On the 9th Circuit Ruling

It appears the 9th circuit ruling is grappling more with what a Domestic Partnership is more than what a marriage is. DP's were set up as a way to promote marriage benefits for same-sex couples, and elderly heterosexual couples. Where California thought it was doing a good thing for gay couples, it has turned around and dislodged their human rights in responsible procreation. The court ruled that while the DP's provided every marriage benefit, they were only created to keep gay couples from getting marriage licenses.

This isn't too different than what a Michigan Supreme Court grappled with a few years ago in a constitutional amendment which explicitly outlaws competing marriage institutions. They found that DP's was simply a competing marriage institution and while the benefits could be available through other means, that was simply the wrong way.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, while noble in effort, are flawed? We at Opine have made that assertion for many years ... Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships need their own grounding rather than borrowing the ground marriage sits on. While I maintain they work great to recognize same-sex marriages, they don't work well as same-sex marriage -- a separate institution exclusive to gay couples for them to call their version of marriage.

Given those findings, it would be better to re-evaluate what DP's are than what marriage is. That was affirmed with a state constitution to try to help everyone (who ever once was, is or will be a child of a mother and father), while DP's are only a legislator's attempt to help out one set of people.

Its a good example of something I've said quite a bit... that neutering marriage is in a practical sense more about replacing marriage with DP's (though using the same name) rather than simply gay couples emulating marriage.