I Received in the Mail My Wallet Size *Domestic Partner* ID Card

[Lord Undies]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3046111

mondo joe  (1000+ posts)        Sat Mar-22-08 11:13 AM
Original message
I Received in the Mail My Wallet Size *Domestic Partner* ID Card
   Advertisements [?]

My partner and I recently registered with Washington State as Domestic Partners. We don't have same sex marriage, or civil unions, but the domestic partner registry provides for same sex couples several of the rights associated with marriage.

Then a funny thing happened. We received in the mail two identical Domestic Partner certificates, and two wallet size plastic ID cards identifying us as Washington State domestic partners.

I'm sincerely grateful to a number of elected persons in my state for working so hard to get us this far,and for continuing to fight for real equality. I'm grateful for even these few protections. I'm even grateful to have the card, because it's far more handy in case of an emergency than having to prove that we have Durable Power of Attorney for each other.

But the card is also a burden. There is no heterosexual couple who needs a plastic id card for the sole purpose of identifying themselves as a couple. There is no heterosexual couple who would need such a card in order to talk to their spouse's physician in a medical emergency.

I removed the card from the envelope and held it, in my left hand, to read it. There on the same hand was one of the rings my partner and I exchanged, on the same finger where it has rested for 18 years.

I can't convey the bittersweet feeling of the moment, to take in the success and recognition the card represents, but to also know that this cheap impersonal plastic card is more valuable for all practical matters than the ring beside it, with all it has represented for nearly two decades.

It's progress. But it's not equal. No yet.

Hey, DUmmie!  Why don't one of you get pregnant?  That'll show the bigots!

[Chris_]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3046111

mondo joe  (1000+ posts)        Sat Mar-22-08 11:13 AM
Original message
I Received in the Mail My Wallet Size *Domestic Partner* ID Card
   Advertisements [?]

My partner and I recently registered with Washington State as Domestic Partners. We don't have same sex marriage, or civil unions, but the domestic partner registry provides for same sex couples several of the rights associated with marriage.

Then a funny thing happened. We received in the mail two identical Domestic Partner certificates, and two wallet size plastic ID cards identifying us as Washington State domestic partners.

I'm sincerely grateful to a number of elected persons in my state for working so hard to get us this far,and for continuing to fight for real equality. I'm grateful for even these few protections. I'm even grateful to have the card, because it's far more handy in case of an emergency than having to prove that we have Durable Power of Attorney for each other.

But the card is also a burden. There is no heterosexual couple who needs a plastic id card for the sole purpose of identifying themselves as a couple. There is no heterosexual couple who would need such a card in order to talk to their spouse's physician in a medical emergency.

I removed the card from the envelope and held it, in my left hand, to read it. There on the same hand was one of the rings my partner and I exchanged, on the same finger where it has rested for 18 years.

I can't convey the bittersweet feeling of the moment, to take in the success and recognition the card represents, but to also know that this cheap impersonal plastic card is more valuable for all practical matters than the ring beside it, with all it has represented for nearly two decades.

It's progress. But it's not equal. No yet.

Hey, DUmmie!  Why don't one of you get pregnant?  That'll show the bigots!

Why can't mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, bothers and sister, or non-homosexual friends register as Domestic Partners?  How about 3 people?  Or 4?

Intolerant bastards.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

They should fit nicely with your Witless Projection Program card.

[Uhhuh35]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

[Chris_]

But the card is also a burden. There is no heterosexual couple who needs a plastic id card for the sole purpose of identifying themselves as a couple. There is no heterosexual couple who would need such a card in order to talk to their spouse's physician in a medical emergency.

I removed the card from the envelope and held it, in my left hand, to read it. There on the same hand was one of the rings my partner and I exchanged, on the same finger where it has rested for 18 years.

I can't convey the bittersweet feeling of the moment, to take in the success and recognition the card represents, but to also know that this cheap impersonal plastic card is more valuable for all practical matters than the ring beside it, with all it has represented for nearly two decades.

As for the rest of that post?  That's just ****ing gay. 

[Chris_]

But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

I hadn't considered that.  I am intruiged -- how would that work?

[Chris_]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

[Lord Undies]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

You aren't suppose to look that deep into it.  You are suppose to only look at the surface.  If you start injecting logic and reasoning into the issue, it all falls apart.  So "feel" with your emotions, don't think with your brain, and everyone can have what they want....except normal people.

