Guest Blog: The Incomparable Truth – How Domestic Partnerships Do Not Adequately Protect Families’ Rights
Michael and his husband reside in California with their two adopted sons. Michael dedicates time to writing a family blog and occasionally contributes pertinent information on adoption issues on several websites and groups.
In December, I wrote a blog entitled, “California’s proposition 8 affects families.” In that blog I wanted to illustrate the mere fact that domestic partnerships are not equal to that of civil marriage, an argument professed by proponents of proposition 8. In the end, California’s Supreme Court will decide the validity of proposition 8, but again, I ask the question. Did people know what they were voting for at the time? I doubt it.
Shirley Tan, the “wife” and domestic partner of Jay Mercado, faces deportation because her attorney allegedly failed to notify her that her request to stay in the U.S. was denied back in 2002. Jay Mercado, who is also a female, is a natural citizen. If Mercado were a male, there would be no issue with Tan’s immigration status. Her marriage to Mercado would protect her. Yet, despite being “married” and having registered as domestic partners with the state of California, the domestic partnership law does not protect individuals from deportation should an issue arise relating to their immigration status. Tan and Mercado, who have been together for 23 years, have two children, twin boys who were born to Tan while she resided in the United States. As California lawmakers work to introduce legislature that may help Tan, the couple may be forced to choose: 1) relocate the family to the Philippines, or 2) allow Tan to be deported.
If people really knew that domestic partnerships were NOT equal to marriage, would the outcome of November’s election have been the same?
- Guest Blog: The Emotional Rollercoaster That Is Adoption
- Guest Blog: California’s Proposition 8 Affects Families
- Guest Blog: Unsolicited Parenting Advice: Where Do You Draw the Line?
- Guest Blog: The Not So Pleasant Side of Adoption - Being Scammed
- Guest Blog: Breaking Down the Stereotype: Gay and Lesbian Parents Raise Children Who Grow Up to Be Gay or Lesbian
- How to Organize a Baby Room While Waiting to Adopt
- How Abuse Affects Relationships
- How to Clean a Teen's Room
- How to Discipline a Violent Child
- How to Homeschool a Child With Cerebral Palsy
- How to Determine Primary & Secondary Health Insurance Coverage
Would you like to Go Green and stop contributing to landfills? Would you do it if you could buy green products at wholesale prices cheaper than name brand products? What if you could make enough every month to get your products for free? This business is showing double digit growth during this depressed economy. If you want to make the effort you can earn well-over a $100,000 a year. Pay a yearly membership fee to start $27, sort of like joining Sam’s Club or Cosco for a year. This is not a scam, both fostermommy and Julia Fuller have been members for over a year. Email either of us to ask how you can join.
Suggested Articles:
GuestBlogger's blog | 
Login or register to post comments | 
Tags: California’s Proposition 8, Child Is Citizen Mother Is Not, Domestic Partners, Faces Deportation, Guest Blog, Guestblogger, Jay Mercado, Michael, One Parent Deported, Shirley Tan
I think this debate is a good one. We need this type of debate to mature as a society.
The one thing I want you to take away from this discussion is this. John makes a very valid point in that people are entitled to their beliefs. I firmly believe that, too. However, one's beliefs should not dictate law for everyone, even if the "peoples' will" dictates. After all, laws prohibited interracial couples from marrying because people believed that such unions would be a detriment to society. Likewise, laws were created to protect the practice of slavery. Just because these laws were created by the "peoples' will" doesn't make them right.
If we don't start at the state level, we will NEVER get to the federal level. Besides, I have a hard time believing that Tan would be deported if marriage were still legal in CA. As a matter of fact, no one called California voters stupid until your comment. I believe some voters may have been misled or misinformed. There is a difference.
As for your comment about marriage and domestic partnerships being equal in the state of California, well that is simply untrue. Therein lies the issue.
For example, community property, separate property, inheritance and healthcare benefits are treated differently for married couples than for domestic partners. In the former, married couples enjoy the benefit of not having to pay taxes on the transfer of property upon their spouse's death. Domestic partners, while they are entitled to receive said property, they do not receive the same tax benefit. When it comes to healthcare benefits, an employee is taxed on benefits they provide to their DP. Married couples are not taxed for such benefits.
Not stupid, just incapable of figuring out the meaning of a 14 word amendment. Gosh, that makes them out to be really not bright. That is many milions of apparently very simple minded voters. Wasn't it Lincoln who said you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time? That would have to be a lot of championship grade bambozzelment.
How about 'the will of the people was that the vision of four unelected state employees was wrong and inappropriate'?
With regard to property and healthcare, I believe you are again refering to federal issues. It is not up to the state of California, or its voters to distort our laws to fit into nooks and crannies in federal law. Change the federal laws if they need changing.
I find it interesting, John, that you bring up red herring when in fact you have not even discussed the fact of Tan's impending deportation.
