Gays are people too. Who knew?

My basic view, as a straight fellow who has long been envious of the exciting and varied sex lives of my gay friends and acquaintances, is that I am eager to see gays allowed to marry.

I would like them endure the same costs of divorce that we straight men have to endure. When gay relationships go sour, let the members of that relationship have to each spend a gob of money on a lawyer, and then let at least one, if not both, lose half their property in the divorce.

I am sick of gays having relationships without the punishing legal effects of marriage and divorce.

Condemn gays to marriage, as we straights have had to suffer from time immemorial.

i/m in accord with McCord. It's time gays suffered the bonds of matrimony, and experienced the property destruction that attends divorce. They have skated in freedom from matrimony too long. They need to step up the plate and take the pain of marriage.

I'm missing something here. The couple filed for a divorce decree that says they aren't married. A Rhode Island court decided (for whatever backward reasons) that they aren't married. Why couldn't Cassandra and Margaret just adopt Rhode Island's view (and then hammer out an out-of-court settlement/arbitration for distribution of property, etc.)?

It would obviously be better if Rhode Island gave them full and equal rights to marry and petition for divorce. Nevertheless, this doesn't seem like an insoluble situation. Moreover, "no choice but to be married forever" doesn't really seem like a pragmatic assessment of where things are.

There's nothing like marriage to turn two friendly people into enemies. The only conceivable justification for marriage is children.

Yes, ha! Being married forever is nightmare in most instances. Why gays are clamoring for marriage is a mystery to me. Most straight married couples clamor for divorce eventually.

Some of the gay men I know behave in ways that are inconsistent with marriage (i.e., they have VERY interesting and varied sex lives). Still, they advocate gay marriage as an indicia of equality with straights. My question is: why advocate equality when you already enjoy superiority?

off topic, but David Brooks for Friday: "Innocent Abroad."

I am four square against Gay Divorce.

Blogger Glenn Sacks has been discussing this for sometime.

He's also noted that in several gay divorces, a biological mother has used the usual tactics to keep the spousal mother from sharing parenting of the child.

It has gone so far that in at least one case, a biological mother used anti-gay marriage laws to keep the spousal mother from sharing parenting of the child.

In a highly-publicized new decision, a Virginia appeals court ruled recently in favor of a lesbian social/non-biological mother in her custody battle against her child’s biological mother. The former couple, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a child together in 2002. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl’s life.

"Opponents of gay marriage, gay activists and the media have focused almost exclusively on the new decision’s impact on same-sex marriage. Lost in this, however, is the fact that the case is a textbook example of one of America’s greatest social problems—the refusal of many divorcing mothers to allow their children to continue to have a relationship with their former spouses.

"During Jenkins’ and Miller’s same sex-union Jenkins did everything she could do to be a good parent to their child. She was involved with the pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella’s life. Following their breakup she was granted visitation rights but Miller refused to comply. After the new ruling, Miller's side vowed to further appeal the case to deny Jenkins access to the girl. Miller says she does not want Jenkins to have any visitation rights, and has not allowed her to see their daughter since 2004.

"Increasingly, other lesbian social mothers are suffering similar injustices. For example, in the A.H. v. M.P. case currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the trial court ruled against A.H., a lesbian social mother, who had been the primary breadwinner for her partner M.P. and their young son. After separation M.P. sought to minimize A.H.'s role in the boy’s life, arguing that since A.H. was not the child’s primary caregiver, she should not receive joint custody of the boy...

"The problems heterosexual mothers create for their children and their ex-partners have been largely ignored, partly due to misleading stereotypes of abusive and/or 'deadbeat' fathers. Today fit, loving, lesbian social mothers like Jenkins and A.H. and their children face similar mistreatment. Ladies, welcome to the club."

As I explained in my column Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05), I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mother and a father. Obviously this is not possible in lesbian couples. However, when two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected.

You should get out more Kev.

Kevin, check this one out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_us/gay_traitor

By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press
March 25, 2007

ATLANTA - Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable - arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.

Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."

Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent.

Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request.

The couple's relationship later soured. Missy Wheeler wouldn't comment for this story, but her attorney, Nora Bushfield, said Sara became involved with someone else and wouldn't let Missy and Gavin see each other. Sara Wheeler acknowledged the other relationship, saying "regardless of my action, it doesn't make me a bad mother."

Sara and Missy Wheeler had split by July 2004, and Missy was fighting for joint custody of the boy. The two sides do agree about one thing: The case is about a mother's rights.

"Everybody seems to forget we're not talking about lesbian rights," Missy Wheeler's attorney says. "We're talking about a child who's been bonded with a mother."

Sara Wheeler made the legal argument that, since nothing in Georgia law specifically allowed gay adoption, the adoption should be tossed out...

