E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRobin Tyler and Diane Olson, who were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008, are getting divorced. KNBC-TV's Cary Berglund reports.
When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.
It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.
Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits.
Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on Jan. 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.
In an exclusive interview with NBC4, Tyler spoke about her decision.
"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.
Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.
When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied -- a marriage license.
The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere.
"I don't know how to describe it -- I wanted this all my life," Olson told the Jewish Journal that day. "Every time I went to a girlfriend's wedding, and when my brother got married, it was something I always wanted for myself. It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too."
In November 2008 voters passed Prop. 8, banning gay marriage. Tyler and the thousands of other gay and lesbian couples who wed before Nov. 4, 2008, were allowed to remain married but same-sex couples who wanted to get married were forbidden under the new law.
During the prolonged litigation over Prop. 8, Olson marveled at the scope of the ban. "For a bunch of people to tell me who I can love, who I can marry, who I can say this is my person, this is who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, it's mindboggling to me that a few religious people can vote for our equal rights," she said.
More on gay marriage issue from NBCLosAngeles.com
Reflecting on their marriage in August of 2010, Tyler said: "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older."
But even the best of marriages can come to an end. The right to marry wasn't meant to guarantee that gay couples would live happily ever after, Tyler said, but to provide a basic human civil liberty.
Tyler said her marital problems were no different than if the two parties had been a man and woman. Gays and lesbians shouldn't be held to a different standard when granted the same civil rights as everyone else, she said.
"What is the standard to expect when you integrate equality," Tyler asked. "We're just like anybody else and that's all they can expect of us."
Let us know what you think. Send us your thoughts at twitter.com/#!/propzero or add your comment to our Facebook page.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
In before bigots.
Bigots are just hateful people. America's history is full of them: Those who supported slavery, those against women voting, those against civil rights legislation...and now those against gay marriage.
The good thing is, in time, they will be silenced by the law.
Nah, they have free speech. They can say what they want.
But once everyone has equals rights they can just appear as bigoted and silly as the KKK.
They wanted equality in marriage and now they are. Welcome to the 50%+ divorce rate club.
Those that oppose man on man relationships are bigots? How pathetic!
Marriage - the usual end to a normally great relationship.
In this case they had been friends for 40 years, co-habited/married for 18 years and 3-1/2 years of marriage was too much. Maybe they shouldn't have tied the knot.
Who is paying whom spousal support/alimony?
The only thing pathetic here are the small minds of bigots.
It's almost pitiful how weak they are.
Those that post unsolicitated opinions calling an entire group of people things like "abominations"; Those that respond to a situation that does them no harm with words like "disgusting"; Those that advocate for laws that are unjust and unequal; Those that scorn, degrade, and judge people they've never even meant; Those that do all of that based on a single characteristic a person has, a characteristic that does no one any harm...
Those are bigots.
Marriage, whether gay or straight, seems like a bad idea. A stand up comedian related it to "going to answer the door and getting hitting in the face with a pile of $hit 50% of the time you opened it". At some point, wouldn't you just let the bell ring and leave the door be?
So how will that work now? Will they just pay each other allimony?
I thought gays were lifelong marriage partners. That is what they preach!
Why is this even News? Couples split up all the time.
Like all those church marriages that preach "till death to us part" Joyce?
In calling someone a bigot, you have just judged a person you have never even met. Hating someone because of their preferences is a sign of a small mind. But, I see so-called enlightened people judging and hating on others because they believe differently. Those asking for acceptance should not be so quick to cast aspersions on others, simply because they do not agree. You have just posted an unsolicited opinion calling an entire group of people bigots because they do not agree with you. What is the difference between that and what those opposed to same sex marriage are doing? It is a lack of tolerance, you see their point of view as barbaric and they see same sex relationships the same way. What is the difference?
When did they preach that? All I've ever heard is that they want to be able to get married just like a man and woman.. never heard any say they are lifelong marriage partners!!
So the love that brought 18 years of being a couple was destroyed in 3 years of marriage? Maybe marriage wasn't such a great idea after all. Watch what you ask for...
War,
In this day in age, people who are prejudice know logically, that their bias is unfounded. However, they don't want to give up that defense mechanism, that sense of inclusion and grandiosity and moral self rightousness. So the best way to hide the prejudice, which they know is wrong, and yet still continue to use it, is to demonize those that call them out on it. To demonize the truth itself.
Apply the "but for" test. But for those posts calling people abominations; "But for" their attempts to deny basic equal protection to gay people; "But for" these active attempts to hurt and harm my fellow citizens... I and the others you're speaking of would have nothing to say about anyones like/dislike of homosexuality.
There is no "but for" that leads people into making generalizations full of scorn and judgment about homosexuals. Their homosexuality??? Nope, that's nobody's business expcept that singular gay person and it sure as heck doesn't hurt anybody.
If I were to, with no solicitation on your part, say that everyone who uses the moniker "War919" is a disgusting abomination, wouldn't you have the right to speak the truth in your defense??? Now imagine you had no choice in picking that name and I said that, would you really not speak out?
Tolerance doesn't equal passivity. I can tolerate that there are people who will never accept the sexuality of some of my fellow citizens. I can tolerate the KKK. I can tolerate a lot of things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I have to passively accept their opinions.
Uh, no it's not what we "preach". I don't preach a darn thing. Straight people hump around, cheat, marry, divorce multiple partners and breed in and out of wedlock, relationships...and boredom it would seem. Pretty sure you holier than thou straight people are forever preaching about how you are the due exclusive access to marriage because of your superior God given morals.
Crazy isn't it, that people have free will and make errors and go through changes. It's almost like you straight people are NOT the chosen ones. Like...wow...maybe you are no better or worse than anybody else. :o
Failure. No one is exempt. Growth. No one is exempt. Change. No one is exempt. You catching on yet, or does it need to be dumbed down further for you?
People are people. The insanely high divorce rate of straight couples, as far as I know, has not nullified the love and commitment the long term heterosexual married couples have made. All the subsets and differences and lines you twits want to draw have done nothing but prove that people are people, and people can suck.
I want to marry my partner for no reason other than to safeguard my/her property and rights/access to one another. The state sanctioning my relationship is absolutely nothing to me but legal papers to protect my interests from the state and to force various and sundry organizations and entities to allow me access I need/desire. If married folks get certain benefits, I want access to the same.
Orphic,
Why you gotta go and burst our bubble like that??? :)
How tolerate of gays to call everyone who disagrees with them names like bigot and hater. No bullying here, as if that has any effect on someone's "rights" to free speech. What utter bigots, haters and losers.
Sarah, I just read through the all these posts. I don't see anyone calling anyone else an abomination. The only bigot on this thread is you!
Sarah,
Thoroughly enjoying your posts on this subject the last couple of days - you go girl!
Still got a ways to go to catch up to Newt!
Gary,
Did you read the part about denying civil rights in my post. And reall
If you can't pick up on the judgment and scorn in those posts, God help YOU. And that's just a couple examples from this article. War and Idbang responed to Ruken's post about bigotry. I explained to them where Ruken was coming from.
You are perfectly illustrating my point, and furthermore, if it doesnt' apply to you than it doesn't apply to you.
You can attempt to twist the word and responsibility all you want, anyone who has a sense of equality and justice sees through you.
Gary,
There's plenty of people doing it. Just scroll down and look on the other pages.
How can anyone believe or care what MSNBC reports..FAIL
Doh!!! Just realized I left the "y..." off of "really" at the top of my post. That bugs me.
Sarah ~
Your top two examples of judgment and scorn seem a lot more like beliefs to me. Are you not aware that our beliefs inherently 'judge' others? If I believe something is right, then there is an inherent implication that anyone who does otherwise is wrong.
And yet...we are all entitled to our beliefs. You haven't hesitated for a second to share yours these past few days (particularly on this topic) and yet, you're missing this fundamental truth about a 'belief'.
Now, as I see it there are only two options here: we all should be stripped of our right to believe what we want to believe and instead can be TOLD what to believe, or we can all come to the understanding that we believe differently and not care what others believe.
Unfortunately, society today is molding people to be 'tolerant' and 'sensitive' in what they say, instead of molding people to have solid character, thick skin and a strong mind.
Cheers.
Hey Sarah,
Just because someone doesn't want the definition of a marriage to change doesn't make them a bigot. You are overgeneralizing with your indignant attitude.
War919 -- I don't speak for Sarah, just myself. But I don't consider ALL who are opposed to same sex marriage to be bigots UNLESS they attempt to impose that belief upon others or indulge in nasty name calling, or other acts.
If you post your views respectfully and don't harass or degenerate others, then I have no problem with you. The "difference" falls in the fact that the majority of those who oppose same sex marriage want to impose those views upon others (even though it does not affect them unless they are the couple involved).
It's one thing to respectfully disagree. It is another thing to degenerate others because they disagree (and that goes both ways) with your viewpoint (religious or otherwise).
Personally, while I wouldn't want a same sex marriage for myself (good thing since I've been married for years LOL), I don't deny the right of marriage to others. It simply doesn't affect me or my marriage therefore it is none of my business.
Getreal and YourShadow,
Since they're denying a basic civil right to someone for no reason other than their religion or personal belief, yes it does.
It isn't their beliefs I have the issue with. It's their lack of responsibility for them. If you want to own a belief that judges others. Scorns others. And supports laws that deny equal protection, that's your choice, but since all of that is based on personal beliefs towards someones lifestlye that doesn't effect them, it is by definition, bigotry.
Just own it, that's all I'm asking. And if you want to post it, be prepared to be called out on it. Don't try to flip it on the people who are either defending those that do no harm, or are those that do no harm.
You are enititled to your opinion, you are NOT entitled to having it swallowed silently once you put it out there. Those opinions harm people, homosexuality does not.
get real, that's a horrible attempt at defense and only your wording for the definition will change. look up the definition and you'll find it varies depending on culture.
What about this definition of marriage do you gay idiots not understand?:
marriage noun ( MAN AND WOMAN )
Definition
[C or U] a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this
Alan,
Marriage is a legal contractual property agreement, that pre-dates all organzied religion. If you want to have a marriage between a man and a woman, you are welcome to. That doesn't change what the legality of the situation is.
And since when has the dictionary been infalliable??? Man wrote it, man has changed it, man skews the definitions in it to best fit man's understanding. Man can fix it, if something needs to be fixed.
Holy Matrimony is the religious term. You can exclude whoever you want from Holy Matrimony.
Apparently, the REAL bigots are running scared now that we're not swallowing their load of "you're bigotted towards bigots" crap.
You can assert whatever you would like, proof by assertion is a fallacy.
Like I said above, hate whomever you want, but than own that hatred. Judge whomever you want, but own that judgment. I own the fact that sincerely dislike when people who judge others who've done nothing to them, whine, deny, or try to pass the buck when they're called out on it.
Hahaha, ohhhh, Sarah. You clearly read more into my post than was there, as I knew you would.
I never once made mention to 'beliefs imposed on others', I was simply enlightening your mind to the nature of beliefs.
Who said anything about swallowing the opinions of others? If you actually read my post, you would have clearly recognized that I was referring to a general disregard for other people's convictions. Gay people shouldn't CARE if other people think it's wrong, if they themselves believe it to be right. Similarly, 'religious' people (and I use that term loosely, as there are very few who actually are deserving of that title) shouldn't care if other people think they are backwards, or narrow-minded, if they believe themselves to be right.
I mean, why would the opinions of someone you don't know or care about affect you? This goes back to my point of weak-mindedness.
Once again, before you read too much into this, I'm referring to the beliefs of individuals in general. And before you say that you don't care what people believe as long as it isn't imposed on others: I challenge you to do a bit of self-reflection; don't you care? Don't you feel that anyone who can consider something as harmless as homosexuality must be backwards or broken or stuck in the Middle Ages?
Of course you do. It is made abundantly clear in your posts.
Cheers.
You have to examine what bigot means before you call one a bigot.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Then you examine the word belief.
Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
For example nature does not intend to make albinos in any of the creatures. They are immediately selected out. (Eaten or killed.) Albinos are just one of the experiments that nature continuously makes, trying to improve the species to which the animals belongs.
Nature does not intend to make homosexuals. It is a dead end for the species and a waste of resources in nature as the animal will not reproduce.
In humans, homosexuality exists, protected and now allowed privileges.
However they are NOT the same as heterosexual and a complex web of laws and rights surrounding heterosexuals and their children have derived and these laws do not all fit homosexuals.
That we, heterosexuals wish to maintain some of those laws for us as heterosexuals do not make us bigots but only want to clarify the difference.
I want the word marriage to mean the union of one man and one woman. So call me a bigot if you can't understand the rules and meaning of nature and the minds and reasoning of the overwhelming majority of the heterosexual humans on earth.
Exactly! And years ago that definition said you could only marry someone of your own race.
And our culture also used to think it was okay to own slaves. Then our culture said it was okay to discriminate based on skin color.
Culture changes.
Opinions are just words, they don't hurt anyone unless you let them.