[jtyangel]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Yes, there is something inherently unfair about domestic partnerships also because it hinges on the idea that the partnership is sealed by the sex act. Well, like you said, that would preclude people who have parents they are caring for. I actually think with the sheer number of boomers though, there is going to be a push by my generation to see them be able to be included on the coverage of their primary caretaker. Some employers do offer it now, but the hoops you have to jump through are pretty monumental and unrealistic in most situations.

[Zeus]

Quite a few group Insurance policies do provide coverage for immediate family members. Naturally a spouse and children(up to the age of 25 if they are in school). Parents and/or siblings may be covered if they meet certain qualifiers. In most cased it's not all that difficult to met the qualifiers. Additional premiums may or may not be required.

[Chris_]

Quite a few group Insurance policies do provide coverage for immediate family members. Naturally a spouse and children(up to the age of 25 if they are in school). Parents and/or siblings may be covered if they meet certain qualifiers. In most cased it's not all that difficult to met the qualifiers. Additional premiums may or may not be required.

Insurance is only part of the issue. Marriage is based on the foundation of family and progeny.  Domestic partnerships are based on... what?  Gay sex? If not, then any combination of any number of adults should be allowed, irrespective of previous relationships.  If so, then if a guy has sex with his sister, does that qualify them for Domestic Partnership?

Someone with serious stones should take this up.  File for DP as a mixed group of 10 in San Francisco. And make a big deal out of it.

[Chris_]

Insurance is only part of the issue. Marriage is based on the foundation of family and progeny.  Domestic partnerships are based on... what?  Gay sex? If not, then any combination of any number of adults should be allowed, irrespective of previous relationships.  If so, then if a guy has sex with his sister, does that qualify them for Domestic Partnership?

Someone with serious stones should take this up.  File for DP as a mixed group of 10 in San Francisco. And make a big deal out of it.

If anyone does it, it will be another pissed-off liberal.

[djones520]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

[Lord Undies]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

[djones520]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

Your ****ing kidding me right?

[Lord Undies]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

Your ****ing kidding me right?

I thought you were ****ing kidding me.

[djones520]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

Your ****ing kidding me right?

I thought you were ****ing kidding me.

Read the ****ing law about Domestic Partners.  It was created in recognition of the fact that Oregons marriage laws discrimated against homosexuals.

https://oregon.gov/DAS/PEBB/docs/PDF/PoliciesRules/DPRevenueQA.pdf

(a) is under no legal disability to marry the other person, but for the fact that
each is of the same sex;
(b) desires a relationship of marriage under Oregon law and would enter into
marriage with the other person, and only with the other person, if Oregon law
permitted it;
(c) is committed to the care and support of the other person;
(d) is responsible for the needs of the other person;
(e) is responsible for financial obligations to others equivalent to such
financial obligations that arise within a marriage recognized under Oregon
law; and
(f) is not married and has no similar commitment and responsibility relative to
any other individual.

The fact that it is being argued that just any 2 people should be able to claim this for tax breaks is ****ing stupid.  This law was created to allow people who LOVE each other and want to live a life together like everyone else but CAN'T because of bigotted ****heads.

[Chris_]

...people who LOVE each other and want to live a life together like everyone else but CAN'T...

Changing the law won't make them "like everyone else". 

[Chris_]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

Your ****ing kidding me right?

I thought you were ****ing kidding me.

Read the ****ing law about Domestic Partners.  It was created in recognition of the fact that Oregons marriage laws discrimated against homosexuals.

https://oregon.gov/DAS/PEBB/docs/PDF/PoliciesRules/DPRevenueQA.pdf

(a) is under no legal disability to marry the other person, but for the fact that
each is of the same sex;
(b) desires a relationship of marriage under Oregon law and would enter into
marriage with the other person, and only with the other person, if Oregon law
permitted it;
(c) is committed to the care and support of the other person;
(d) is responsible for the needs of the other person;
(e) is responsible for financial obligations to others equivalent to such
financial obligations that arise within a marriage recognized under Oregon
law; and
(f) is not married and has no similar commitment and responsibility relative to
any other individual.

The fact that it is being argued that just any 2 people should be able to claim this for tax breaks is ****ing stupid.  This law was created to allow people who LOVE each other and want to live a life together like everyone else but CAN'T because of bigotted ****heads.

I have already told you why 2 heterosexuals.  Why 2 homosexuals?  Why not 3?  4? Father daughter?  Mother son daughter cousin?

What is the theoretical basis for DP unless it is just having sex?

