Partnerships vs. marriages

Re “Same-sex marriage has skeptics on court,” March 5

In this article on the hearing on same-sex marriage, some California Supreme Court justices suggested that “they see the state’s domestic partnerships as marriage in all but the name.” So would any of the justices be willing to have their marriages dissolved and replaced by domestic partnerships? Would any justices encourage their heterosexual children or grandchildren to enter into a domestic partnership rather than a marriage? I think not, because no matter how they decide in this case, they know in their hearts that domestic partnerships are, for so many reasons, not equal to marriage.

Bob Dardano

Washington

How simple: Pass legislation to decree that all laws and regulations must substitute the words “registered partner” for “spouse” and delete the word “marriage.” That way all who want to receive the current benefits of “spouse” or “marriage” could do so upon registration, as they now do for a marriage license. Then, if they wanted to sanctify their union, they could locate a religious leader to do so. This would do two things: It would simplify and remedy the current controversy on same-sex marriage, and it would take away from religions the power to grant civil rights via marriage -- a complete and long-overdue separation of church and state.

Lou Del Pozzo

Pacific Palisades

I am outraged that the will of the people is again being challenged in the courts. It was only a few years ago that the Legislature attempted to go around voters and pass a same-sex marriage law, even though voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 60% of the vote.

I am further outraged by Justice Joyce Kennard’s statement that just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it is legal or constitutional.

It seems to me that there are much more important issues facing the already backlogged California high court than the militant demands of a small fraction of the population for same-sex marriage.

John Mancino

Lancaster