Can you list those privaleges please?
We've had both gay people, and albinos since the dawn of time. So has a whole lot of other species. If we're going on "survival of the fittest" here, why not just let babies who are born sick die??? Natural selection says they should, doesn't it?
Actually, they did, until we made them not fit. We specifically added laws to the book about marriage being between one man and one woman in order to ban gay people from it. Until we did that, nothing was specified except legal consent and capacity. It's a contract, which follows the elements of contract law.
I could care less what you want marriage to be. It's about the law. And I will call you a bigot, because that is exactly what you are.
I wouldn't call gays and lesbians an abomination, but they are abnormal and they have a genetic flaw. Lots of people have genetic flaws. I for one have a flaw that makes my eyes not see 20/20. Others have flaws that make them blind, or maybe they only have one leg. Does not make them any less human and they just got to deal with the flaws that they have and go about their life.
So I may be normal in sexual orientation, I am flawed in sight. Others might be flawed in sexual orientation, but have perfect sight. We all have flaws and as long as our flaws do not affect others then what is the problem?
And this is the crux. You don't believe a man and a man should be married? That's perfectly fine and within your right! When you try to take that belief and legislate from it, that's different. You don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone gay. Tell others you don't believe in it if you want. Shout it from the mountain. However, legislate from that belief and we have someone who is trying to take away my right as an American to secure my life, my family, and my property. And please, no, "you can have legal paperwork drawn up to do the same" argument. Guess what? It's not the same. Do you know how many times a judge has gone against a will because the surviving partner is neither "blood relative or married?" Furthermore, I shouldn't have to go to extra lengths to protect myself or my family. I am an American citizen after all.
Before this gets brought up:
1) Polygamy- Polygamists have more rights than gays do in forming families. They get one free marriage, like everyone else does. Polygamy is against the law. Being gay is not against the law.
2) Pedophilia- This is a deliberate and ugly tactic to detract from the real issue. Children cannot consent. So this will never be "ok" and most gay and lesbians fight for the protection of children. A huge amount of pedophilia is perpetrated by someone the child knows, close or inside the family, and is often a white heterosexual male.
3.) Beastiality- Animals cannot give consent to the act. Animals have no legal rights or basis to hold and type of legal standing. This is yet another red herring to throw the discussion out of whack.
4.) It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (the bible folks)- When you start to apply ALL levitical law to your lives and follow them to the letter, then you are allowed to enter the conversation. Until then, your opinion is not really valid as it is based in the strickest and most bigoted point of view. You can think what you want, but the bible is not meant to be legislated from in this country. And for those of you who will say, "that's old testament, not new testament," you can try to twist the words of Paul all you like. The truth is, there is an intellectual debate on what Paul was actually saying and what he meant. Simply because you apply YOUR logic to it doesn't make it right or the meaning clear.
For those that are so concerned about gay people marrying and marriage in particular:
1) Why aren't you out fighting against divorce? Shouldn't divorce be next to impossible to obtain?
2) If someone tried to tell you who you could or could not marry or divorce, I bet your collective "my rights are being violated" panties would be in a wad.
You can can believe what you want as it is your right! But you can't legislate from your belief system. That's called hypocrisy and for all the screaming, it just amounts to a temper tantrum.
Shadow,
They wouldn't if other people would just leave them alone.
Absolutely I do care. I care because I'm human, just like gay people are human. And if we, as humans, sit back and let lies and hate flourish it degrades us all, and will eventually harm us all. "The surest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I don't know about you, but I refuse to be the 21st century equivalent of the white teenagers in those pictures from the civil rights movement, who are obviously spewing scorn and hatred at innocent people.
Tell that to the numerous gay teenagers who committ suicide every year. Not everyone has the resiliency to battle for peace and equality everyday of their life. If you aren't appalled by how we treat gay people, you need to do some soul searching.
I have no "soul", nor do I have any sympathy for anyone that takes the easy way (suicide) out.
Ding, ding, ding!!!!! Yay!!! See, he owns what he believes! Great, I have no problem with thinking or feeling that.
How is following someone's faith in believing their spiritual leaders and/or scriptures lacking in responsibility? I would think that if someone was claiming a particular religion and then going around saying and doing things that oppose that religion, that would be lacking in responsibility to their faith. I have yet to meet a person who bases their faith/personal beliefs on the lifestyle of others. Have you met such a person/people? If the scripture of a particular faith considers homosexual acts to be an "abomination," does it then suit the people who hold that faith to speak in defense of, or against homosexuality? You seem like an intelligent young lady. Surely you can see the folly of a person of faith speaking on behalf of those that their faith/religion opposes. But to call these people bigots because God demands obedience to his Word and will, and his Word calls homosexual acts abominations, you are in effect, calling God a bigot. Do you consider God to be a bigot? Now I know that not every person who claims a religion abides by all the rules and some don't even bother to try and hide their lack of passion for their God and beliefs. Yes, there are even those who would fill themselves with hatred rather than love. But, not all who profess God, faith, and religion are like those who hate. For me, it isn't a matter of denying other people their lusts, but about preserving the innocent, the young, and leading them down the path to righteousness.
I don't agree with people harassing or tormenting those who believe differently, so we don't disagree on that point.
I am simply stating a point, which you have yet to understand: in every belief, there is an inherent judgment placed upon those who don't side the same way. How this judgment is exercised is a different matter entirely, but the 'judgment' is still there.
Consider yourself: you believe that those who oppose homosexuality are wrong. But look at how you're exercising this judgment...you throw all who believe homosexuality is wrong in the same pot. You consider them all to be full of hatred, evil, judgment and scorn, despite the differences in their actions towards gays.
Funny...there are people out there that believe homosexuality is wrong, but don't treat homosexuals different or in a hateful manner.
Shadow,
Judgment per se is not the issue. You have to look at it all around. How are they judging? Who are they judging? Why are they judging? Are they acting upon that judgment? Is it based in rationality?
Judging someone because of their sexuality, sexuality being a completely private thing that doesn't harm anyone and a thing which we are born with, is different than judging what someone chooses to do or say. One is inherently focusing on the individual's choice, which may or may not effect or harm others. One has concrete reasons and proof. I judge what homophobic people say based on their own words and actions, and how those words and actions effect others.
I have weighed those words in actions through my own individual conscience, through the context of society, and through the lens of the law.
Homophobic people, make their judgments based on nothing but who gay people were born to be. They don't base their judgment on the acts/words of gay people, and how those acts/words effect them or other's. They base it on simply who they are, regardless of the fact that who they are harms no one.
As I said before, if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you. Why would you assume it does, if it doesn't.
Mole,
They can speak against it all they want. Love it, hate it, preach against it, practice it, yada yada yada... What I'm saying is we don't have to passively swallow it when they do preach against it and we definitly don't have to swallow it when they ACT on that preaching. Defending people who have done no harm, against a belief that they are inherently abominable, doesn't make us bigots. It makes us unwilling to allow your opinion to pass without a response.
No, I think God is shaking his damn head at those who are causing such a kerfuffle over this. He's too busy supporting his followers who ACTUALLY follow the Bible, you know the one's outside of Red Lobster carrying the "God hates scallops" signs.
Apparently, my expose on beliefs was not clear, so I've decided to make clear my intentions in all of this: to unveil your blatant hypocrisy.
You criticize people for the 'judgment' that their 'ill-founded' faiths place on homosexuality, yet you clearly criticize people for being against something that you consider so 'harmless' and 'natural'. You are just as unwilling to allow people to believe that homosexuality is a 'sin', as some people are unwilling to consider it 'normal' or 'natural' or 'acceptable'.
If your disdain was only targeted towards those who demonized homosexuals, I wouldn't take issue with your comments. But your outright disgust at other's beliefs is what prompted me to interfere. Before attacking others...please consider your own narrow-mindedness.
Cheers.
Sarah,
Lol @ your "God hates scallops" signs.
It does bother me when people parade around with their "God hates fags" signs. It is clear that most of them haven't read the Bible and are allowing themselves to be used. As a man who tries to follow the example Christ Jesus set, there is not room in the heart of a Christian for hatred and for Christ.
As for the Leviticus laws argument, using food is the weakest one possible. God gave Peter the same vision 3 times in the book of Act of the Apostles. That vision led Peter to understand that it is not what you put in your mouth (food) that makes you unclean, but what comes out of your mouth (words).
YourShadow,
Guess that went over your head huh? If you don't see the difference, I can't help you. It's my outright disgust at other's unsolicitated opinions is what prompted me to interefere. If I had gotten on a vine about Christianity, and produced the very first post saying, "Christians are abominations" you'd have a point. I didn't, though, so you don't.
Can you point out where exactly I said people couldn't believe homosexuality is a sin???
Now please, quote where I said you can't believe homosexuality is wrong.
Sarah...*sigh*...you're setting yourself up for failure, and you don't see it.
I would argue that, based on the summation of your previous posts, you DON'T think it's okay for people to believe that homosexuality is a sin, but...you should know yourself better than I do, so I'll go along with it.
If it's alright for people to believe that homosexuality is a sin, then why are you surprised when they rise against it? Why are you surprised when people support that belief to not allow sin to permeate society and it's outlook on right and wrong?
Uh-oh, have we just hit another hiccup? Some people believe that allowing gay marriage to be legal will allow further permeation and acceptance in society, which is clearly contrary to their allowed (by you) belief that it's a sin. *Gasp!* But there are those that DON'T believe that it will have any effect on the degeneration of societal standards!
What to do, what to do?
The issue is infinitely more complex than you understand, and riddled with that tricky 'belief' business that you obviously know so little about.
YourShadow,
I ask you again...
Please quote where I said someone wasn't entitled to their beliefs. This is all I'm going to respond with until you do.
I spent two years in a tent, with 10 adjudicated teenagers, trust me I know when someone's trying to twist and turn the issue through words.
Ergo, quote me where I said that, and we'll move on.
The carpet is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Lol, bravo! Excellent dodge attempt! Once again, I'll be generous and roll with it.
Forgive me, you never once said that someone COULDN'T believe that homosexuality is wrong, but is it not true that you've criticized and undermined this belief (in an effort to establish 'rationality') and expressed an outright disgust for it? If that was not your intent, I highly suggest you learn to express yourself more clearly, as most people would draw the same conclusions, I'm sure.
So, may I ask: am I entitled to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it's a sin?
Shadow,
Le Sigh...
I'm dodging, your dodge, because I asked you to prove the statement you made and didn't let it pass???
As you've already pointing out, I never said you weren't entitled too. And I already explained the rest, that is the stuff pertaining to my outrage at certain posters.
I am critical of that belief to the extent that it harms other people, and people actively attempt to skew our laws because of it. It's not the belief per se, it is the unsolicitated scorn and acted upon inequality which that belief promotes.
Once again...
Your quote inaccurately depicts the mentality of those who oppose gay marriage, Sarah.
I'm fairly certain that the BULK of gay marriage opponents believe that homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent or genetic trait. Therefore, in their minds they are simply defending the restriction of abominable actions, not abominable innate traits. They clearly do not see it as being similar to...oh, I dunno, say...the Civil Rights Movement.
Would you like to rethink your statement?
Sarah, how can you possibly believe that homosexuality causes no one harm?
1. The incidence of AIDS and HIV is much higher amongst gay and Bi people. Bi people can pass it on to the straight community. Gays and Bi's often intermingle.
2. Those gays or bi's with no health insurance place the burden of "free" health care on the straight community.
Sarah,
The core feature of the gay agenda is whether or not someone is born gay or whether or not there is rational choice in the matter. Gays, of course, believe they are born that way. It makes sense to them, it rationalizes the behavior, and it is the fuel behind the gay agenda. It is the rock upon gays climb to claim civil rights are due to them. Well, you can't prove you are born that way. That's the fact . I believe there is a lot of rational choice in people being gay. Since I feel being gay is by choice and you can't disprove that, I am entitled to that opinion and it must be respected. If you don't see my argument, you are wearing Kentucky Derby blinders.
There is no denying a person's skin color. Gay rights are not even in the same ballpark as civil rights pertaining to blacks so stop insulting our brains with the civil rights argument. You have the same basic civil rights as I do and you shouldn't be allowed any additional ones because of your choice to be gay. It's your burden to bear.
Gay marriages are equal to Heterosexual ones.
There is a larger than 60 per cent chance of divorce in Heterosexual marriages.
The Gays couples think this is wonderful?, and they can be different in a lasting marriage?
Many Gays turn to marriage strictly for the benefits, med. visits, on so on---how do they know it will last.
Bringing in adopted children, and having a child together (surrogate) is taking on a huge risk. Who gets the child; unlike the Custody fights that happen in biological children of married couples, there is more of a definite line..
BTW: I am proposing the risks, and do not in any way are against Gay Couple Relationships.
Sarah you are being a judgemental heterophobic hypocrite.
Sarah,
Please define Civil Liberty and tell me where it is found to include Marriage!