[Lord Undies]

Actually I'm all for Domestic Partner laws and Civil Unions. And it's not just Gays who'll benefit. Any two people who want the benefits of marriage can do it, like two longtime friends or if your from Kentucky, two relatives. 
But those laws could also stop gays from messing with the marriage laws too don't you think?

That's not the rule.  If you are related by blood, you can't register as Domestic Partners.  So if someone has their mom or dad at home and as caretaking for them, they can't register and so can't put the parent on their insurance.

I keep asking why 2, why not 3?  Why not blood relatives?

You HAVE to be gay to be a Domestic Partner. It is discriminatory.

Did you actually think about what you just said?
 

So it's not discriminatory at all to say you have to be straight to be married???

Where do you have to declare your hetrosexuality in order to get married?  Someone send the information to Liza Minnelli quick!

Your ****ing kidding me right?

I thought you were ****ing kidding me.

Read the ****ing law about Domestic Partners.  It was created in recognition of the fact that Oregons marriage laws discrimated against homosexuals.

https://oregon.gov/DAS/PEBB/docs/PDF/PoliciesRules/DPRevenueQA.pdf

(a) is under no legal disability to marry the other person, but for the fact that
each is of the same sex;
(b) desires a relationship of marriage under Oregon law and would enter into
marriage with the other person, and only with the other person, if Oregon law
permitted it;
(c) is committed to the care and support of the other person;
(d) is responsible for the needs of the other person;
(e) is responsible for financial obligations to others equivalent to such
financial obligations that arise within a marriage recognized under Oregon
law; and
(f) is not married and has no similar commitment and responsibility relative to
any other individual.

The fact that it is being argued that just any 2 people should be able to claim this for tax breaks is ****ing stupid.  This law was created to allow people who LOVE each other and want to live a life together like everyone else but CAN'T because of bigotted ****heads.

The fact anyone thinks marriage laws discriminate aginast homosexuals is absurd.  Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else.  The fact they don't wish to take advantage of those laws is their choice.  But the right still exists.  They have been denied NOTHING. 

Creating special legal situations for those who do not want to take advantage of the laws governing legal marriage is an attempt to create a special class of people.  It has nothing to do with discrimination or equality.  It has everything to do with special rights for the adnormal. 

Homosexuality is rare in humanity.  It is a cross to bear.  People are born handicapped every day.  They learn to adjust and live within society.  Why should we expect any less from homosexuals?   We don't have a reason to mold society to fit the homosexual.  The homosexual has every need to mold himself to fit society. 

There is no "discrimination".  There is no "inequity".  There is just a group of people who want to have sex with their own sex.  That doesn't make them special.  That doesn't make them worthy of more rights.  It just makes them abnormal and handicapped.   

[Texacon]

Ahhhhhhh   The VRWC registration machine is in full swing I see .... and the gays are none the wiser.  Bwahahahahahahaha   

The libs will only be happy when a man/woman can marry a goat and have full marital priveleges.  When will NAMBLA start getting their cards?!

KC

[Chris_]

Ahhhhhhh   The VRWC registration machine is in full swing I see .... and the gays are none the wiser.  Bwahahahahahahaha   

The libs will only be happy when a man/woman can marry a goat and have full marital priveleges.  When will NAMBLA start getting their cards?!

KC

That is sort of the direction I am going.  Once we have "marriage" outside of 1 man and 1 woman, then "marriage" should be between 1 to n consenting people (kids included) or maybe even animals, since there is no theoretical foundation for it any more.

[Texacon]

Ahhhhhhh   The VRWC registration machine is in full swing I see .... and the gays are none the wiser.  Bwahahahahahahaha   

The libs will only be happy when a man/woman can marry a goat and have full marital priveleges.  When will NAMBLA start getting their cards?!

KC

That is sort of the direction I am going.  Once we have "marriage" outside of 1 man and 1 woman, then "marriage" should be between 1 to n consenting people (kids included) or maybe even animals, since there is no theoretical foundation for it any more.

That's been my arguement for a long time.  Once you allow anything outside of heterosexual marriage you have moved outside the definition.  Now it is wide open.  NAMBLA will argue that if you allow marriage between homosexuals then you must allow it between men and boys who, also, are consenting.

Words have meaning.  I don't get the gay arguement at all.  They have the exact same rights hetero's have .... they can marry any member of the opposite sex they choose (within the law).  I can marry any member of the opposite sex I want (within the law).  Sounds pretty equal so far.  They can't marry a person of the same sex.  I can't marry a person of the same sex.  Still equal.  What they want are SPECIAL equals but they won't admit it.

KC