This is in response to a response on Marriage is Protected s Blog started last week. I am responding to Auntie Lay Lay...

Behavior is pretty bad still. Even though I authentically oppose Prop 8 I am not so proud of the Anti Prop8's who vandalized and LDS church w/ red spray paint throughout their grounds on Friday. That kind of ruins the spirit of voting and having a voice. But I do applaud the thousands of people who have stood up and spoken their voice over the weekend. Thousands & thousands of voices all trying to just be heard.

And speaking of voice. Here's my 2 bits. I am in a same sex relationship (I know that surprises you…smile). We have been together for 5 wonderful years and have really experienced a whole lot of wonderfuls as well as challenges too. We love in what we feel is a pretty accepting community w/ some pretty awesome neighbors. My daughter goes to an amazing school where we are accepted as a family and we don’t have to worry about her being a product of bigotry or hatred.

Over the years my partner & I have both been through some medical issues, and gratefully we are ok. 3 years ago I had back fusion surgery, 2 years ago my partner had a radical hysterectomy & also cancerous tumor removed from her tongue this year. So we have had 3 major surgeries in the last few years. And like I said, gratefully we are ok. But the medical issues were not so much the scary part, it was wondering if the doctors would communicate w/ us as a couple regarding our medical issues. Well since we were and are not married, we did not have that legal right to communicate w/ the doctor. It was up to them to decide if they would communicate w/ us. Well guess what, 2 of the doctors said they weren’t suppose to talk to us in the waiting room post surgery to discuss the outcome of the surgery because we were not married, & they did anyway putting the law aside and realizing that we are a couple. The other doctor just assumed it was a non-issue and talked to me also. So even though we are a committed couple were not privy to that vital information after the surgeries because we were not married. You don’t really know what its like to sit, waiting and wondering if there is going to be a problem, would the doctor come & talk to me. Would they look past that ridiculous piece of paper that says we are committed to each other, and are truly genuinely in love and deserve to know the fate of our beloved one as a couple.

Well here we are again, another medical issue. I had 2 mammograms come back suspicious and am facing a biopsy next week. I am pretty confident that my outcome will be successful and won’t need further medical attention. I feel sad for thousands who will have a different outcome than I expect my to have. But that is not the issue w/ me. Again we are facing rounds of doctors & pathologists w/ the right to say my partner is not privileged to the knowledge of my medical needs. That this little piece of paper says we are not a committed couple and that she has no right to speak on my behalf regarding medical issues. That pretty much sucks!!!!

I want you to think about other couples who have had the same struggles w/ medical & legal issues and no rights. One that comes to mind is Sharon Smith of San Francisco. She was Diane Whipple’s partner. Diane was viciously attacked at outside their apartment by their neighbors 2 dogs and she died from injuries she sustained from the attack. Sharon filed a wrongful death law suit against dog owners. Below is a copy of that cases details for you to read over. It is clear that Sharon Smith had no rights as a partner because they were not married, which was not illegal in California and still is. This case would be non existant if they were able to be married, & I truly believe they would have been married if the law permitted them to. The case was later settled and Sharon Smith made a donation from the award to the college where Diane taught as a la cross teacher.

“On March 12, 2001, Sharon Smith, a woman who lived with Diane Whipple as her lover for 7 years, filed her own wrongful death lawsuit against the same defendants as Whipple's mother. Under California law applicable at the time of this killing, only the mother had the right to bring a wrongful death action. Thus, the stage was set for yet another drama associated with the tragic death of Diane Whipple. This drama was about equal rights.

The only heir(s) that can sue for wrongful death are the ones who are specified in the wrongful death statute. In California at the time that Whipple died, the wrongful death statute said that the mother and father (if living) of an unmarried person could sue for that person's wrongful death. Since Diane Whipple's father is deceased, her mother was the only person who could sue for wrongful death under the law as it read at the time of this killing. (The law was changed after Whipple died. See California moves to granting rights to domestic partners, below.)

Smith contended that she was been denied equal rights, that the denial is unconstitutional, and therefore that she should have been allowed to proceed with her lawsuit. Kate Kendell, one of Smith's lawyers, put the legal issue in a very provocative way: "The court cannot deny her a remedy because they were not married, while prohibiting them from being married." The first judge to hear Smith's contention sided with Smith.

Smith's case had three interesting challenges:

Marriage is a legal status, and each State decides what constitutes a marriage. California voters recently had an opportunity to change California law to recognize same-sex marriages to some extent -- and the proposal did not pass. Neither California law nor California's citizens favor such marriages.

Permitting Smith to go ahead with her suit would have favored same-sex couples over heterosexual couples. California courts have held that unmarried heterosexual partners cannot make wrongful death claims. There has been no California case involving a same-sex couple. However, a ruling that same-sex partners can sue for wrongful death would give same-sex partners more rights than heterosexual couples. That arguably would be unfair because it would favor gay/lesbian couples over "straight" ones. The other side of the argument would be that heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

No prior case held that there is a constitutional right to sue for wrongful death. The court might say that no such right exists, or that, if it does, it is up to the state leglislature as to where the line should be drawn. For example, if your brother dies (unmarried and without children) and your parents are alive, you cannot sue for his wrongful death, despite how much you might have loved him, because the state legislature has decided to draw the line so as to include your parents and exclude you. You have no constitutional right whatsoever in connection with his death. The same limitation might apply to Smith or any other domestic partner, whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual.

Smith's case was settled with a confidentiality clause, like that of Diane Whipple's mother.”

I hope that this give you some understanding why it is important to have rights as a couple. Its not about the sex all though It might be for Rational Thinker!!!