Black people have higher rates of heart disease (a much larger and more expensive health issue than AIDS) and yet we allow them to marry. Jews have many genetic diseases, and yet we allow their marriage. Lastly, gay marriage does nothing to increase AIDS transmission... if anything it encourages less risky behaviours.
Gay people are more likely to be ensured than straight people. Your arguments are flawed.
Raging,
SCOTUS has ruled marriage a civil right 14 times beginning with Loving v Virginia. This is also a matter of equal protection (civil right), freedom from religion (civil right), and privacy (implied civil right through the 9th and 4th Amendments).
Otter and GetReal,
You don't need me to explain anything, you need to seek help for paranoia.
Shadow,
No, I don't want to, and whether it's a choice or not, makes no difference under the law because, as I mentioned before, we have the implied civil right to privacy through the 9th and 4th Amendments. Until you have a reason that passes strict scrutiny, you have no legal right to invade that privacy.
And because I can probably guess where you are going to go next...
The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.
The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.
The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.
The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.
The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.
The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.
The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.
Why do I feel like I'm in "Groundhog's Day"?
Hi Eng!!! Where you been???
Sarah,
There is certainly no paranoia in my post or in me as a person. You just dodged the issue I brought up. Would you care to debate my point?
I love how when someone disagrees or doesn't think its right for GLBT couples to get "married", they are called homophobes or bigots.
Sounds like another type of hate crime to me. Maybe we need to pass a special law giving them special protection?
I'm sorry you cannot see the obvious similarities between the black civil rights movement and what is now going on with gay people. The most striking similarity is with Loving v Virginia where miscegenation laws were overturned. Here the issue was if a back person could marry a white person. The people were not allowed to marry because of a difference in race. They choose to engage in a relationship with one another, and merely due to an innate characteristic of the individuals, were denied marriage.
Gay marriage is the same. Gay people, by the very nature of their gender, are precluded from marriage just like skin color. I believe, based upon my own experience not choosing to be straight and the vast majority of research done in this area, that being gay is not a choice. However, even if it were a choice, gay people have less options than the mixed race couple in Loving v Virginia. There the people were still attracted to people of their own race, but DECIDED to become involved with a person of another skin color. Merely because black people were scorned this kind of relationship was made illegal. With gay marriage, the reason that they cannot get married is merely because of scorn for homosexuality.
If you cannot see the obvious similarities here (not to mention the historical discrimination etc.) then you are blind.
Strict scrutiny in whose eyes? If the Supreme Court supports Prop. 8, will you support that?
It's best that you modify your sentence to read: 'Until you have a reason that passes my strict scrutiny, you have no legal right to invade that privacy.'
And it isn't the privacy of a couple's intimate life that is the topic of debate here. What is currently under fire is the institution of marriage, what it represents, what it stands for and who controls that institution.
At the moment, it would appear that the government believes that marriage falls under its jurisdiction. I would strongly disagree, as a union between man and woman (or the definition of the term 'marriage') predates governmental involvement in said union. If marriage was a privatized affair, this would be a non-issue, am I right?
If you were protesting gay marriage and a group of pro-same sex marriage people assaulted you (called you bigot and hit you for example) under most state laws you would qualify for having hate crime statutes leveled against your assailants.
Merely calling someone a name (or a truthful description) is not a crime.
Equal rights and a federal endorsement for gay marriage is just a matter of time. It will happen and its sort of just a given that it should. I'm sure there will also be gay divorces just as the above example. And most definitely those against it have a right to speak their minds and should if thats how they feel . Freedom of speech the cornerstone of our foundation. However strictly religious objections need to be left in the religious realm for debate and aren't granted access to law via our constitution. Its simply that the opinions that those who object are slowly shifting towards a minority opinion as usually happens when justice is involved. Those two women hardly look like any sort of threat to society and could easily be anyones next door neighbor. I really don't see any rational sensible rationale that gay marriage presents any sort of problem. I don't comprehend really the validity from a consitutional perspective of any sort of objection. Alot of it seems to be frothing at the mouth. Wow its hard to believe that it was about 45 years ago that Bob Dylan wrote the lyrics "The Times They Are A Changin...Gather round people wherever you roam...and admit that the waters around you have grown...better start swimmin or you'll sink loike a stone for the times they are a changin"
This is a factually incorrect statement. Further, even if it were true, marriage in our culture is a civil contract effectuated by the state. You can go through a dozen church ceremonies but never be married unless you have the state marriage license. Likewise, I had a civil ceremony and am married despite my avoidance of a church.
Wow, Sarah-3043284. Does that number after your name represent the number of posts you make daily? Get a life girl. Just one comment about your last post, 1.63. I don't have the time nor the willingness to check your number of rulings, however, I will say those rulings all involved what we call traditional marriage. You know, one man and one woman. To rule favorable for gays they have to first accept that the traditional definition, that has been around for many centuries, can and should be changed. Without changing the definition gays are simply men and women, who have all the rights to marry just like straight men and women.
If the Supreme Court supports prop 8, it will be the biggest mistake since Plessy v Fergesun. A reason that passes strict scrutiny, according to years of judicial law and precedents, is an uber-compelling state reason. That post above, with all the failed arguments, those are all the reasons others have attempted to give, as reasons that would pass strict scrutiny. Find me one that doesn't by law and logic fail, and I'll shut my mouth.
Privacy is linked to marriage. We have private relationships, not publicly sanctioned ones. The government should only be involved in so far as it is a contract that sometimes needs to be hashed out. That means, the government has an interest in the consent, capacity, and legality of consideration. If those three things are met, the government should have no say. In the case of a breach, i.e. divorce, than it is also under contractual law, as well as subject to family law, in order to protect the rights of each party.
JustTHirty,
The traditional definition of marriage is nothing more than a contractual property agreement. Holy Matrimony was the sacrament between a man and woman. This was true, until we went out of our way to specify and change the original definition in the law.
Fixing a mistake, is not a mistake.
Sarah is the LIBERAL form of a BIGOT, there I called you a bad name , so attack me !!! This type of person thinks they have the moral high ground and will defend their beliefs to the end . Just remember to raise your children knowing right from wrong as most people do and when the gay nazis raise their voice to push their agenda at your children let them know it's just LIBERAL propaganda !!!Vote republican in 2012 , Obama will change the country for the worse forever !!!
That right there is an example OF BIGOTRY. You want to maintain 'those laws for us as heterosexuals.' Why do they have to apply only to you? What RATIONAL and REASONABLE argument requires the laws to pertain ONLY to you, and not others?
As soon as you understand that, you will understand your bigotry. But I wouldn't put a penny on your having an epiphany any time soon.
When someone bashes, hates, and teaches their children that what another group of people believes is "propaganda," I have to feel sorry for your children. This goes much further than gay and lesbian issues. Anyone who does not follow your political ideology is an enemy of the country. If you truly believe and buy into Republican's being the solution, or Democrats for that matter, you are worse off than I could imagine. Ideology is fine in small amounts, but, sounds like you drank your own kool-aid.
"This type of person thinks they have the moral high ground and will defend their belief to the end." and "when the gay nazi's raise their voice to push their agenda at your children let them know it's just LIBERAL propaganda!!!" Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you? You accuse Sarah of one thing then turn right around and do the same.
1.) Time to grow up.
2.) Time to practice what you preach.
3.) Time to realize it takes both sides of this country to work.
4.) Apologize to your children for being a hypocrite.
AMERICA's history is full of them?! Ha-ha, do you know anything about history outside the US? Apparently not. There sure are some angry, hypocritical libs here today. Folks like Sarah and her buds are either out of work or have some serious free time while on the job to post novel-sized posts again and again. Sad. I did have a laugh at this story, though. Yeah, we didn't see this coming. Lol!!!
To whoever believes that a governmental institution created the institution of marriage: lol.
Moving on...
Sarah, you clearly feel that the government is entitled to have jurisdiction over marriage, based on the fact that it's a contract. Did you know that baptism is a covenant (contract of sorts)? Does that mean the government should have jurisdiction over a spiritual baptism to ensure that the 'rights' of all parties involved are 'upheld'?
Before you say that one is spiritual and the other is secular, this is where I challenge you: opponents of gay marriage believe that marriage is a 'spiritual' institution, ordained by God.
Timothy1Mil said:
Spot on, Tim, Spot on! Its almost like when black people call KKK members all bigots. I say, who is the real bigot in that situation? Why judge every KKK member, even the ones that haven't tried lynching you? its so unfair!
Shadow,
You're grasping at straws. Baptism comes with no benefits from the state. No tax cuts, no being on your partner's insurance.
You don't have to apply for a Baptism license with the state, and you can't have one without the church or the religious element. Sans religion, Baptism doesn't exist. Sans religion, marriage does.
There's no consideration expect between the person/parents of the person and whatever God they believe in. There's no property exchanged or becoming mutual. No shared bank accounts.
There is not a single governmental element or interest in Baptism. And regardless of whether you think marriage is spiritual, it ISN'T. That's Holy Matrimony. Marriage is legal. If you think it's spiritual, that's fine, but it doesn't change the truth.
And don't misquote me. I said the government has an interest in marriage only in so far as it is contractual. That means they have three interests, consent, capacity, and legality of consideration. Those advocating for a ban on gay marriage are the ones placing it completely in the hands of the government, by letting the government dictate who deserves to have one, and by letting the government limit freedom to it without an uber-compelling state reason.
Wow. Really? That's a Hail Mary pass if I ever saw one.
Johnny,
I don't pick on crazy people. They're sick. Ergo, I will not be "attacking" you.
You don't have to be married to....be on someone's insurance, exchange properties, share bank accounts, etc. Marriage was assimilated into all of these scenarios for the sole purpose of...what, exactly? To make things easier?
Nah, the government just likes having control over everything. Thus far, they've done a good job of keeping you on the topic of 'who's allowed to marry who' instead of 'why on earth is the government involved in marriage'?
Third times a charm: privatize marriage and this all goes away. Marriage should be in the hands of spiritual leaders anyway. It doesn't really make sense without some kind of faith associated with it.
Think about it...
Shadow,
Do you know that I pay a "luxury" tax on my partners benefits because we aren't "married?" The tax is higher than the amount paid on the insurance. Did you know that regardless of what is in a will, a judge can overturn it? There are many documented cases where a partner left property to the surviving partner but because the surviving partner was neither blood relative nor married to the deceased, the judge overturned the will and gave the property and money to family that was?
Marriage was a contract between families. The bigger the dowry, the amount of money and goods amassed by a girls father to entice a suitable husband, the better chances the family had to marry into a family with equal or greater social standings as themselves. There was no governance of marriage by the government as there was no one to contest property rights. Women had none. The father's arranged the marriage and then the husband owned everything. A woman had no rights to property or person. Yeah, that was a great system. Let's get rid of governmental interference historically! Those pesky women and their need to vote, own land, and no longer being property to pass off by their father!
Marriage has little to do with the the association of faith. If it did, guess what, 50-60% of people have no faith. The government is involved with marriage because the religious institutions did such a bang up job of protecting women. Also, when you start associating federal protections of course it needs moderating.
I think if you people were truly sincere about marriage protecting and sanctity, you would be out abolishing divorce with the ferver of an anti abortionist. But what I don't see is people like you trying to make it more difficult to divorce. Why is that?
Think about it..
Not mine! Indeed, if marriage was a spiritual institution, I wouldn't be involved. If my HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE is NOT a religious construct (and it is NOT), why do you insist that all homosexual marriages be denied, because THEY are not?
(hint:you are wrong)
Comment # 1 restored for clarity.
ross ~
You are correct. In some cultures, it was customary for a transaction to be made throughout the course of a union. However, this was not always the case. What WAS nearly always the case is the fact that marriage was seen as a religious event and was often sanctioned by religious leaders.
Women's rights are currently protected under the law, so that is a non-issue in this case. Governmental involvement in marriage is not and never was necessary to protect the rights of women (which by the way, your example of the right to vote: irrelevant). It was the individual rights of women that wasn't being addressed, to begin with. Now the property issue seems the ONLY logical reason (at this stage) for involvement. However, contracts that cover the distribution of goods and properties in a union can be written up to fulfill the requirements of each individual marriage (I mean, come on...you don't think it's ridiculous when people marry someone really wealthy, divorce after 'x' months and walk away with a boatload of money? And don't bring up alternatives that can cover those bases; it isn't a secret that when someone's in 'love' they can't think straight). Ultimately though, isn't it strange that I am not deemed 'married' unless the government tells me I am? And that only happens by going through their channels. Lol.
Who said I am not against divorce? Lol, splendid job assuming that I am among the sea of people who scream against gay marriage and yet cling to divorce. I am not. I believe that divorce is as abominable as gay marriage, and ultimately...they will yield the same result. I have never in my life made it more difficult for gays to marry or for straights to divorce. As a matter of fact: I did not vote on Prop. 8. Why all of the assumptions?
