FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A Bastion or Blow to Same Sex Marriage?

   
Author Topic: A Bastion or Blow to Same Sex Marriage?
Demonstrocity
Member
Member # 9579

 - posted      Profile for Demonstrocity   Email Demonstrocity         Edit/Delete Post 
After 2 years, same-sex marriage icons split up

quote:
They told the world that their relationship was like any other and that's why they should be allowed to marry. Now, friends say, they are showing once again that they are just like any other couple: Two years after getting married, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the state's landmark gay marriage case, are splitting.

Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple, confirmed the separation last night. She said the couple are focused now on trying to do what is best for their daughter, Annie, 10.

``Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Breslauer said in a telephone interview. ``As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage. But they are no longer in the public eye, and request that their privacy be respected."

Breslauer said they have not filed for divorce. She would not comment on their plans and offered no other details.

(more)

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with their spokesperson: "I just think this really doesn't say anything." Part of being allowed to get married means becoming part of the divorce statistics.

Realistically, though, the situation will likely be spun by people representing both sides of the issue.

Thoughts?

Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
I'll wait a few more years and see how the statistics match up (same-sex marriage and divorce versus traditional marriage and divorce).

-Bok

EDIT: I will add that I will look for a downward trend in same-sex divorce rates, year-over-year, rather than just the comparison to traditional marriage. I think that a percentage of those that got married right after it became legal here in Massachusetts did so for wrong, though not surprising, reasons.

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Bok: If the same-sex marriage statistics show that gay people form more stable and lasting relationships, will you(*) push for making heterosexual marriage illegal?

Why would the reverse mean anything either?

(*) generic you.

Pix

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
I was mentioning that more to bring up the fact that simple divorce rates are not going to be the best measures (IMO) of any possible differences in fidelity (I figure it will take a generation to get more comparable stats).

I personally think the Goodrich decision correctly interpreted the state constitution, and don't support rolling back marriage rights for anyone who can currently receive them in MA. I wasn't clear on that, my fault.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Bok: I really don't expect anyone to tout this as a reason that gays shouldn't be married.. except, of course, for those who will grasp at any straw. (and unfortunately there are a goodly number of them =/
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
I see this as a non-issue, honestly. Supporters of heterosexual-only marriage can't point the finger and say "See! Gays shouldn't marry, they just get divorced!" without opening themselves up to extreme criticism for their hypocrisy. I mean, the divorce statistics for ANY type of marriage are ridiculously high, including marriages within the church.

It's very sad when any relationship that involves children ends. (not that it isn't sad when there aren't children, just that it's particularly painful for the children involved.)

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep, I agree it's a non-issue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
Also agree on it being a non-issue.

My attitudes towards gay marriage and whether or not it should be legal have zero to do with any divorce statistics, and all this couple has proved is that they can't see into the future either, just like all heterosexual couples who got divorced.

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baron Samedi
Member
Member # 9175

 - posted      Profile for Baron Samedi           Edit/Delete Post 
Can I use this thread title in the "out of context" thread, or does someone already have dibs?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't understand what the fact that gays do in fact get divorced at times adds to this debate.

What exactly is the point of this thread? Someone making the obvious prediction that stupid people will make a straw argument of it?

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I had the same thought, Samedi :cringe:
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eduardo St. Elmo
Member
Member # 9566

 - posted      Profile for Eduardo St. Elmo   Email Eduardo St. Elmo         Edit/Delete Post 
Samedi: you pretty thing you [Smile]

The way I see it, marriage is just a promise between two people that will try to get through life together, sharing the good and the bad. For this you do not actually need a piece of paper. Only 2 people involved, no difficulties. But you can choose to complicate matter in one of the two following ways:

Of course the objections against same-sex marriages are usually about the entire idea of homosexuality being blasphemous; which is why most religious people are against gay people marrying in church. Their view of marriage entails that it's also a promise to God to stick together. In this scenario, a deity is forced into the relationship, and therefor all the people who have an relationship with that deity tend to stick in their noses as well.

There's also the civil marriage, which makes it so that the government joins the two persons in question within theirs filing systems. It also opens the path to some advantages and agreements, mostly having to do with any eventual children (however they come into the family in question) and financial issues.

First form of marriage is available to everybody, providing they have a willing and trustworthy partner.
As long as there are people stating that homosexuality is blasphemous, it seems completely logical to me that gay weddings aren't allowed in church.
But it seems to me that there aren't any logical arguments against gay couples having a civil marriage ceremony, though some of the agreements would probably differ in the details from those used in a 'normal' marriage.

I do agree that the issue of fidelity doesn't enter into the discussion.

Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nato
Member
Member # 1448

 - posted      Profile for Nato   Email Nato         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There's also the civil marriage, which makes it so that the government joins the two persons in question within theirs filing systems. It also opens the path to some advantages and agreements, mostly having to do with any eventual children (however they come into the family in question) and financial issues.
I think these are the important issues (also medical, insurance benefits, inheritance.... there is a very big list of these).

Divorce statistics do not factor into my opinion on gay marriage at all.

Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Edited on 11 April 2009:

I refuse to discuss this topic with anyone in the same country, landmass, airspace or headspace as that person.

[ April 11, 2009, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As long as there are people stating that homosexuality is blasphemous, it seems completely logical to me that gay weddings aren't allowed in church. [emphasis mine - KarlEd]
I just have to reiterate (as I normally do in these discussions) that this is not true. Gay weddings are not allowed in some (many, most) churches. However, they are allowed in many others. On the Christian front, homosexuals have already won the war. As far as being able to join and fully participate in Christian fellowship, they can do that. There are increasing numbers of churches that will embrace them as equals regardless of their sexuality, even unto performing marriage rites.

Insofar as religious arguements enter into policy on secular marriage, it seems to me that refusing to recognize gay marriage could be fought on grounds of religious discrimination. Does anyone know if such an arguement has been tried? I imagine there is some legal issue preventing this tactic (or else polygamist groups would already have succeeded with a similar arguement.)

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JennaDean
Member
Member # 8816

 - posted      Profile for JennaDean   Email JennaDean         Edit/Delete Post 
Didn't polygamist groups already try this tactic, a long, long time ago?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
I just asked that question at the end of my post. [Wink] I imagine they have and failed. I just don't know what the legal reasoning is that led to the rejection of their arguements.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
As far as I can tell, it was "Polygamy is icky. If you are going to sleep with someone besides the girl you first married, for decency's sake keep her a secret with no legal protection and make sure the children are illegitimate."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
<snort>
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:
As long as there are people stating that homosexuality is blasphemous, it seems completely logical to me that gay weddings aren't allowed in church. [emphasis mine - KarlEd]
I just have to reiterate (as I normally do in these discussions) that this is not true. Gay weddings are not allowed in some (many, most) churches. However, they are allowed in many others. On the Christian front, homosexuals have already won the war. As far as being able to join and fully participate in Christian fellowship, they can do that. There are increasing numbers of churches that will embrace them as equals regardless of their sexuality, even unto performing marriage rites.

Insofar as religious arguements enter into policy on secular marriage, it seems to me that refusing to recognize gay marriage could be fought on grounds of religious discrimination. Does anyone know if such an arguement has been tried? I imagine there is some legal issue preventing this tactic (or else polygamist groups would already have succeeded with a similar arguement.)

I think the thing with polygamy is that there is no basis for religious descrimination because very few (if any at all) of the polygamist groups belong to a religion that is legally recognized as a religion.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm, I doubt that's it. Is there a list somewhere of "legally recognized religions" the lack of being on which makes one no longer protected under the first amendment?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2