posted
Thanks, Megan. Glad I'm not the only one who saw that particular elephant in the room.
Bev- My family life was fairly sucky. The best thing that ever happened to me was my parent's divorce, and my mother's re-marriage to a man who knew how to be a husband and a father.
Traditionally, that wouldn't have happened, because divorce used to be taboo.
My marriage is healthy, 12 years and two boys (7 and 5), and I'm still a hottie. Life is good.
But I also know a couple who have been together almost as long as we have. They both work, take turns cooking and so forth. They can't have children. They can't adopt, either. As a matter of fact, they can't visit each other in the hospital if either one is in ICU. They can't inherit from each other without costly legal acrobatics (which could be contested by 'real' family anyway).
They are a family. A better family than many more traditional ones I know. But they can't even share health insurance.
That makes me sad.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivetta, you touch on many of the levels on which it *does* appeal to me.
I wonder, what percentage of children are glad that their parents divorce? Certainly some are glad, and I believe that some divorces are the best choice--particularly when there is abuse involved. But what about divorces that happen because the parents "aren't in love" anymore? And are most children glad when their parents divorce?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it depends. Some people are casual about divorce, others need it desparately so that their kids don't have to listen to them fight. To say that no one should be allowed to get a divorce just causes a lot of misery to those who really aren't meant to be together.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is irrelevant, unless you plan make divorce illegal. You only point out the many ways in which marriage has been shat upon by heterosexuals. Entered into lightly, and so forth.
Though I have personally known many people who were similarly glad of ttheir parents' divorce, and many who are totally effed-up by being forced to live with two parents who should not have been entrusted with HOUSECATS, much less children.
But, I admit, it's irrelevant.
quote: Olivetta, you touch on many of the levels on which it *does* appeal to me.
When I read that, I thought you were referring to the 'elephant' mentioned above. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has been proven that children suffer no more harm being raised by Gays than those raised by Heteros.
Hobbes is right, of course. Nothing like this can be proven.
However, thinking logically: If children can be raised in a monastery or a nunnery, and suffer no harm, if children can be raised by a single parents, or two elderly aunts or uncles or cousins living together, if children can be raised in a multiple adult community, in an orphanage, in a single-sex boarding school, an a community made up of no adults but only older children, if children can grow up in any of these common and loving environments two males or two females living together should have no problems. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the federal marriage amendment to the Constitution. I share your concerns. On July 14, 2004, the Senate considered a procedural vote related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment. I voted against this measure, and it failed by a vote of 48-50.
This is an emotional issue for many people whose diverse opinions reflect their strong convictions. The United States Constitution has acted as a safeguard for our liberties since 1787. It is my belief that this celebrated document should only be amended in extraordinary circumstances. This is not such an occasion. I believe that we must respect the rights of those in committed relationships - rights most of us take for granted, like visiting a critically-ill loved one in the hospital or shared property protections.
Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of individual states to govern the legal requirements for marriage. I believe the legal aspects of marriage should continue to be a state responsibility and that it is not necessary to change our Constitution.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you.
Sincerely, Debbie Stabenow United States Senator
"Make your voices heard. Silence = Death"
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Life is good.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Flaming liberal![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