My sole purpose in commenting on these boards was to place a realistic viewpoint on all of the hypocrites on these boards. It's unnerving to see someone be so hypocritical, yet remain unchallenged (e.g. Sarah). The truth of the matter is there are TWO SIDES to this issue and neither side has the capacity to see over their own beliefs; what's worse, both sides criticize and demonize one another for not being on their side. Comically amusing, but at the same time: indescribably irritating.
Fred ~
I hate to say this, bud...but your marriage is meaningless. Really, it is. What was the purpose? To make a commitment? Yea...because we see how well those are honored. Only fools would find comfort in a commitment that has a > 50% chance of being broken. To celebrate your love for another? Yea...this isn't a one day thing, it's a lifetime celebration. Or at least, it should be; perhaps that's why so many marriages end in divorce: people celebrate their lives together in a day (maybe even in the days to follow on their honeymoon), but when they return to the monotony of life, they just can't handle it. What a pitiful outlook on marriage, and very telling.
Good luck with that, by the way.
Cheers.
I agree, it's pretty ironic. Sad as well.
OTOH, there are straight couples who love each other very much, but who just can't live under the same roof. My husband and I are like that. We've been separated multiple times, but every time we start dating and it's great, that is until he moves back in. Even the kids would far rather have Dad visit than be around them every day. If we could afford it we'd just live in different houses on a permanent basis and still be one family. I could have animals he's allergic to and he could have his hobbies strewn about the place with nobody to complain. Oddly, society is a lot more intolerant about the notion that a married couple might choose to live in separate houses than they are about gay marriage. Why is that, I wonder? I guess the whole problem with marriage is that it comes with a lot of carved-in-stone assumptions about how you are supposed to behave, which is probably why it can be fatal to love if you and your mate don't happen to fit the mold.
No more so than your opinion. In your opinion does marriage have ANY value? You seem intent on deriding the entire concept of marriage.
What is the purpose of any marriage? What a silly question.
Not at all, in America, marriage is a legal contract, and for many it has a religious component, but at its core, it is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT.
In the eyes of God Almighty, a marriage is only possible between one man and one woman. That is clearly how He designed marriage from the beginning of man's existence. The same applies for divorce logically.
The message here is clear: stop rebelling against God and His Son Jesus Christ and the Bible. The consequences are fatal.
Oh Herald. Love thy neighbor. Let them be.
Wrong. No one ever died from divorce as such. Though some complications thereof often prove fatal, like "Italian divorce".
P.S. No intent to insult Italian-Americans or Italians. It's just that when divorces were not legal in Italy, some desperate party sometimes resorted to hiring hitmen, therefore making "Italian divorce" expression sort of proverbial.
The Bible is a collection of stories meant to help us be good people.
Don't pretend to know what is "possible" in God's eyes, because anything is.
Learn to worry more about yourself and less about others.
so if god created us in his image, isn't it conceivable that by not allowing 2 people to join together we're going against his laws?
Well therein lies the problem Herald9, there is no god (intentional no caps)...and you are a bigot. Let's assume for a moment that there is a God, since when is it your job to do His job? Oh, it's not.
Signed, a straight, and fiscally Conservative Republican.
yeaaaaaa.. "the message is clear" .. that 2 people chose to get married and are now choosing to get married. Since the other 13 gay couples are still together that would mean that god is 13/14s in favor of gay marriage.
Another message is that marriage has very little to do with god. Also that the religious should practice their own religion and not pretend they can practice it for others. Somewhat like Jesus spoke of, imagine that. Christian pretender.
Herald,
There is marriage from a religious view and marriage from a legal view. They are not one and the same thing because not everyone believes in some mythical Sky Daddy.
When is the last time you had a conversation with God Almighty?
Big fan of corinthians, are we? If I marry a non-believer and they want to leave me, what does your book written by men who want to control the world tell me?
Maybe I should write a Bible.
You're off by a few million years, for the existence of men, anyway. And you need to re-read your bible. Marriage was obviously between one man and many wives, as well as having a harem on the side, and adding a few rape victims from time to time.
Yeah, the bible is really the ONLY source of morality. /sarcasm
Who cares what you "think" god wants. Civil marriage isn't about god, it's about how the government treats its citizens.
If we know the benefits of marriage, why wouldn't you want to encourage all citizens to partake?
Did you discuss this with God over coffee this morning? If you have that kind of relationship with him, can you please ask him to stop world hunger and give us a cure for cancer? Surely, if he cares so much about marriage he needs more work to do...
I'm an atheist and the government allowed me to obtain a marriage license and get married. There was no religion involved so why shouldn't gay couples be offered the same rights as me?
The only flaw in your brilliant logic is that god doesn't exist. And as for Jesus - he's been dead for two thousand years now so his role in all this is probably somewhat less than you claim.
Well...some people believe, and it is their right, that there's a great man in the sky who will send down fire and floods to make us believe in him. They believe, and it is their right, that he had a son who saved us from his father's wrath by dying for us after performing a great series of miracles. Then there are others, and it is their right, who are smart enough to know that the other people are full of @!$%#. The only real proof they have there is a God is that a man who they trust to interpret an ancient book written by savages told them it was true. Outside of this baffling belief in a fairy tale what other reason would have to go against gay marriage outside of pure hatred and bigotry. Christians are hypocrites that make me wish there was a hell.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders.
That's the definition. Maybe it is time that the word should stop being thrown around by bigots. I have seen WAY to many comments from people bashing Christians and our God. You want to stand for homosexuality...fine, do it. Just don't expect everyone to give you their blessing when it is clearly written as a sin in our belief system. If you are demanding acceptance, maybe you should ACCEPT others as well. This is a debate that will never go anywhere. Every time there is an article on homosexuality it turns into this:
I'm gay and your a bigot that believes in a mystical sky dude. (Sound bigoted? it is.)
I'm a Christian, your going to hell because you are gay. (Sound bigoted? it is.)
I am a Christian, I do not believe that marriage should be granted to homosexuals. I believe that God is love, he loves us all. He is also Holy, and cannot abide by sin, hence the reason he gave us his only son as our salvation. Man is sinful in nature. You choose to fight the good fight or give over to fleshly desires. I believe that homosexuals will go to heaven, if they have accepted Christ as savior. The only people going to hell are those who reject God and his Son. Its not based on sexuality. The bible tells us to love our neighbors, but it also teaches us to cast aside sin. I can love someone who sins, and hate the sin. Most Christians believe this.
Cristin, great post. I couldn't have said it better!
Er, Herald ... what about that "let no man put asunder" thing?
Seems to me your God is against divorce too. I guess that's "fatal" too.
Herald9 is a good example of why I am against organized religion, with the biggest offenders to date being Christianity and Islam. I know that there are many Christians in the US who have no desire to infringe on other people's rights because of their religious views, and I have nothing against that group. How many people like Herald9 need to pop up before we agree that there is a sizable group of right-wing zealots who will forcibly impose their religious views on others?
When you have long, sometimes ambiguous, and often contradictory texts, and then make someone believe that there's a divine creator in the universe who personally endorses these texts and will send you to eternal bliss or eternal torment after he dies based on how well he followed God's "message," you're bound to get some serious societal issues. Belief allows for and condones instances of fanatical belief, so now one of the biggest issues in the US is over a form of civil rights, instead of... well, things that are actually important.
The message here is clear: stop rebelling against God and His Son Jesus Christ and the Bible. The consequences are fatal.
You really mean stop rebelling against what the Christians want to impose on everyone.
Better be careful, it may lead to dancing and happy people.
Life is fatal.
The bible is a work of fiction. "God" did not define "marriage". Let's say that god designed mammals. Why can't two raccoons marry? Why can't two bears marry? Why can two humans marry? Because HUMANS invented marriage. God may have invented re-creation, but he surely did not invent marriage.
Stop pushing your complete nonsense on everyone. The word of the bible is not what everyone else believes. If you want to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah like a sheep, then keep following the bible, and stop forcing it on others. I don't care what your beliefs are, but stop spreading that people are going to hell because they don't believe in the almighty jesus christ.
I am the almighty...
Hey Harold.
Next time you "Speak" with God, could you ask him to fix the weather? It's a bit weird where I am.
If they are gonna make gay "marriage" legal then they Better make Polygamy legal. 'cause that is waaaaay more natural. Besides I would really love to have about seven wives, one for each day of the week, or better yet, 31 for each day of the month!!! They could cook, clean and bare kids. Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen where they belong.
If they are gonna make gay "marriage" legal then they Better make Polygamy legal.
Gay marriage = one person and one person
Traditional marriage = one man and one woman
Polygamy = one man to several woman or one woman to several men
Gay marriage <> Polygamy
Comment # 2 restored for clarity.
Here's one for some of you self righteous, so called tolerant people. Y'all criticize those that you disagree with and call them names like bigot, but it looks to me that in doing so you are being bigoted against the very ones that you call bigot. And you want to toot your own horn and brag, puff your proud chest out and proclaim to the world how "tolerant" you are. You don't seem at all tolerant in the very least. In fact, you sound to me like the very ones that you name call and criticize.
You're joking, right? What about the guy whose wife is mysteriously missing, and who recently killed his kids and himself in via arson? Divorce leads to murders and suicides all the time.
I asked him. He said there is certainly enough food to go around, and it is the job of you humans to distribute it so nobody is hungry. As for diseases like cancer, he said he gave us brains to do medical research. He also pointed out that many cases of cancer are our own fault because we insist on smoking, drinking, eating terrible diets, and using artificial chemicals when they aren't necessary. He said that if he did everything for us it would be treating us like two year olds, and we'd never grow up.
I know, it seems that way to those who don't think it through all the way. Intolerance is unacceptable, intolerance of intolerance is not only acceptable, it is morally required.
All you have to do is to figure out what the difference is.
Why is either polygyny or polyandry wrong if that is what three people want? I'd love to hear even one good reason, and I'm being serious.
I'm thinking that for the most part it is a tax and insurance issue.
You have a good friend that doesn't have insurance and pays higher taxes. Suddenly the three of you are married even though Bob lives in the basement.
Now Bob has medical insurance and pays less on taxes. After a while Bob gets married to Suzi and Ann. 2 years later Ann marries George and Mitt.
Next thing 245 people are all married and living in the same compound wearing Orange.
Is that what you've asked for? Now you can have it. And eat it, too.
I think they've finished the "eating" part of it ... Anyway, what's the problem here. 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce so why do you think gay-lessies should be any different?
I think it's the speed in which it fell apart, after being a couple for so long. To fight so hard, and then to give up so easily.
I suspect that the stress of this court battle may have been what tore them apart. Maybe if they'd been able to get married without having to go through all of this, they would've been in a better place in their relationship.
You have to examine what bigot means before you call one a bigot.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Then you examine the word belief.
Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
For example nature does not intend to make albinos in any of the creatures. They are immediately selected out. (Eaten or killed.) Albinos are just one of the experiments that nature continuously makes, trying to improve the species to which the animals belongs.
Nature does not intend to make homosexuals. It is a dead end for the species and a waste of resources in nature as the animal will not reproduce.
In humans, homosexuality exists, protected and now allowed privileges.
However they are NOT the same as heterosexual and a complex web of laws and rights surrounding heterosexuals and their children have derived and these laws do not all fit homosexuals.
That that, we heterosexuals wish to maintain some of those laws for us as heterosexuals does not make us bigots, but only want to clarify the difference.
I want the word marriage to mean the union of one man and one woman. So call me a bigot if you can't understand the rules and meaning of nature and the minds and reasoning of the overwhelming majority of the heterosexual humans on earth.
They tried to get it annulled but the marriage had already been consummated!
This is terrible.... I feel sooooo bad for them.
NBC has found it's nitch in NEW'S worthy subjects that nobody else give a tinkersdamn about.
Here, here!! There is after-all someone who thinks this is "NEWS WORTHY", and is actually emotionally challenged by it. God bless you Capecodmom, my folks always said there's one in every crowd.
Seems what held them together was the protest. That gone they had no one to antagonize but themselves.
18 years as a couple and 2 years married before a divorce. LMAO
What's the big deal. They marry, they divorce -- isn't that what 50% of heterosexual couples do? Why even is this news.
Do they now get to go through the same court and settlement hassle straight couples divorcing do? Welcome to reality folks! Hope it was worth it.
Okay, newman. You are a bigot, but if you feel better thinking you aren't go for it! Feel better now? I mean you are wrong on most of what you said and nature really does make homosexual animals of several species and other things you said were just wrong too, but don't let facts get in your way.
Ozark...you actually made sense until you showed your spite. It was probably the right to marry fight kept them together. After that was done, they realized nothing else was in common...How many women did I date where that is what exactly happened. Brought together by a common cause, when that was gone, so was the relationship...whether her choice or mine.
you're an ass.
Don't be an ass about this. Now, after years together, they can file for divorce, divide what belongings, property and financial situations they shared like married people.
If marriage is legal for two people, then it should be legal ANY two people. This does not mean multiple partners or with animals like so many morons claim. It just means equal rights under the law.
