‘Til death do us part
As the song goes, once they come-a come-a down doobie-doo-down-down from the honeymoon, married gay couples are finding that breakin’ up is hard to do:
…A Massachusetts divorce isn’t an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there.
“They’ve given us no choice but to be married forever,” said Ormiston. “Their worst nightmare.”
Around the country, same-sex couples are discovering that getting divorced can be far more complicated than getting married. Sometimes, as with Ormiston and Chambers, the problems stem from living in a state with different laws from the state where the marriage took place.
But even in Massachusetts and California, where married gay couples have the same right to divorce as heterosexual couples, a clash between federal and state laws makes the process anything but equal.
_____________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Power Line
» When In Doubt, DeletePundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteCommentary
» The End of the BeginningGay Patriot
» How John Hoeven Can Save AmericaCommentary
» Flotsam and JetsamJustOneMinute
» The Topless Ann AlthouseEd Driscoll
» The Bears Are Who We Thought They Were
No sympathy from me.
awwwwwwwww……. so sad too bad.
I have to concur with vicki…they were in such a rush to buck convention and do what they wanted, they didnt foresee anything negative in regard to consequence of action.
Likewise.
Other than discriminatory laws making it harder for gay couples to divorce, how is the end of a straight marriage any different than the end of a gay marriage?
The same thing can be said of millions upon millions of heterosexual marriages, many of which are still together. My grandparents eloped and they’re on Year 59. So what’s your point?
Sheez, it’s always something.
I guess the practicalities of being “married” are nowhere near as fun as trying to prove a political point.
Wellllll….. does the saying, ” Be careful what you wish for, you may get it” ring a bell right about now?… Leave my country’s traditions alone!
Maybe they need to seek counseling to make the marriage work. (GACK)
Reprobates:
Whine because they can’t get married; whine because they can’t get divorced. What about the sworn vows??
Sane people break their vows?
Doesn’t make it acceptable!
I believe my point was exactly as you quoted me as saying. I wasn’t being ambiguous.
If you want more detail, that’s fine. People who ran off and got all in a frenzy to get places to accept gay marriage and the like didn’t allow for the laws to catch up to their chosen lifestyle changes. Thus, they’ve run into this roadblock. If the law is discriminatory, its only because those have been in place for a rather long time, and there are STILL many who believe this is fundamentally wrong, on several levels. But now, if they want it to be fair, they’re going to have to let the laws catch up and be amended so it is fair.
Is that enough, or do you need more?
Of course, to them, i’m just some homophobe. I would jump on a soap box for a minute, and say that’s the most asinine label they could find. I fear no such thing. I disagree with it, but i dont fear it.
And the example of your grandparents doesn’t really factor into the discussion, unless you have 2 grandfathers or something. In saying they were “bucking convention”, i meant strictly the topic at hand.
Whew! I was worried there for awhile – it took 4 comments before the Renowned Rusty Relativism™ kicked in. He’s still among we, the living. (Us the living? eh, whatever….)
“They’ve given us no choice but to be married forever,” said Ormiston. “Their worst nightmare.”
Man, did I need a laugh this week (I know some of you are getting your jollies out of the Obama World Tour, but I can only weep in despair when I think of it). Anyway, I’m so grateful someone came through with a gut-buster. Plenty of heteros or “breeders” or whatever the slur de jour is, discover that grim truth the hard way. It is about time our morally exalted gay brothers and sisters find it out as well.
So welcome to the real world or, as some of us affectionately refer to it, hell. What dorks.
Cry me a river. This is too funny!
You mean marriages based on making a political statement didn’t work? Shocka!
