving'..­.is of no relevance.­"
B.S.= people marry for love...at least in this society...so it has everything to do with love. One does not marry a person one does not love, and if they do...then its not a marriage...but a sterile business.an artificial construct.

[DRaymond]

01:59 AM on 03/29/2011

This seems tragic, but at least bear in mind that their domestic partnership in California gives them ALL of the legal rights of marriage.

[SteveDenver]

02:25 AM on 03/29/2011

Not quite "all" of the legal rights of marriage: there are no federal rights associated with state civil unions, this addresses: military pensions, immigration issues, federal taxation issues, Social Security survivor benefits, and more.

Oddly enough, foreign countries with marriage equality honor state same-sex unions. My friend Lisa married her wife, a citizen of Spain, in 2009. Colorado didn't recognize their marriage, neither did the U.S. federal government; but Lisa has received full spousal benefits in Spain.

Go figure…

[DRaymond]

06:11 PM on 03/29/2011

Yes, but none of that is affected by the legal challenges to Prop 8 which is the subject of the article..  To get that changed you have to repeal DOMA.

[looneydoone]

10:46 AM on 03/30/2011

Mexico has a national law recognizing gay unions

ALL marriages are Civil Unions, performed by the Civil Authority. This is the ONLY legally recognized document of the contract entered into and recorded in the public documents registry

AFTER joining together in the Civil Union, those want to hold a religious ritual (wedding)
celebrate their marriage with a religious ceremony...........it has no legal standing.

[antaeus]

11:30 AM on 03/29/2011

Separate but unequal? Bear that in mind.

[DRaymond]

06:12 PM on 03/29/2011

I never said it was an ideal situation, but it is better than if the situation was in a state with a wimpy DP law.

[Fran Jaime]

12:33 AM on 03/29/2011

This is so sad. They should be able to marry simply because they are two human beings who love each other. Best to both of them.

[2crudedudes]

10:34 AM on 03/29/2011

Two consenting adults. Let's not open the floodgates.

[Fran Jaime]

11:24 PM on 03/29/2011

What???

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:58 AM on 03/30/2011

Yeah, Goddess forfend a couple like this get to commit legally to one another.

[novabird]

10:36 PM on 03/28/2011

I wish them well.

[emperance]

01:25 AM on 03/29/2011

Yeah, me too.

[nomoredead]

09:37 PM on 03/28/2011

I say they change their strategy and take a break on this issue and start a campaign to make divorce illegal ! If all these self righteous people are so sure marriage is a holy sanctity then they should all want to outlaw divorce ...right ? How could these goody goodies stand there and argue for divorce ?

[SteveDenver]

02:26 AM on 03/29/2011

Marriage is only "sacred" when gays and lesbians want it.

There needs to be a campaign to make marriage TRULY SANCTIFIED, so strictly defined that only angels can marry.

[carmenalex]

11:25 AM on 03/29/2011

Amen..fanned and faved

[IfIonlyknew]

03:12 PM on 03/29/2011

Yes...Ask newt how sacred it is.

[joebiteme]

09:09 PM on 03/28/2011

does this mean that all the $$ spent on HIV drugs will end if its legalized?/

[Bob Morrow]

09:52 PM on 03/28/2011

Excuse me? What does HIV drugs have to do with same sex marriage?

[SteveDenver]

02:27 AM on 03/29/2011

No, because there are too many heterosexuals contracting HIV.

[antaeus]

08:48 PM on 03/28/2011

The pointless obstructionism is a scandal and a sin. In the face of growing acceptance, legality, and consensus, the artificial delays amount to cruelty.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:02 AM on 03/30/2011

Thank you! Wish I could fan but will fave. It is cruelty, which the haters are too cold hearted to see--and those who might see don't care. After all in their book, we deserve to suffer.