The reason that half of people are divorcing is that half of heterosexuals aren't practicing the Christian values they claim any more then the homosexuals are. Just because heterosexuals can behave as badly as homosexuals doesn't justify gay marriage.
I agree....this story truly isn't newsworthy. EVERYONE deserves equal rights regardless of their differences, yet it seems that no one can just allow people to live their lives. They are too busy making up some crock of crap stuff about nature and then claiming NOT to be a bigot. Wouldn't life be better without all the judgement and ridiculous crap that fills our news? Just let people live their lives, and if it doesn't harm you, then simply shut up! Never confuse the will of the majority for the will of God!
Newman, your expertise comes from where? Convoluted and distorted explanation of homosexuality...but you know you are a bigot and you are just trying to upset people.
I bet Valentine's Day at that house was a FREAK SHOW!
I picture a lot of flannel, cigarette smoke, Mad Dog 20/20, Hungry Man TV diners, & domination fights.
Nasty!
Couple of vaginarians. Divorcing. This is a story because..........................okay why???
Poster Couple? Who the f' has a poster of these two on their wall's? I remember as a young man(I'm 44) how much of a turn-on it was if two chick's made out. F'n lesbian's ruined it, and now it just make's me want to puke!! Have you ever noticed that lesbian's 99% of the time are puke ugly, and nobody want's to even here them talk!? But, since they are lesbian's they push themselves into people's faces trying to provoke dialogue about how people are hater's! The truth is you are all just gross human's and you are no good to the pack. Why don't you just wander off in the wood's and die!! Go ahead, wear a flannel shirt
Poster Couple? Who the f' has a poster of these two on their wall's? I remember as a young man(I'm 44) how much of a turn-on it was if two chick's made out. F'n lesbian's ruined it, and now it just make's me want to puke!! Have you ever noticed that lesbian's 99% of the time are puke ugly, and nobody want's to even here them talk!? But, since they are lesbian's they push themselves into people's faces trying to provoke dialogue about how people are hater's! The truth is you are all just gross human's and you are no good to the pack. Why don't you just wander off in the wood's and die!! Go ahead, wear a flannel shirt
Newman, nature does create homosexuals in many (maybe all) species, and if that is a "mistake," it is so common that it should not factor into asking whether gay people should be accorded normal human rights. "One man, one woman" hasn't even been the norm for much of human history - especially, ironically, Bible "history." (I always love it when evangelicals go on about "God's way" being one man, one woman "for 5,000 years" when that was not true through much of the Old Testament.) Modern marriage is just as much about companionship as it is reproduction (or even financial considerations) and so it hardly matters which relationships (gay or straight) are genetic dead-ends.
Couple of vaginarians. Divorcing. This is a story because..........................okay why???
Ray, just go down to your mom's basement, stare at your old Farrah Fawcett posters, and spank your monkey like you do every night and sthu. If lesbians are so ugly and pathetic, why do your care who they are in a relationship with? Jealous that they can find prettier women than you? I thought so.
By what possible logic does it have to be limited to two people? Polyamory is not all that unusual. In fact it has been legal in many if not most societies throughout human history. The ONLY reason it is limited to two is tradition and religion, the exact same reasons that gay marriage hasn't been legal in most societies. It's just plain bigotry to allow gays to marry, but not to allow polygamy between consenting adults. I'm being dead serious here. There are plenty of homemakers who would much rather be involved in such a marriage than divorced and left to live out their old age in poverty while their husband takes a trophy wife. (I know that's how I'd feel as a woman in my 50s.) There are even younger people who just plain want to be a trio. Suppose two of them want a career but the third prefers to stay home and raise all the children, it would be perfect. Who are you to tell them they can't? Why is polyphobia any more respectable than homophobia?
I am not surprised. The law should not succum to people like this who can change their mind on a whim. They were so passionate to wed a few years ago, now they are equally passionate to destroy that union they fought so hard for. They were morally compromised in the beginning, so I did not expect them to fulfil their commitment of marriage. Neither of them should ever be allowed to marry any one, or any thing, or animal they unaturally decide to love next. People like this will never be happy or adjusted.
Don't straight people end marrianges every day?
A whim. Jim calls 18 years of being committed and 40 years of friendship, a whim. Go figure.
Oh, I see, It's simple hatred.
The median length of a marriages among straight couples is 8 years. Their divorce rate is about 60%. By your logic we should simply end marriage as an institution. Or do you think that straight folks who divorce are simply following the will of God?
I'm guessing jm is a middle aged to elderly person. Thankfully a new generation is growing that will sweep away such blatant hatred.
One heck of a long whim!
Yes, Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries are a shining example of why only men and women can have a successful marriage.
or Tittany Spears, how long did that last, 42 hours?
Why should some people have the right to get married while other people don't? And why should some people have the right to get divorced while other people don't? If we're going to live by that rule then let's make you one of the people who don't have these rights. Tell us how you like it.
jm-1758650 You are truely an idiot. Judging from your post, you support conservatives and how many GOP candidates have been married a few times including St. Ronnie. 50% of all marriages end in divorce so why is a lesbian divorce any diff? The only thing we learned here is that religious/conservative followers are moving too slowly along the evolutionary path. Bigots always have to find something to complain about, something to force on the rest of mankind yet whine about anyone else telling them what to accept.
Show me a person that wants to share their religious/political beliefs with others and I will show you a person that doesn't want to hear of yours...
While I don't agree with the sentiment of the post by Herald9, I believe that collapsing the comment is not the correct course of action. This person is entitled to their opinion, just as all the people that replied in opposition are entitled to theirs. This is a form of censorship, and in this case shouldn't be used.
here's an idea: make marriage licenses with an expiration date that must be renewed from time to time. Life becomes infinitely easier, the lowest-of-the-law divorce lawyers go back to chasing ambulances. I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for this idea!
F - Kim Kardashian
M - Kris Humphries
72 Days
F - Drew Barrymore
M - Tom Green
29 Days
F - Drew Barrymore
M - Jeremy Thomas
6 Weeks
F - Pam Anderson
M - Kid Rock
4 Months
F - Britney Spears
M - Jason Alexander
55 Hours
F - Carmen Electra
M - Dennis Rodman
6 Months
F - Jennifer Lopez
M - Cris Judd
7-9 Months (No one seems to know)
F - Jennifer Lopez
M - Ojani Noa
11 Months
F - Julia Roberts
M - Lyle Lovett
21 - Months
F - Michelle Phillips
M - Dennis Hopper
8 Days
Then there is the Liz Taylor list:
(all Males)
Conrad Hilton - 9 Months
Michael Wilding - 5 years
Michael Todd - Died
Eddie Fisher - 5 Years
Richard Burton (Twice) for a total of about 5 Years
John Warner - About 5 years (notice the 5 year pattern?)
One more 5 year marriage to Larry Fortensky
The list is long, and those are only a small few of the famous ones.
4 Years of marriage after being a couple for 18 years is actually pretty good. Especially since they couldn't marry before they did.
jm....I wonder if you made these same passionate claims concerning marriage when the Karadashian marriage broke up after less than 3 months?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Marriage among heteros ends up in divorce 50% of the time. 1 out of every 2 marriages. So, where's the passionate outrage there?
marriage is marriage..... gay or straight.....everyone should have the right to marry AND all the responsibiliites that come with it.
Who is the haters?. Because people don't subscribe to your ranting or beliefs, doesn't make them haters. What happened to the tollerance of the liberal minded?. Hypocracy at it's best.
Most Christians don't care if G&L join in any form as we are not their creator or judge however and this is really important to pay attention here, it's NOT a marriage. Call it something else. And just because the law calls it legal, doesn't make it right and it will never be accepted as a marriage by many people just like the abortion issue, just because the law says it's ok to murder doesn't make it so. I wouldn't go on a 20 year fight to have my cat recognized as a dog by the law. It is a cat, never will be a dog, even if I get peope tired of my rantings who might go along with calling my cat a dog, the fact will never change. Those who don't believe a union of two people of the same sex is a marriage are not haters, they are simply trying to stay grounded in an out of control society. Period.
JOregon, and your point is???? You want to see more gay couples thrown into that list of failed marriages as well? 18 years of being a couple doesn't mean anything in my opinion if you can't stick with a marriage or fight to make a marriage work after only 4 years. Of course straight couples have this problem too, but to throw the 18 years as a couple into this as if it means anything is baloney. You'd just as well re-write your little list there and throw Robin Tyler and Diane Olson first on that list.
Comment # 4 restored for clarity.
You know, if this wasn't such a sad comment, it would be laughable! Really? You think straight people don't get married and then "change their mind on a whim". Good Heavens -- the Las Vegas marriage industry would be in dust if that were the case!
As to "fulfilling the commitment", ever heard of "pre-nups"? That's people going into that "commitment of marriage" without even the plan to stay together. How about the horrendous divorce rate? How about adultery (and you need to look no further than the poster boy Newt)?
By your "argument" there are thousands (or more) straight couples who are "morally compromised" as well.
Ezra, really? Their 18 years of a relationship BEFORE their could LEGALLY marry shouldn't count? That makes perfect sense. I'm sure they were living that time as if they WERE legally married.
stuckincalif
Who is the haters?. Because people don't subscribe to your ranting or beliefs, doesn't make them haters. What happened to the tollerance of the liberal minded?. Hypocracy at it's best.
you get what you give. why should anyone be nice to this guy when he doesn't realize the hypocrisy of his statement when the divorce rate of straight couples is well over half.
You are right I should have given the reference why I posted that.
And further in the post:
(Thank you Sally.)
"People like this"? All sorts of people have failed and short marriages. What are "People Like This"? Is there a test for it?
I'd like to add to the comments about marriage to say again, there have been heterosexual couples who want to divorce after a day... or less. Seriously, the comments about "these people" could apply to any straight people.
Why do so many people (fools or not) think and believe that marriage is all about a piece of paper and directly associated with and connected-to recognition by the legal system.
Love is love, if someone truly pocesses and shares that emotion with another, why would they care if it's recognized or not by a legal system or religion. The Legal System is not going to penalize them in any way, shape or form (it's not like using recreational drugs, hard core or not, where you'll go to jail, pay fines and have a record that follows them around for life). Unlike that drug use, there is no jail-time for being homosexual, sexually promiscuous, or living with a same sex person,.... so why give a rat's-asss about the "Dog & Pony Show" that is the marital event.
OR maybe, just maybe, it never really was about the love or the relationship, but instead about getting their rocks-off by challenge the legal system, the church and gaining notoriety for it. In other words, the relationship was never really sound, or about a shared love and desire to be together forever.... BUT INSTEAD it was just a fad that brought them the attention of a greedy Liberal Media willing to sell smut (ala National Enquirere" so they can make money selling advertisements/commercials), gain national attention and the fun of being different..... but now the fish is old and stinky, and it's time for a fresh catch, or corrupting another young, innocent and impressionable person into thinking they're just like them... sexually experimental and permiscuous sluts.
The media attention and circus show is more than likely the only reason they stayed together as long as they did.
JOregon, your list really shows nothing other than to highlight the immaturity of Hollywood actors/actresses and Celebrities and their lack of being able to maintain a commitment to their partners. I could list couples living in my immediate vicinity and at 28 years 4 months and counting, my wife and I have the shortest marriage.
Voter I could produce the same list from people in your community.
It is just that these are people we are familiar with.
Plenty of Celebrities stay married for years too.
When he died Paul Newman had been married for 50 years.
Mel Brooks married Anne Bancroft in 1964 until she died in 2005.
Who would have thunk Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne would be married so long?
Tom Hanks has been married since the late 80's.
Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman married back when Taxi was on TV.
On the other hand I have been married and divorced from the same woman twice. I was husband #2 and 3 out of 4.
Her first marriage was 6 months.
I only used those that we are all familiar with, but they are just normal people in high profile jobs.
Idiotic beyond words and note there were 16 people who supported this comment. Please explain based on your conclusion why fundamentalist Christians then have one of the highest rates of divorce of any demographic? Not that we don't understand that they too are "morally compromised" but why should they bother to get married either?
I seriously doubt that getting married after 18 years was just a whim. These two people really cared about one another but just like so many relationships they decided to end it. Divorce doesn't have boundaries. It happens to heterosexual, homosexual, bi-racial, jewish couples etc. It's a sad time when ANY two people that have been married decide to divorce. I hope each of them will find someone to spend the rest of their life with and hopefully have the right to marry again.
WOW, they sure didn't look like a Lesbian couple at all...
StuckinCalif - well said!
Welcome to the joy of marriage. I say, open up the doors for anyone that wants it. The Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in America, and has for years. Don't give me any, "sanctity of marriage," crap. The cheating, the fighting, the hatred that can develop between two people, legally shackled together, "'till death do us part," is all part of this ridiculous and outdated custom. Men don't own women anymore, so the whole thing is pretty barbaric.
The only really obvious thing about marriage is that it is not an issue that impacts the problems we have in this country in any way whatsoever.