(I say this of course because had they given more thought to the commitments of marriage and the current legal issues surrounding homosexual marriage/divorce, perhaps they would have waited a few second after the ruling and considered the consequences)
People who hold to morality are the ones ‘bucking convention” these days, AbMind. We’re the new revolution! Don’t trust anyone under 30 IQ! (i.e. leftists, PC people, victims du jour)
You’re the one you been a waitin’ for, AbMind. (hmmm…Wasn’t that a 60s psychedelic song title?)
heh
RUSTY, My oppostion to gay marriage has nothing to do with fear. Your labeling of anyone who disagrees with your view on things as homophobia is just an attempt to shut down dissent through a form of polticaly correct thought control. i.e you must be bad because you think differently than me so to be good again you must do whatever I say. I reject such underhanded tactics and refuse to be intimidated into the “correct” way of thinking. I don’t fear gays. In fact I couldn’t care less about them. Good for them. I see no need to change anything to accomadate thier “lifestyle”. If that makes me a homophobe in your eyes, so be it. You calling me that tells me your argument is weak if it relies on name calling and weak brainwashing techneques.
and, I suspect criminal charges for some on fighting over the pet poodle.
The cases coming down the pike are going to be a flippin hoot.
yawn…
I want my wedding gift back!
Meatloaf said it best.
♫ I said I’d love you till the end of time….♪♫ and now I’m praying for the end of time…..
no no no, i’m not The One everyone has been waiting for..i’m not standing for hope OR change, and i dont have some supernatural glow, except when i wear shorts and you can see my pasty white legs ROFL.
I agree that holding to old fashioned principles is kind of bucking the system these days.
And yes, it was a song, but i dont remember it too well, but it does ring a bell.
But what if….just WHAT IF…i was some kind of conservative Messiah.
I’m not sure if that would be fun, interesting, or scary. and who’d vote for little old me?
All together now…!!!
Boo-Freakin-hoo!!
In reality, they aren’t really married so a divorce for something that doesn’t exist is kind of a moot point.
Trying to get around the laws huh? Why not do it now? Break the law to get married so break it to get a devoirce and quit whinning.
Lib’s don’t see consequences as a road block, they only use emmotion.
Sorry fellas, same-sex quickie divorce isn’t yet on the books in Nevada.
First may I say, and I think I speak for a lot of heterosexuals: no s**t, Sherlock.
I’d be curious to know how many of these marriages are disintegrating. The oldest possible gay marriage is what, four years old at this point? Has it even been that long? That’s a pretty quick turnover in “loving, lifelong commitments”.
But it’s about the children….
*have to jab at it..*
You mean the ones they are not biologically able to have on their own because of their lifestyle?
Check!
good point grunt
The laws aren’t discriminatory. Mass. doesn’t say “non-resident heterosexuals can get divorced here but non-resident homosexuals can’t”.
Of course, a simple solution to this would have been for such jurisdictions to not only refuse to divorce non-residents but also refuse to marry them in the first place.
And thus the potential for judges to legislate from the bench regarding gay marriage and divorce. This highlights the importance of voting a presidential candidate that will appoint constructionist judges.
Yep.
Besides – wasn’t one of the arguments for gay marriage that it would be more stable than traditional marriage and that traditional marriage had ruined the institution because of divorce? Or some allusion to the same…
Newsflash for this couple: It’s not easy for most straight couples to get a divorce either. All a loosening of divorce law will do is increase the rate of divorce across the spectrum – not create “equality”. It only continues to undermine the institution of marriage – until it no longer exists.
Which, ultimately, is the goal of such a libertine culture. And which, ulitmately, will bring about the destruction of civilized society.
I always thought the proposition that a marriage could be made more stable by introducing another man into it was dubious at best.
One of the consequences of being a pioneer is sometimes you end up lying face down in a prarie with arrows sticking out of your back.
Well, they got what they wanted, now they don’t want what they got.
Tough, you guys made your bed (so to speak) now go lay in it.
Serves ‘em right. No sympathy here either
Perhaps the sophomoric LGM will seek to lecture us…..(chuckle)
Before you wax more Dylan-like (and we all know how painful waxing one’s Dylan-like can be!), ya gotta check what I said:
“You’re the one you been a waitin’ for, AbMind”
It’s just you that’s waiting for you – no,no,no it ain’t anybody lese who’s lookin’ for you!