If we don't start making a change on the state level, we will never get to the federal level. And, I reiterate, the laws for DP vs. marriage are not the same whether you look at state or federal laws. So to continue fighting the "marriage is for one man and one woman" is discrimination. I also don't buy the argument that marriage is God's law or the law of nature; marriage is a law that man created to preserve his wealth. Marriage is man's law. Thus why should any man or woman be excluded from that right state or federal? Furthermore, how can you separate the two? What you are saying is that it is okay to discriminate on a federal level, but not on the state level...this assumes that your argument about equality rings true. It doesn't though. I live it. Oh, one more thing, where DP laws are equivalent, federal law trumps those equalities. So what we are left with is an agreement that is nowhere near equivalent to a marriage.
As for the 14-word amendment, and the "stupidity" of California voters, I think there is more to it than just the 14 words. The Yes On 8 campaign was fought well. They won by using intimidation tactics. They used children in their ads to convey a message that was untrue. Dirty...just plain dirty. But, in your words, they won, so I should be okay with that fact.
With all due respect, I will continue to fight until my rights are equal to yours.
Michael you are right, you should fight for the rights that you believe you should have. There is a difference between saying 'I am going to continue to fight for what's right', and 'No one could possibly disagree with my thinking, if they do they must be uninformed.' It is not discrimination to feel that marriage is for a man and a woman, it is what someone believes. We have the first amendment to cover the idea that viewpoints that don't agree with someone else must be muted. If you have a right to have marriage between two people of the same sex, it is a right that has to come from the law. That is what Prop 8 was all about. 14 words is as simple as it can get, how about that is what people really do believe?
Tan is exactly what I was mentioning, a red herring. Deportation is purely a federal matter, California and its laws do not apply there. I believe the child is what is referred to as an anchor baby, a child born here and a US citizen, so that the parents cannot be deported despite their status as illegal aliens.
Or even imply that Tan and her partner of 23 years had children as an anchor is insulting. Your comment demeans the foundation of family.
At least, on some level, we agree that people are entitled to equal rights. But, to allow 52% of voters (not 52% of Californians) to decide on an equal rights issue is wrong. No one should be able to strip rights away from another. Regardless of how you frame it John, prop 8 is discriminatory.
As for comment about people being able to believe in what they want, I am okay with that aspect. When another's beliefs affect my life that is a problem. The analogy can be made about religion. Your religious beliefs are not affected by mine. They are protected under our constitution. Perhaps, we should really defend marriage and the principles behind it.
Backing away from this specific issue.... There are 2 high-level philosophies on what government should do (in the United States). And since the Europe Union was formed, I have been curious to see how these dynamics play out too.
It is all about who controls the money and budget decisions. The Republican party typically represented SL. The Democratic party typically represented LS.
An example of SL... The Welfare reform in 1994 (?) converted welfare benefits (food stamps, housing) to block grants. The state governments would decide the appropriate ways to provide welfare benefits. For example the state government could set up subsidies for child care so that a single mom could finish her education or get a job. My state does have child care subsidy and it has made a big difference in many families lives.
Definitions of family, health insurance coverage, inheritance, property tax, school boards have always been a state matter. But in the last 20 years, we have seen a trend toward LS on these matters. The federal government knows best. So we got No-Child-Left-Behind and Defense of Marriage Act (like marriage really needed to be defended), etc.. I am not really angry at Democratics because that is their philosophy. But I am profoundly disappointed in the Republican party.
At a minimum I think the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be overturned. This one federal law is what caused the inheritance, etc.. problems that califdads mentioned. I do believe that it is unconsitutional (I am not a lawyer). Wikipedia has a nice write up on DOMA and explains the constitutional issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
If you are going to fight DOMA via the courts, you have to get to the Supreme Court. And the only way to do that is to have a law... make a case.
So moving back to califdads blog... I agree with John that the federal law needs to be fixed. And maybe now is the time to lobby for the removal of DOMA from federal law. In fact Obama said several times he would support the effort. Is anyone working on this?
John, I think califdads point is valid. Many people can read and understand a 14 word amendment as it applies to themselves. Most people are very selfish suckers and don't understand other's life experiences. But I found most Americans to care about individual families hurting due to specific laws.. like Tan... when they find out.
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
I watched "Milk" last night and was reminded how far this country has come BUT how we still have so much farther to go. Discrimination is ugly and dangerous... period.
Michael, all of the issues you raised in your first post on prop 8 were problems with federal law and regulations, nothing to do with marriage or doemstic partnership in California. Federal law does not change no matter what happens with Prop 8. California, for state purposes, does treat domestic partnership equally with marriage. Your points are valid, but have nothing to do with California, or marrige between same sex couples in California. Yes, there are differences when you talk about the Feds, but that isn't fixed by yowling about the unfairness of the propsition, you need to fix Federal law. This is like blaming impending old age on George Bush. Fun, and a guy lots of folks dislike, but the one has nothing to do with the other. This is a red herring.
I think it is amazing that the folks who didn't like the outcome, assume the voters were stupid, and couldn't have possibly felt that way. It is very possible that they truly believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. CA did establish a far reaching domestic partnership, perhaps overreaching by the 'we want it all now' group was unwise.
There was a similar case in Michigan. A mother had a severly disabled son who required 24 hour care. She lived with the boy's father but was not married to him. She was actually deported for several months, but area congressman was able to assist in getting her returned because of hardship. She is the boy's bio mom, he is a citizen, she is not.