I'm really just not comprehending any sort of objection to gay marriage from a constitutional standpoint. Neither do I see any rational argument about any sort of threat to our society whatsoever. I hope those against the issue do speak their minds from a rational perspective as that freedom is a wonderful cornerstone of our democracy. However, I think that the opinion from a perspective of objection is slowly shifting to the minority as there is no rationale that I really have heard that rings true with clarity. Statements like "freakshow" don't really fly as it pertains to the constitution or constitutional rights. Its just alot of foaming at the mouth. Sure gay people would get divorced as well. They have to state publically that they would bind themselves for life in order to receive equality? That doesn't make any sense to me. Good luck to both of them. I haven't really seen any rational objection aside from name calling.
whooooooo cares.
If they were allowed to marry when they originally wanted to, from the time they started going to the courthouse yearly, they would have possibly been married for a total of 15 years. Twice as long as the median straight marriage. I don't call this a whim.
which one gets the mine and who gets the shaft??
Usually the male gets the short end of the stick but two women is it a 50/50 split of assets??
JOregon....Dude, considering you're what a lot of people would call a two-time loser, being that you were married to the same woman twice, you have about as much sense of a billy-goat to question what someone else does. Now THAT is funny!
Timothy1Mil said:
Spot on, Tim, Spot on! Its almost like when black people call KKK members all bigots. I say, who is the real bigot in that situation? Why judge every KKK member, even the ones that haven't tried lynching you? its so unfair!
Brilliance! :)
Momus
You apparently missed the point.
I didn't question what ANYONE does. I refuted the idea that Gays were somehow more likely to divorce.
I'm not Gay and I divorced so why can't they?
Talk about lack of sense.
Skup
Well stated Skup. I say, Welcome to the cesspool of marriage and divorce. It's just a piece of paper that stakes claim on one another, and for me, marriage is nothing but a leash around you and your partners neck.
Most people I know married for all the wrong reasons.
1: income
2: tax-breakes
3: spouse and widows benefits (divorce and death)
You forgot; listening to the little head.
1. "People like this, who can change their mind on a whim?" Any people can change their mind on a whim.
2. You called them "morally compromised." That is your judgement, and if I'm not mistaken, judging is a no-no. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So does the fact that you feel fine judging these women make you morally compromised?
3. The fact that 26 people have voted for your comment is terrifying. I take comfort in the fact that twice as many people disagree with you as agree.
4. Why is this even news? Somebody is getting a divorce, so what? Do better, MSN!
newman1
Ok. This poster has posted in today's stores 34 times, 2 here and 25 of them in the Washington same sex issue.
All smell of hate and filth.
In EVERY case, there are misspellings, grammatical errors, improper use of capital letters, punctuation, cut and paste errors and run-on sentences and paragraphs. All while lambasting others for not reading properly, accusing people for not growing up, not being mature and not getting the facts straight.
This is the classic "got no other life" than to post right winger. So, newman1, before you go off correcting anyone else, can you get your writing skills corrected first? Please? You make conservatives look BAD. You are not helping your cause.
eww gross. They married because they could not find anyone else to marry. Flip floppers like this will never be happy
Speaking from experience are we?
Yes, you are right, bigots are gross! Ewww.
You don't sound happy, jm. You sound harsh and angry but I don't understand why. Marriage can only be accomplished by having it recognized by law. You may go to a church for a ceremony of your choice, but the institution itself is a legal one. So, how can we say one type of couple isn't eligible under the law for a legally-defined relationship. I say get the religion out of government and government out of religion. Everyone should be required (and is) to have a legally-sanctioned civil union. For those to whom a religious ceremony is also significant, their option is to take their argument to their church.
Amen brother and lets require the churches to pay taxes ie. school, income and realestate taxes like any other business.
That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that they split up because they're not gay anymore? Is that what you mean by "flip-floppers?" What are you saying?
SeniorSense, your assessment is on the spot in my humble opinion. The problem with it though is that government is in religion. I can't for the life of me understand why everyone just can't go get their state issued civil union license and then if they want to go have some marriage ceremony find someone willing to do that for them. This whole name calling and over-justifying positions is a waste of taxpayers time & money.
Perhaps that's because states offer 'marriage' licences, not 'civil union' licenses. Oh wait, scratch that, I get it now! By "everyone" you mean gays. You're asking, why don't gays just go get their civil union license and then . . ."?
Rather than simply spoon feed you the answer, it's better for you to figure it out yourself. But perhaps answering my question will get you started in the right direction: why should 'everyone' (read gays) accept that they are 2nd class citizens just because you believe it to be so?
@capecodmom,
I believe JM is simply saying that they wanted so bad to get married and when that didn't work out they wanted so bad to get divorced ?? I think..
I really wasn't quite sure either.
I think what he was saying is what I was thinking when I first saw the picture.....that chick looks like one ugly guy....but wait, could it be a....woman?? I think that is what he was saying. I think we can safley point to who wore the "pants" in that relationship.....or, can we?
. . . but I always have to ponder the notion that marriage is a "right" when in fact no INDIVIDUAL person can assert that right . . . requires 2. . . what about the poor schmucks who never find anyone to love them (even for 54 hours)?
@Jim, I do believe you just nailed it...
Actually I thought it was a pic of Don Imus & Steven Tyler???
JM1758650: Your statement "Eww gross" : sure JM that would really fly in a constitutional debate before the supreme court which is what these articles will ultimately most likely lead to. I think those in objection to what will probably be the eventual passage of legislation legalizing gay marriage are coming up with statements such as "eww gross" "freakshow" "they'll never be happy". Those statements don't have a heck of alot to do with constitutional rights and ultimately aren't going to hold much weight when it comes to legislation.
Wow, more proof that gay people are JUST people...they fall in love, fall out of love, fight, make up, marry and divorce...just like the rest of us. Why is this even news? So a couple had a marriage that didn't work out, happens every day. If we treated everyone equally, let people marry the person of their choice, this wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
JS - I agree with you. Some people are apples and some are oranges but in the end we're all fruit.
some people are just a bit more fruity than others :V
You did leave yourself open to that one Veteran...
LB - I noticed that right after I hit send. :)
Yup, people are just people. And, hey, they outlasted Kim Kardashian's marriage!
Who's that??
If everyone was bisexual it would be case closed for everyone..No more problems...
Well it's because they're the poster child for gay marraige in calif. I suppose this is a bit ironic concerning yesterday's news on the overturn but i hear you, they should be left alone, and treated with the same dignity as us.
Veteran
Apples don't grow on orange trees.
It's just not natural, you know??? :)
Nah veteran...all you did was leave yourself open to people who were going to "out" themselves in a way that has nothing to do with the article. It was to be sadly expected.
Too many people take marriage vows too lightly. yes the divorce rate is too high, yes too many people get married for the wrong reasons and just as many divorce without putting any real work into a marriage.
Marriage is a committment. Having a long term relationship to someone you are comitted to is hard and is something that needs to be worked at it doesn't just happen without both people putting time into the relationship.
Should people who are attracted to the same sex be "allowed" to marry, for me the answer is no. The "rights" they want to fight for they already have. You can give your house to your significant other, you can give any other property as well, you can see each other in the hospital etc all the things that they say they can't have they can.
Anyone can do this you don't NEED to be married to enjoy those benefits. My father after divorcing said he would never marry again. But his girlfriend had the same benefits that my mother had and they didn't have a marriage certificate he had a living will and filled out paperwork to ensure she had her needs met in the case of his death.
No one is stopping anyone from getting married, just marrying someone of the same sex etc. or not their first cousin..
Really Kath63?--
Can the surviving spouse in a same sex couple claim the deceased spouse's federal social security income if it was greater as in a federally recognized heterosexual marriage? No. Same sex couples don't enjoy those benefits Kath....should they be denied that? No. Is there a reasoning for that denial...well based on your logic above which omitted federal benefits which require federal recognition you would have to logically change your statement to that they should not be denied that right. Because they would to use your word NEED federal recognition for that benefit which would then mean they would to use your word again NEED the documentation of a recognized marriage certificate.
JS, Baltimore....the reason that the "poster couple" for gay rights is divorcing, is big news, because supposedly, Gay Couples don't break up, supposedly they stay together forever, and that this is part of the Gay Rights Movement's reasoning that Gays relationships are just as good as Heterosexual Relationships! gay rights people use this against us heterosexuals, who do not want gay marriage nor domestic partnerships to be legal. They use it against us all the time, so now that the "poster couple" for gay rights is divorcing, this is soooooo funny!!!! ha ha ha ha! And I thought they were soooo much better than us heterosexual people!!! What a joke! I knew it was a lie, even before it was news!!! This lie that the gay rights agenda people have propogated against us heterosexuals, is such a joke! Boo yah!
Or could it perhaps also be Sandy Lynn that the article is big news to display that they are in fact just like everyone else where some relationships work and some dont. Where have you read that gay couples don't break up and supposedly stay together forever and where has that been any sort of cornerstone for any sort of equal rights movement? I believe actually that equal rights have been the cornerstone of the equal rights movement. Where have you read any proclamation that gay people felt they were better than "us" heterosexual people ? I haven't read that anyplace....could you direct us? I would be curious. What lie is it that you knew about that has been propogated against "us"? What is the boo yah stuff? Is it some sort of proclamation that "we" feel superior. Perhaps you. I opt for equality.
Gays should only be allowed to plan wedding. "Oh girl, that would be sooooo cuuute" NOT!
you should only be allowed to text since you leave words out.
haha...that was so funny...not.
Crazson- You should only be allowed to keep your mouth shut and your hands off the keyboard.
Tell that to the supreme court crazon i'm sure they'd get a real kick out of it....not.
"they've known each other 40 years and out of that were together 18"...who says marriage doesn't change people?????? I guess it (being married) didn't live up to the hype.....
It's nothing more than a business agreement. That's why you sign a contract.
Toasty, actually the 'contract' part was only put in place in the 20th century to keep deadbeats from skipping out on the responsibilities of providing for the children. Its one reason why it doesnt make much sense for gay couples to sign a marriage license. The license doesnt ask if you love each other, it merely lists to responsible parties in case someone bails out.
People have been getting married for millenia, and only in the last 100 years have they needed to sign a contract.
@Toasty,
Maybe not for you Toasty, but it means a whole lot more than a business agreement to me...I take it you may of had some bumps in the old marriage road?? Sorry bout that.
Villian: Do you know that there are many gay couples who have children? A marriage license is NOT a contract; it actually isn't even a "license," so to speak. It does give each party certain inalienable (sp) rights in a relationship; i.e., who will care for the children, who will inherit the house, bills, etc. For gay couples, it gives them the right to take care of them in a hospital, to handle their affairs if they become ill, etc. This is important. I've seen a few friends of mine (and I'm not gay, by the way), who have suffered deeply when their partner has been hospitalized because they were not allowed to have any input into the care of that individual. Most times, the sick person's family chose to "freeze" them out of that care, even if the couple had been together for many years! It's a very sad situation.
villian157 Actually, marriages started as contracts between families and only lately (the past 100 - 150 years) have they been romanticized into something other than a legal agreement. Check your history.
I personally have no idea why anyone cares what two consenting adults choose to do. If they want to participate in a socio-religious exercise and officially bind themselves together what possible difference can it make to anyone else? Perhaps their in-laws and close friends will have an opinion, as they will be dealing with that other person somewhat regularly. But the public at large? It's none of our business.
As for jm-1758650, well, you've said a lot about yourself in that post. I wonder if you realize how much of it was negative?
Mitch: even for us heterosexual, straight married couples it doesn't live up to the hype. And, by the way, when my marriage ended it had nothing to do with any gay/lesbian couple wanting to marry. It ended...because it did.
I just don't think that love is expressed by signing a contract.
I suspect (One would have to ask these ladies to know for sure) that part of the split was due to the stresses of having to fight for the basic right of Marriage (which automatically gives well over 1100 rights that the unmarried couple, and this includes those in civil unions) don't have to protect them in sickness and old age/inheritance. I do hope that they had some sort of couples counciling to be sure that the marriage is truely over and there isn't unfinished emotional business between the two of them.
I'll tell you what, I'll get behind a ban for gay marriage when everyone else gets behind a ban for straight divorce. Deal?
What, and actually follow through with our commitments?? Heaven forbid!
Those who are against gay marriage based on the principles of Christ SHOULD be against divorce in the first place....
This goes to show that many, many, MANY people are either ignorant of their beliefs or they simply refuse to follow through with them.
Sure, as long as provisions are made to monitor for and properly criminalize spousal abuse.
Impulsive marriages between unstable people are not good for society. This highly public marriage and divorce, for instance, will fuel a lot of criticism for the gay marriage movement.
I'm in. From what I've read, God is not a fan of divorce. My parents stayed together and honored their commitments and so shall I.
Villian: My parents also stayed together and honored their marriage, but it was NOT a happy marriage, and we children suffered in a household where my mother and father rarely talked, did not show any affection, and generally just put up with each other. What's the value of that?
I don't recall hearing Christ talk about divorce. Can you give me quote on that? All I recall Christ talking about was not judging others and loving your neighbors. The original hippy...