Hmmm…I dunno, but if so, I could grab a guy named Handel by the handle (and we all know how painful that can be!) and have him write a really great tune for ya.
“Sour Gaypes”
All I want to know is who get’s the vibrator? oh uh the shoulder massager.
This had GOT to be my favorite line from the article. So the “single most important benefit of marriage is divorce”? Somehow when I’ve listed up all the benefits of being married, I never counted that one. I’ll have to tell my dh we we’ve been missing out.
Simply fabulous. Very funny.
And Rusty gays don’t bother me. If they are men, more women for me. If they are two hot chicks going at it, I dig it. If they are ugly women, well, even ugly women deserve love too.
OK, so i’m not the person i wanted that i thought i was.
Guess i’ll have to just go back and see how many of the 58 states are going to vote for me.
Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!! It’s not fair, it’s not fair!!! Fix it now!!!
/sarcasm
I think that’s terrible, Mule! Though I hope they can work out who gets to keep the pet. I mean, we’re all fond of our animals whether they be cats, dogs or gerbils….
I read the headline and my first thought was, this is a Rusty thread. I am shocked he was #5.
No need to photoshop that one – AND I MEAN IT!!!
peep,
Hand me a new keyboard please. You owe me at least that much.
Absolutely no sympathy from me. I also find it disgusting that “the single most important benefit of marriage is divorce . . . a predictable process by which property is divided, debt is apportioned and custodial arrangements are made for children”.
Somehow, when I think of vowing to spend the rest of my life with someone… for better or for worse I think the vows go divorce doesn’t strike me as the single most important benefit of such a promise.
But then again, this has never been about a stable committed relationship. It’s been about making a political statement.
Jim C
As Gomer Pyle would say “Surprise, surprise!
This is just one reason why a federal constitutional amendment is needed to define marriage as one man – one woman.
Also note that group pseudo-marriages are now possible.
I think that’s the second most important benefit. The primary benefit is making a lifelong commitment to your partner. However, if things do go sour, it’s good to have a fair way to redistribute wealth. It wouldn’t be fair for a stay-at-home mom to be kicked out of the house and lose everything because her boyfriend of 25 years decided to have an affair. That woman needs protection and marriage is a form of that protection.
When political statements backfire.
Because straight couples never get divorced?
Two things.
It is not marriage.
It is not sex.
How about two brothers making life long commitments? Do you have a problem with that?
Which is exactly why people cannot run off to any jurisdiction they want and get divorced. So as a practical matter you’re actually in favor of the situation you dismissed as “discriminatory” a few comments ago.
But here’s what you’re failing to take into account: ALL of the protections you want these people to be entitled to were already available to them in the form of various civil legal arrangements and domestic partnerships. But they didn’t want benefits, they didn’t want legal protection. What they wanted was to be married, and they wanted to be married specifically to put a thumb in the eye of people (like many commenters here) who think that we should pause for a moment before upending 5,000 years of civilization.
It’s easily understandable why so many people would find it amusing that their statement has backfired on them, and so quickly.
Oh and just by the way, to call divorce a “benefit” of marriage in any way is perverse. It’s like saying that seatbelts are a benefit of cars or lifeboats a benefit of cruise ships. These aren’t benefits, they are only the means to attempt to minimize the damage caused when something goes catastrophically wrong.
RE: # 2 – I’d say it’s “unnatural sexual activity“.
Man, what I wouldn’t give to be a mouse in the corner of a courtroom where one of these divorces was being argued…the mind boggles. Those poor judges!
As a legal matter I would not. I think that in a free society any number of people should be free to enter into whatever contractual arrangement they want.
But marriage is not strictly contractual. The word is heavily weighted with religious and cultural significance. And so I would have a problem with them being married.
I’ve been asking the same question for a long time Mr P and it hasn’t been answered.
