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?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
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 =/
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
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.)
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yep, I agree it's a non-issue.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
Can I use this thread title in the "out of context" thread, or does someone already have dibs?
 

---

Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I had the same thought, Samedi :cringe:
 

---

Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
 
Samedi: you pretty thing you

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.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 

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.

---

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.)
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Didn't polygamist groups already try this tactic, a long, long time ago?
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I just asked that question at the end of my post. I imagine they have and failed. I just don't know what the legal reasoning is that led to the rejection of their arguements.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
<snort>
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 

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.)

---