Wow...I started reading the comments because I thought there would be a ton of haters and I love how they twist things around to support their view (what is next...you can marry your dog)
I am pleasantly surprised...Gay people do not effect my life in a negative way
I know several gays and they are not only very intelligent but they go to church, have great jobs,pay their taxes and if you didn't know they were gay...you wouldn't know
xServer ~
Feel free and read Matthew 19.
Cheers.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
If you notice those churches that are the most anti-gay (SBC as an example) will perform marriages of divorced people in their churches.
CORINTHIANS 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
lolfatty
xServer was asking about what Jesus said. Paul was speaking in Corinthians, though that is a good verse, as is:
1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
The value is that you had a home. You had your mom and your dad available to you every day. You and your siblings weren't split up as often happens. You didn't have to give away your dog because you were moving to some crappy apartment in a dangerous neighborhood. You had far more material comforts than you would have if they'd divorced because people cannot support two households as cheaply as one. Above all you didn't have to deal with them dating, bringing home boyfriends and girlfriends who might abuse you. (A child is something like 30 times more likely to be murdered by mom's shack up stud than the biological dad.) You didn't have to deal with remarriages and blended families where the step-parent only tolerated you for the sake of your mom or dad. You didn't have to deal with yet more divorces, as happens VERY often. Second and third and fourth marriages have a MUCH higher divorce rate than original ones. Those children have to go through hell over and over and over. How do they benefit if their dad was merely boring or didn't make "enough" money to please Mom, but her next guy is a raging, abusive alcoholic? I saw this with some of my friend's familes in the early 70s when divorce suddenly became an epidemic. I felt very sorry for them.
Yet you are actually whining because your parents were low key, quiet people who weren't particularly affectionate with each other, and least in front of the kids. So what?
In the eyes of G... oh wait, one of the founding principles of the US was religious freedom. That also extends to freedom FROM religion. Marriage has a huge secular component. Theres no problem with straight people going to the courthouse and getting a non-religious marriage in front of a judge instead of a preacher, so there should not be any problem with the religious allowing others the same right.
Also.. yes this is a bit of what they were fighting for. Equality. These people were married by any other name before this whole legal show. Long term couples of straight AND gay types often have trouble sorting things out after a breakup. Now the gay set has access to the same legal tools that we've built up over the decades to solve just such problems.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there about freedom FROM religion. That's what is wrong with some peoples interpretation of the constitution. It is not freedom from religion it is freedom OF religion. The basis of this freedom was to make sure that the government did not establish a state religion as did merry old England. It's intent was to allow people to freely practice one's religion without persecution. Being gay is not a religion last I checked. People have every right not to agree with gay marriage, but I as a conservative, yes, conservative, do not think it is the governments responsibility to police activities that do no harm to others.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I believe that is freedom...FROM...religion
Sorry your wrong, that is not FROM religion. That simply says that the government by law cannot establish a religion. "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Would have to be excluded if it meant freedom FROM religion. See that's what is happening now, the government is prohibiiting the free exercise thereof.
Do you think that a member of congress should be allowed to wear a religious emblem, cross around their neck or Star of David? If the Constitution gives you the right to freedom FROM religion, they or anyone else should not be allowed to wear it, because JoeBlow, who is atheist is offended?
Actually yes, freedom FROM religion, but to a POINT. We cannot force folks to recite prayers, that IS freedom FROM religion, we cannot force folks to wear religious clothing, or attend specific services, so YES there IS freedom FROM religion.
But we cannot, nor should we, curtail INDIVIDUAL or COLLECTIVE religious notions or activity, so long as that activity is not UNDULY burdensome on others.
Of course they can, but they cannot compel others to wear it, nor can they compel public spaces to display it.
Marriage in America is NOT religious by definition. You can go to a courthouse and get married without ever saying two words to a man of the cloth. There are also TONS of marriages in which religion is a core tenet, but it is NOT all, it is not even close to all.
As not all marriages are religious, therefore religion has no control over marriage, religion does not OWN marriage, and gay marriages must be allowed if equality is something we REALLY care about.
You want your religious marriage to be more special than a courthouse-approved marriage? Then call yours something different, don't make others change what they call their marriage.
Well, that's normal !
When people ask me what I think about the right for gays to marry. I say why would they want to be as miserable as heterosexuals??????
Thankfully, it's a human right to be able to make that mistake.
These women are normal people and a normal couple. Sometimes things just don't work out. What's the big deal?
And "Hearld9" - Just because your mentality is stuck in the year zero, doesn't mean the majority of Americans want that kind of mentality dictating our lives with your fascist theocracy.
"Normal" . Right.
I love the smell of irony in the morning. It smells like........................victory.
Mark...I am pretty sure that was Napalm....
If you can define normal....I would love to hear it described...One persons normal is an-others crazy...That is why we are all individuals. Live and let live...
Peace
Don't you just love psychology? There are no rules. You just make up what you want and it's out there...no one can prove you wrong...the state of Bliss...fabulous
The definition of normal as a noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
Clearly, being gay is NOT normal. Whether it is right or wrong and how it should be handled is the issue here.
@YourShadow,
Just because it is not your normal to be gay does not mean it is not normal for those who are gay...This would mean that one mans normal is an-others abnormal.
I am not gay, but I know people who are and they are people...They even look normal...LOL
Now...What is right and what is wrong? Define your ethics and they will not be another persons vision either. Like a legal document that can be defined differently by different judges...Morals, ethics and normal are all opinions. I understand they are not the average...But clearly for some...They are the normal they have known in their life. Get used to it...Gay people have been on this planet for a while...And they will continue to be gay...And it will not make you any less hetero...Unless you want to step over that line.
Like I said...Live and let live...
Peace
I have know some VERY normal Gay people, and I have known some really whacked out Straight people (such as my ex-wife[OK That was a cheap shot])
You clearly believe that normal is a relative term. That's kinda silly, since using a 'relative' average can skew the reality of true data.
So, then allow me to be more specific (for your sake): Homosexuality in the human species is not normal.
Happy?
One mans happy is an-others gay...LOL
Statistics...99% of them are made up on the spot...80% of them are correct.
You clearly have issues with the way other people live their lives...I prefer to think that if it doesn't hurt anyone it should be okay...So I guess if the gay crowd wants marriage, how does it hurt to let them? It is not anymore gay than being gay...So why not?
My personal beliefs on homosexuality were not addressed in my posts, simply a clarification on the word 'normal'.
I prefer that people stay on the same page in a discussion, hence the clarification. Using words incorrectly leads to confusion; let's diffuse that off the bat.
Such good use of the language...But you doth protest too much...I must be confused...You sounded like you are saying homosexuals were bad mmmkayyy?
That is simply because the word 'normal' is not used in its proper context on a daily basis. That having been said, we should either change it for the unaware or educate the unaware.
Normal does NOT imply right or wrong.
So normally people use the word normal wrong? What about the word gay? It used to mean happy....Now...It means queer...But that word also means gay now...Instead of strange or funny...Perhaps you are not anti-gay, I am really unsure...But I do know that you seem to get irked or vexed by the unusual usage of the word normal...That is not normal normally...But in your case...We will say it is the norm...
Okay...Enough word play...I must go and do my taxes...Like a normal citizen...I must pay the piper, and I do not even like his tune...
Take care, and stop letting the minuscule rent space in your head...Life is too short to waste on stuff that doesn't really matter.
Peace to you and yours...
Hahaha! I thoroughly enjoyed your post! Extremely clever. :D (I've always been anal [edit: wow...no pun intended, seriously >.<] when it comes to word usage, no need to fret!)
Good luck with those darned taxes.
Herald9
Just as much as I think you are insane for believing there is a magical man that lives in the sky that wants us to worship him in exchange for a better life after death, I support your right to believe it and to live your life by that belief. In exchange, I only expect that you mind your own business and let other people believe what they believe and live the way they want to live (as long as they are not hurting anyone else, of course). Now, don't take my statements as an invitation to the argument that people will then expect the right to marry more than one person, their dog or the favorite chair, because that is ridiculous and everyone knows it. Every time your kind are met with what is generally considered indisputable logic, we have to hear these nonsense claims of a "slippery-slope". Keep pushing the rest of us to adhere to your backwards beliefs and it will eventually backfire on you miserably.
About 50% of all marriages end in divorce, so why should it be a surprise that a gay marriage ends in a divorce.
The real question is US news even considered this a story worth telling
because....the BS spin "we" are continually told is that gay couples are more committed, more this and more that, blah blah blah...
1) I think it is pretty funny that they ended their relationship AFTER they got married.
2) if the split up before, they would have just gone their separate ways...Now (haha), they get to involve an attorney, and the courts, and divide everything up in some nasty divorce. I really find this hysterical. Be careful what you ask for, right?
No Mark, nobody tells you that. You just made it up. Again.
Actually, it isn't really true that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and it certainly isn't true for marriages that have already lasted a long time. It's young people who often marry and divorce several times and thus mess up the statistics. Fact: if you are both college graduates and you are both marrying for the first time, there is actually a 90% chance you will stay together until you are parted by death.
The 50% statistic actually comes from this: they take all the people who marry each year and compare it to all the people who divorce. If twice as many marry as divorce in a given year, we have a 50% divorce rate. Obviously if fewer people marry that year but the same number divorce, the divorce rate automatically goes up. That says nothing about the likelihood of existing marriages to break up.
Since the vast majority of adults over 30 or so do marry, by the 50% statistic you would expect nearly half of all people over 30 to have been divorced at least once, but the actually percent is far less, under 25%.
Like Newt...?
Newt wasn't so young. Then again, that's chronological age. Some people never grow up.
Yeah, I was interpreting it as emotional age...I see where I went wrong now.
They wanted to be able to have all the rights of marriage, right? Divorce sucks, no matter who you are with, and I’m sorry they are going through this. But I was tired of having people tell me that gay couples actually love each other more than straight ones because they have to fight for their love to last. Good to know I wasn't incorrect in seeing the inaccuracy of that. Gay marriage isn't all that it’s cracking up to be, and its integration into our culture has just begun. My prediction? It will soon be legal to marry more than one. Two men, one woman. Three woman. Since the foundation of marriage is broken, who knows what will start slipping through the cracks. It honestly scares me.
It's okay to be scared. Just go back and hide under your rock while the world passes you by.
Or, you know, grow up.
I'm allowed to have an opinion. But haters gotta be haters I guess.
I think change, particularly dramatic social change, is always a little scary, 1jmcnamara. But we manage to survive. There was a time when women weren't permitted to vote and people were genuinely frightened at the prospect of that changing. Things seldom turn out to be as devastating as we fear. :-)
yup, allowed an opinion. should not be allowed to force that opinion upon others, though.
1jmcnamara being able to marry more then one person will never happen and you know it. I am a lesbian and gay relationships are no different then straight ones. I know that the media try to act like gays love each other more but I've never heard the reason being "because they have to fight for their love to last." That is just stupid!!! If you love someone you don't have to fight for it to last.
You know, crazy thing, it used to be legal and acceptable to marry more than one person. Of course, marriage used to be something only those of status got to do.
People these days seem to have this opinion that Marriage sprang forth from the ether, fully formed as an idea of one man and one woman, but.. just can't seem to comprehend or bother with looking at a history book now and then. It's terribly distressing, I tell you.
To paraphrase Bill Mahar: Giving women the right to vote did not lead to hampsters voting. This progession of allowing gays to marry will lead to all sorts of unusual marriage combinations just doesn't fly.
ijmcnamara, just listen to SeniorSense, that is pretty much the reality. I don't disagree with you that there is such a thing as a slippery slope, but things do have a way of working out. I do get a laugh out of the minority races that make comments about the gays not being entitled to equal rights, and I also get a kick out of the lesbian person saying being able to marry more than one person will never happen. Funny how the tolerant are only tolerant up to the point where their own beliefs are not challenged.
Bill Maher, is a comedian and the hamster comparison is just for a laugh in case you didn't know. Was there not just a reality show on about a guy with several wives? I personally don't care if someone has more than one wife myself so why the denial that this wouldn't be next? On a different note, since you quote Bill Maher, did you see the show where he was for SOPA because he was effected by piracy issues? See what I am saying? We all like to tell others how we think they should think until it becomes a personal issue then the game changes...human nature friends.
"Foundation of marriage?" What sort of fairy tale existence do you live in?
Oh come on. We ALL know one man can NOT handle more than one woman!
I actually don't care if multiple partners choose to marry each other - just make sure that everyone is a consenting adult and carry on. The cults that have 13 year old girls marrying and having babies with men old enough to be their fathers or grandfathers turns my stomach, though. Child abuse is still child abuse.
Why not? It has been going on for thousands of years and is specifically allowed in several religions. It is legal in several countries as we speak. Thirty years ago the idea of gays being allowed to marry would have been either laughable or unthinkable. Hell yes, polygamy will eventually be legal, and why does it even bother you?