Rusty,
But in those cases where there are such large spaces of time, there are already laws on the books for such things, such as common law practices and the like. If they had children, there would be child support, and property could be divided through lawyers or arbitration.
And any woman who would stay with a guy for 25 years and not get married seems a bit dense.
Yup, James. I know if a guy/gal wanted me to run his/her life I could have them very legally linked to me, if they so desired. First, I’d start with power of attorney….
It really just not at all difficult to get lives “mixed together”, for good or for ill.
It’s the gettin’ out that’s a bear.
If two men can getting married is legal then why not.
Moderate / Left leaning Republicans say WHAAAATTT~~~
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Have a good weekend all!
I wonder if the lawyer talking about the “benefits” of marriage being divorce was talking about her own profits?
Having had the dubious distinction of experiencing that particular social process, I can say that the lawyers were the only ones who truly came out of the courtroom smiling.
The reason you don’t get an answer is that the advocates of gay marriage know that to answer it undermines their case.
Marriage is inarguably a human construction, and that means that any limits we place on it are, ultimately, completely arbitrary. Every single justification offered for gay marriage is equally applicable bigamy, polygamy or incest (between adults). And any reason given not to allow such marriage arrangements applies equally to gay marriage.
Marriage is, by long multicultural tradition, a union between a man and a woman. All other arrangements should be settled using civil contracts.
Are you saying that the gay agenda would discriminate against two brothers that wanted to marry. The incest laws have no bearing on them since they can not procreate.
I’ve been asking the same question for a long time Mr P and it hasn’t been answered.
That’s related to those who are for same-sex marriage, but maintain it should remain between only 2 persons.
When I ask “Why two?” sometimes along the way they’ll catch on it being a biologically-based imperative. i.e. a de facto admission that procreation is the objective norm, not the exception.
No. That’s not at all what I’m saying. I thought the rest of my post made that clear but I’ll elaborate.
Often an opponent of gay marriage will say “allowing gay marriage will open the door to all sorts of others things like incest and polygamy”. The response to this, invariably, is “don’t be silly, that’s nothing to worry about”.
But it very much is something to worry about, because any justification offered for gay marriage applies equally to those other arrangements.
And that is why advocates of gay marriage cannot answer the question. If they say “no, I don’t have a problem with it” then they are admitting the slippery slope exists. If they say “yes, I do have a problem with it” then they are forced to articulate reasons which can be used equally well to oppose gay marriage.
Hope that clears it up for you.
I guess their love wasn’t the stuff story books are made from.
I think this instance is why a lot of other gay couples just live together. Hell, I’ve had relatives who’d rather “live in sin” than deal with something that takes commitment and responsibility like marriage.
I think this just goes to show that, like many heterosexual couples, there are many gay couples who can’t make it last, no matter how fast they either rushed into marriage or waited until the law favored them, or how long they “lived in sin” before making the leap.
Such feel-good policies/laws always have unintended consequences, don’t they?
You mean fairy tales?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
…or broken backs?
I’m saying they are discriminating against the two brothers. But if they support it, then they are descriminating against a brother and a sister. They are in a catch 22.
This sounds like a
“Gee, think you should’ve researched Massachussett’s marriage laws before rushing there to get married?”
situation to me. Perhaps if they were as diligent about the actual details of being married in Mass., as they were enthusiastic about doing so, they wouldn’t be facing such problems now.
I’m not an opponent of gay marriage, per se, but to me this is a “you made your bed” moment.
Soap/James Felix:
You fellas are so bad! How did you know what I was thinking?
Seriously, though. I just thought of something. Life can be a fairy tale but love is really hard work. Especially if it’s born of political protest and stubborn will to be different and embarass your family (oh, I’m sorry that may have inadvertently hit Rusty, my apologies).
This site tickles me each time I log on. The sense of humor here is great and the tolerance of the other view point is without peer. I only wish that the company that supports this site had the ability to address specific comments built in. It probably does but as a neophyte, rusty that is a new person, I have yet to find the time and figure it out.
Michelle is “The Boss” here, expat! Though she may be incorporated, the only “company” I know of are the oddballs who hang around here. But they’re mostly good “company”.
Is there is a specific problem(s) that you’re having here – something that doesn’t work or ? Folks here will be glad to help you out. Just ask.
Why, just last week one of them loaned me a left-handed monkeywrench I needed to fix a problem with my PC!
You do mean your problem with being politically correct, don’t you! How many wacks did it take?
peep,
gerbils…. ROLFLMAO
I’d like to throw something out there, if you folks don’t mind. I was debating with a friend who is against gay marriage and during our back and forth, she said that preserving the sanctity of marriage should also include limitations on straight marriages. I must have looked at her like she had two heads so she explained that she thinks there should be a limit on how many times people are allowed to marry. A three strikes and your out policy, if you will. She thinks it would force people to take marriage more seriously and divorce rates would decline since people wouldn’t rush into getting married without being total committed to making it work. I thought that was kind of interesting. Any thoughts?
purplepeep said:
Why, just last week one of them loaned me a left-handed monkeywrench I needed to fix a problem with my PC!
I stopped counting after 18. But I feel much better now, thanks.
I could see some problems with that, Mookie. . .fromt the ‘values voters’ perspective.
I doubt that limiting the number of times a person can get married would truly force people to take it more seriously. Most folks I know who have been married and then divorced took it quite seriously, only to discover incompatabiliy later.
So let’s take guy X, and a hypothetical limit of 3 marriages. He gets his 3rd divorce, and he’s left with what option? Living ‘in sin’ as some would describe it, is all that’s left to him. . . I wager he’d be no less likely to form relationships, but he’d be less prone to consider them lasting commitments. Since this whole idea is supposed to promote commitment, that’s a pretty big flaw.
Of course, those are just guesses on my part, but based on my observations of human nature, I think they’re pretty apt.
Mookie:
Sounds a bit too much like the government sticking their head where they don’t belong.
Also sounds like it’s unenforceable. What’s to stop someone going on their 4th marriage to just make #4 a live-in GF/BF with joint accounts and such?
Seems to me like someone who has a habit of swapping out spouses every so often would like this arrangment:
“Well, I wish we could marry dear, but you know, I can’t.”
A simpler solution might be making marriage a very difficult thing to get into in the first place (at first bat).
Opponents of gay marriage say, “it’ll open all kinds of doors! What’s next, incest? Bestiality? Polygamy?”
They said the SAME THINGS when laws banning interracial marriage were being stricken down. That didn’t make them right. Marriage as an American tradition doesn’t make it untouchable, either. Just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it okay.
That said, I’d like to know what would happen to the “institution of marriage” if we took away crap like The Divorce Store and made divorce much more difficult and more expensive. ‘Cause we all know that society won’t suddenly find morals.
There’s a store for divorces? Gee, no one tell my wife.
Those are both really good points. We didn’t get into the logistics of how it would be regulated by the government, which was my fault since I didn’t ask. The idea threw me for such a loop that it didn’t occur to me. Yashmak, I think that 95% of people go into marriage with the best of intentions and it’s heartbreaking when they realize they’re not compatible and end up divorcing. I just want to make sure you didn’t think I was saying/implying otherwise. I think, though, when you look at someone like Larry King, who’s been married seven times, it makes you wonder if maybe he should stay away from marriage for a little while.
I know the Catholic Church makes you take Pre-Cana classes. How would it work with marriages outside of the church (any denomination)?
It’s not funny, JT! Don’t you suspect that one partner will feel much closer to it than the other?!
But I’m sure a wise judge can make a Solomon-like decision. Of course, they could each end up (unintended pun there) with half a dead critter – these breakups can be real heartbreakers and the poor pet suffers too…Well, such are the ways of modern true love.
:::holding back tears:::
Mookie,
An interesting point of view.