Oh wait is it legal for gays to divorce?
nope... not yet.
doesn't matter, California has palimony and domestic partner rights as well.
I bet Valentine's Day at that house was a FREAK SHOW!
I picture a lot of flannel, cigarette smoke, Mad Dog 20/20, Hungry Man TV diners, & domination fights.
Nasty!
Wow! I guess I shouldn't be shocked, but I can't believe all the improper grammar and spelling mistakes in the bigots' posts! As JS says - divorce is not a "gay" thing and has nothing to do with being gay. Humans get divorced every day - especially straight people since gay people don't have the right in the majority of the states. Get a grip people and grow up. Open your eyes - it's 2012, and times and laws have changed. For the better, I might add.
Please don't knock on the spelling and grammar of others if you're going to do this:
'Humans get divorced every day - especially straight people since gay people don't have the right in the majority of the states.'
I believe it would be more grammatically correct to place a comma before 'since'.
Very ironic. Although how did each find a mate? They are both butt-ugly. Even gay people must have higher standards than that.
i was thinking the exact same thing.
lol
You guys looking at the picture or in the mirror?
I'm laughing too. Because if women were as looks-centric as most men are (and Jeff and Alex, I mean you specifically), then most of the men I've seen roaming around would never have found someone willing to marry them. The average man is hardly Brad Pitt, but they all think they should have Angelina Jolie.
Straights still hold the trophy for the most number of divorces per thousand.
Rick... Ms. Tyler may actually have her finger on the pulse of that problem......
Simply Ms. Tyler is very wrong. The most important relationship has nothing to do with two individuals rather the evolution of those individuals into a family. Not simply any decree by Church or State to two people. It is so much more than anything tangible. Those who fail too often measure their marriages by a litmus of "what is in it for me". In the case of these women my guess is their day in the press. When that faded they probably figured they could milk their day in the sun by publicizing their divorce.
txmom, you are something. Part of the marriage relationship is becoming a family. Who said these women ran to the press to have their divorce publicized? So if you get divorced and it ends up in the paper (which if you are any kind of fairly well known person it will) does that mean you only got married and divorced to milk it all?
You have know clue how they measured their marriage and it has nothing to do with you. People get divorced, k? It is sad no matter who the partners involved happen to be, and it does make the news sometimes. But go ahead and make up things about their motives to prove whatever point you had in there to make.
ram...not necessarily...there are a lot of people who get married for reasons that have nothing to do with a bond between two people who wish to become a family.
Well if you click on the picture you can see the interview from one of the women. The only reason these women were news worthy to begin with was because they were the first married lesbian couple in Cali. Personally, my darling and I have managed 16 years this week so don't be looking for me in the papers.
As for the demise of their marriage....they have been activist for a very long time....they saw the process through...apparently marriage was not all they had romanticized it to be...perhaps they really did not understand the committment or the bond of marriage...perhaps it is because the only thing they had in common was a need to be crusaders for a cause...perhaps that is not enough to build a life upon.
Oops, we heteros forgot to mention that marriage sucks. Sorry about that.
if i had to sleep with either of those dudes i'd be divorced also.
Luckily you will never have that problem since nobody would ever sleep with you.
How come real Lezbos never look like they do in the movies???
Look in the mirror--you're no Brad Pitt
You need to get out more, they often do. You just don't realize they are lesbians when you see them because you assume all lesbians fit your pre-conceived perception.
There's a difference between not looking like Brad Pitt and looking like the third act of a David Cronenberg movie. No problem with gay people, plenty of gay friends, etc. etc., but seriously, this couple looks like Brundlefly and Toxie.
People who are confident and secure in themselves would never create a post to make fun of anyone's appearance.
You are right, redmoth. Grow up, people! Are you on the playground or something?
I bet Valentine's Day at that house was a FREAK SHOW!
I picture a lot of flannel, cigarette smoke, Mad Dog 20/20, Hungry Man TV diners, & domination fights.
Nasty!
Because nobody looks like they do in the movies.
In reply to "Anonymous user": I'm Italian and I never heard of "Italian divorce". It is insulting to imply that Italian men had their wives killed before divorce was legal in Italy. Typical though...I consider the source. ANyone who calls themselves "Anonymous User" isn't to be taken seriously.
feudi - you don't look Italian.
Just because you never heard of it, doesn't mean it isn't real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce,_Italian_Style
I think that's known as argumentum ad stupidum.
His appearance doesnt fit your stereotype, pc101-3548820 ?
Divorce is legal in most countries, yet, what do you know, people still murder their spouses all the time. In fact, statistically they are MOST likely to do so when going through a divorce. Maybe divorce isn't the great panacea after all?
I am glad that I live in a time when people are allowed to divorce if they want to, and very little stigma follows them around as a result. Divorce. Many times that is the best thing about marriage.
Yeah, always good to know that commitment is just a word, and there is no shame in breaking it. That will make it easier.
Sure enough allowed to divorce without stigma, allowed to walk a mortgage without stigma, allowed to default on child support without stigma, allowed to bankrupt companies without stigma...what a glorious society we are becoming...
Oh yeah, you are right. Far better to force people to stay together forever and force their children to witness what beauty the American family is when Mom and Dad are constantly fighting and making everyone's lives pure misery. Much better solution. Better yet, let's tell them what God to believe in, what kind of work to do, what kind of food to eat, what kind of birth control to use, what kind of health care is acceptable for them to use, and what school their kids should go to. It's pure hell when you want to control people, and all they want is to do is what they want to do. How do the controllers let the rest of us be free? Frustrating, isnt it. Well at least it gives you something to be judgemental about.
resdinthehills...perhaps we don't force people to stay together rather require them to understand the committment before they get married. The selfish need not apply because someday their short commings might just come out as warts and all to their children.
I don't believe we need to tell people what faith to choose. I do believe we need to expect people to have enough integrity to honor their word in the form of a contract. No I don't think people on food stamps should be able to purchase candy or baked goods. I also think if you give people the opportunity some will actually choose their own preferred birth control and others just will not....I think both are accountable for their own decision and should weight the consequences accordingly. What country do you live in? In the United States each State is charged with providing a free and fair public school education but parents are free to place their children into a private school of their choice, often times the curriculum of their choice based on the options districts offer. Parents are even available to home school their children if they choose. We chose our home based on the schools available. As for healthcare....well the mandated Obama Care certainly dumbs down medical options for all.
Funny thing you mention judgmental....I have no say in who some stranger sleeps with but....when they get a disease from some chance encounter I am taxed to pay for their care....when they get pregnant by some guy that they never wish to see again....I am taxed to pay for their child....when they drop out of school and have no marketable skills...I am not only taxed for the education they threw away but for the life they will never be able to afford through legal means. Sorry I have more than paid for the ability to be judgmental.
Yeah, but in a few years I'm going to be taxed to pay for your health care and social security, Mom. That's just part of living in a civilized society.
EXCELLENT post, txmom32. I was just about to type that response and you beat me to it.
Toasty....I've paid into that system as well as has my husband...based on the last plan that failed in Congress he and I would have been on two different plans as I am a 63 model and he is a bit older....If all works well we will be in Darling dear one's retirement/pension/ health care plan and you will be paying very little for us...Then there is that nest egg that we did without to create that so many would love to tax their fair share of the proceeds. Unfortunately, our options are limited now and we can't continue to contribute to our health savings account.
You should have saved your free tax credits then you wouldn't be worried about your debt. Instead you probably spent your entire refund check at Walmart and said heck with my credit card debt. You'll file bankruptcy and never take responsibility for your share in failed businesses because you refused to pay your bills. So please shut up with the retarded accusations. If you don't like the help America offers for it's people then move to Africa and dig for water! You'll learn the hard way what it's like to take care of yourself!
txmom32: If divorce saves even one person from a life of perpetual misery and physical/mental torture then yes, it's fine and dandy that people can obtain one without stigma. Honor and forthrightness are principles to strive for but there is a time and a place to realize that the best thing that can be done is to sever a relationship. If you don't realize this then count your blessings as you've lived a very fortunate life.
Marriage is meant to last forever until death do you part, I mean it's nice that they lasted some 18 years but they where meant to be leader amongst gays and with them divorcing it just showing that you really can't make it. this goes for gays or straight. I am not gay I like the people but I don't like what they believe or do and no I don't think God likes Homosexual especially if he say's that he hates :You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Oh, I'm not arguing against Social Security, Mom. I'm just pointing out that you're getting my socialist tax dollars just like public schools are, so it's really pretty hypocritical to hear you complain about that while cashing my check every month.
No - its not.
But people are selfish - they think only of themselves and what makes them happy. Just because some many people do it doesn't make it right or acceptable it just perpetuates the selfishness and makes people feel better.
Toasty...come on new....Socialist tax dollars....oh my....ya know I paid into school systems long before I had children and I will pay for them long after...I am paying for them now but have three kids in so I think by the time all, based on an accrual accounting system, is measured I pretty much break even. If I were able to keep those tax dollars then my kids would be enrolled in a Private school....to me it probably all works out the same. For some brilliant child who might not have the opportunity it would be devastating.....That said....the federal government should not be involved in K-12 education because all they have to offer is a one size fits all solution which is not reasonable. But then this administration has also implemented more inequity in the entire system with "Race to the Top" where districts must compete to win the lottery.....Sort of like turning Education into a reality show contest..
When it comes to a quality BASE education, it certainly is. Otherwise you end up with jokers running the school system who think that 'intelligent design' is appropriate for a SCIENCE class.
Here are our findings, now, how can we match those up with what we find in reality...?
Fred Evil...when it comes to a quality Base education it is still a responsibility of each State. Each have their very unique problems to solve when it comes to their user base. Some States have demands that are much costlier to administer. Why should a resident of Minnesota be required to financially support ESL in Texas with the added expense of administrative costs for the FED? Why should someone in Florida be required to support lost teaching days due to snow days in Michigan with the added administration cost of the FED? All the Department of Education does is recycle money at a premium rate. They have gotten so large that there is no way to follow the money. Brother in law deals for a couple of million here or a couple of million there for say a "Drug Prevention" program or "reading reinforcement" that may or may not really be original or worth the price....It is a huge con and the people who loose out in the end are the kids.
Thank you, Logical. We keep forgetting that divorce today isn't just "no fault" but UNILATERAL. What that really means is that nobody is free to marry in any meaningful sense. Easy divorce reduces marriage to something of little more significance than a junior high school romance. Nobody can really trust under such unjust laws and therefore they cannot really love. People much younger than me (55) can't even imagine what it was like to grow up with the security of knowing your parents would always be there for you under the same roof. When our parents fought, we might not have liked it but we didn't really worry. Divorce wasn't even on our radar screen. We were more worried about nuclear war with the Russians.
Imagine a couple with two young children. One of the parents decides to divorce. That might make him or her happy in the short run, but it totally hurts three other people. The effect on the children can well be serious and very long lasting. They will also be poorer than they would be if their parents stayed together, assuming the custodial parent doesn't remarry a multimillionaire. They will probably have to move to an apartment in a worse neighborhood, give away their pets, and transfer to a lousier school. So how can anybody possibly say that the divorce led to an increase in happiness, even in strictly utilitarian terms? (That is, the greatest good for the greatest number.) And that's assuming it's a "normal" divorce. All too often, divorce leads to violence, not to mention murder and suicide.
In the first place, divorce doesn't end the fighting. Many people ONLY become angry and mean when a divorce is happening, and then every time there is a visitation or an argument about the children. This can last until the kids are grown. Divorce can make one or both parents depressed in a way they never really get over, so that they are far less available to their kids than they were before. (Or as one man bitterly said, "I lost my father to the divorce and my mother to her grief." This is very, very common.) When divorced people get into new relationships, the kids can be at great risk, particularly since so many pedophiles intentionally prey on single moms to get to their kids. Blended families are usually sheer hell for kids and can lead to even more abuse from an older step-sibling. And they have a far higher rate of break up than first marriages.
When my parents argued in the 1950s and 60s, which they did frequently, it honestly didn't bother my brother or me because we knew it was just like us children quarreling. Nothing really bad was going to come of it. In the final analysis we knew my father's loyalty to my mother was absolute. He set a great example for us at least in that sense. People back then usually tried to please each other precisely BECAUSE they were "stuck with each other" so to speak, so it was in their best interest to make each other happy. Usually, such efforts pay off. Nobody seems to understand that anymore. Instead, both men and women are encouraged by society to be resentful against each other whenever possible. If your marriage isn't "perfect" by some impossible standard, people go out of their way to encourage you to divorce. IMHO women are especially guilty of this, but maybe it only seems that way because I'm a woman. I don't really know what guys say to each other in private.
Divorce should be much harder to obtain, at least where children are involved. I'm lucky I live in a state that requires a two year waiting period for a unilateral divorce along with several mandatory counseling sessions for both the adults and the children.
Well ladies.. Chaz Bono is single again.
lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
But is Chaz male again?
those are ladies??
She's a freak. She can call herself whatever she wants, but she will ALWAYS be a she and NOT a he.