In a perfect world, people would find 1 person to marry and that’d be it.
But thats not even close to reality.
While i think its silly that people might get married 5, 6, 7 times… as a divorced person myself, sometimes things just dont work out. Getting married a second time doesnt seem off the list, though I can personally attest its not something i’d consider or enter into again lightly in any respect.
I think your friend has a good heart, but i dont see where it bears out in reality.
Mookie:
Maybe they should make people sit in on really nasty divorce proceedings?
Hmmm, why does my “stick out tongue smiley” look like a “laughing smiley?”
:^P
This isn’t a something the gay couples understood from the beginning because the brain-dead liberals running CA and MA didn’t explain the consequenses when they welcomed the couples with open arms. I guess the state gov’t should have a Miranda-type card read at each gay “marriage.”
You have a right to marry. If you are a resident of this state, you have the right to divorce. If you are not a resident of this state, you give up all rights to a divorce and anything you say can and will be used as material for humor by the intelligent people of this planet who will laugh their @$$e$ off at your predicament. Have a fun six months!
.
I don’t think anyone claimed that the sanctity of marriage would be protected by banning interracial marriages, it was the sanctity of race they were concerned with.
And it’s worth mentioning that in this case the slippery slope isn’t hypothetical. Polygymists have already started demanding the right to “love who they want” using the exact same language as the proponents of gay marriage.
I’m pretty sure our concept of marriage pre-dates 7/4/1776 by a considerable margin. And just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it not okay, either. In any event the proper way for this to be decided is through the legislative process, not by the whims of a handful of unelected judges who decide to impose their worldview on 300 million people.
No. Next?
Agreed! But personally, I think it should be put to a direct vote of the people.
My whole take on the marriage debate is that it is NOT about sexuality at all. It is about definition. If people can just change a definition that has stood for ages then at what point does that redefinition end? At one point does it just become meaningless?
If we redefine marriage to include two males, then it seems we can redefine marriage to include two brothers, or two older siblings (a brother and sister), 3 people, 4 people, father and daughter (who says marriage is about sex?, we changed the meaning remember). So I would say that at this point the definition of marriage has not really changed. What the law is talking about is just not marriage. It is something else.
Re the two brothers argument:
Polygamy and incest are, to me, in the same field as a 50-yr-old marrying a 15-yr-old. Certain relationships are too prone to abuse for them to work. Incest, statutory cases, and polygamy are much more prone to abuse and therefore can’t be protected.
Just as a mentioning point, it was common practice up until not too far back in modern history, where younger girls were married to older men, for a myriad of reasons. I doubt all of those women were abused, though i’m positive there would be cases. And in cultures around the world, it is still considered to be acceptable, even expected.
I’m not defending the practice at all, mind you. I’m looking at this from a purely anthropological standpoint.
Thanks, Stookie, for proving how dumb a troll can be.
I’ll make it so simple that you, Musty, and lOgJAm might understand it.
M1 “marries” M2 & F1 “marries” F2 in a state with this nonsense.
In another state that does not recognize same-sex pseduo-marriages,
M1 marries F1 and M2 marries F2.
Draw yourself a diagram, bozo.
Rusty, what about Gerry Studds from MA? He had sex with a 17 year old page in 1973. This isn’t some 18 year old guy having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. This is a 35+ year old man having sex with a 17 year old boy. Shouldn’t he have been arrested and charged with a crime? He wasn’t. He was re-elected to six terms. Would you have voted for this democrat?
Please don’t give me the old tired “consentual sex” BS. The man was having sex with a minor. According to you, a 50 year old marrying a 15 year old is bad. So by your definition, a 35 year old having sex with a 17 year old should also be bad. Once again, would you have voted for this democrat?
When Randy Cunningham was charged with bribery, he plead guilty and stepped down. He’s serving 7 years. When Studds’ illegal activities were discovered he claimed it was a “loving relationship”, got censured, and got a slap on the wrist.