As the legal motions flew back and forth, the two women established a workable routine. The 7-year-old boy goes to Missy Wheeler's place every other weekend and on Tuesday nights. The rest of the time Sara Wheeler ferries him to karate practice, plays tag with him outside her apartment and takes him out for pizza every Friday.

The case has taken a toll on Sara.

"Before I'm anything - gay or lesbian - I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."

(Added note: this justification is nonsense--nobody is trying to take Sara Wheeler's right to be a mother away from her. All Missy wants is a chance to parent her child, just as Sara Wheeler does.--GS)

--

It's not marriage or divorce that's the problem here. It's not gay marriage or gay divorce that's the problem.

The Wizard: Then I pick up these two fags. They're going downtown.They're wearing rhinestone T-shirts. They start arguing, yelling.The other says, "You bitch!" Starts beating him on the head.I say, "l don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home.This is an American free country. We've got a pursuit of happiness thing.You're consenting. You're adult.But in my fucking cab, don't go busting heads.You know? God loves you. Do what you want."

Doughboy: Tell them to go to California.In California, when two fags split up, one's gotta pay the other alimony.

The Wizard: Not bad. They're way ahead out there. You know what I mean? California.I tell them to get out of the fucking cab.

and while we're at it, it's about time they had the chance to get killed or maimed for their country.

It's not gays that are ruining the institution of marriage, it's divorce that's ruining the institution of marriage. We should just ban divorce for all.

When I lived in Iowa, there was a similar case that reached the state supreme court. The best part was that a group of extreme right-wing religious groups from northwestern Iowa sued to keep the couple together.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2005/01/14/2&page=2

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/12/13/iowa_judge_causes_stir_in_granting_gay_divorce/

Wow, I was going to write a snarky comment -- but Sara Wheeler knocked the wind out of my sails. My snarky suggestion that they go for an annulment by having homosexuals classified mentally ill might be taken seriously.

Sara Wheeler knocked the wind out of my sails

She's awful, but no worse than some of the bitter straight men here, including our one note Johnnies who pretend the magnitude of their own relationship failures is typical.

This thread is sad.

Maybe all people (straight or gay) need to be more careful what they PLEDGE to do FOREVER!!! Not that words mean anything anymore...I thought that's what MARRIAGE was (silly old lady that I am)...choosing to live FOREVER with someone in "holy matrimony"...divorce is more of a threat to marriage than "gay marriage" will ever be...but that's MURIKA for ya...can only stay focused for about 15 minutes then off to the next new wonderful thing (or person)...

A few comments:
1) Gay marriage is nothing more then THE growth industry for lawyers.
2) Ms Ormiston should have read “chapter 9� in her college textbook more carefully, she would have led a happier life. Her longtime sadness has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage or not.
3) Instead of being an activist, trying to inflict her beliefs on everyone, perhaps she should learn from her own mistakes.
4)Honestly I couldn’t care less about the legality of gay marriage or not, but as a taxpayer I deeply resent the expense to the state for this foolishness.

This thread is sad.

Agreed. I could understand on a Monday, but I think these folks are bitter all week long.

What Dancer at 8:48 said.
Having lived 30 years in a less-than-perfect marriage, and having stuck it out because, well, I did say "forever" and I'm stubborn SOB whose support is needed, I have no sympathy for anyone, gay or straight, who decides to end a marriage because it can grow tedious at times. There are lots of folks, gay or straight, who have no business getting married.

Of course, abusive relationships are different. Anyone has the right to bail out on an abusive spouse.

Has no one pointed out to these two idiots that when you go down the aisle, that means you're supposed to be married forever? Till death do you part? I have no sympathy.

This never happened to Fred and Ginger.

At least among straights, divorce rates are higher for couples that had cohabitated for a long time prior to getting married.
.

I'm against divorce in general due to my own personal beliefs. I find it apalling that it has become so commonplace for couples to legally disolve a bond that they both swore to keep intact 'until death do they part'. For the most part, divorce is a shameful abjuration of responsibility and effectively desanctifies the institution of marriage. Of course, there are certain instances in which extenuating circumstances justify divorce but, I digress.
I'm also vehemently opposed to gay marriage. I refuse to recognize homosexuality as anything other than a mixture of gender confusion and sexual perversion. I do not percieve it as a genuine persuasion. This is not to say that I do not support the right of every American to be confused and perverted. This is America and my disagreement with a person's lifestyle should not interfere with anyone's rights. However, I cannot and will not agree that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender, let alone the right to divorce.

My parents (many years ago) had a bitter divorce, made worse by my mother's mental illness and by the Catholic church's doctrines against divorce. I don't like divorce, but from personal experience I know that sometimes it beats the alternative.

WRT gay divorce, this was as inevitable as night following day once gay marriage came into being. We need to figure out a reasonable legal framework for it. The institution of marriage will be harmed much more by a failure to provide a coherent system of divorce than it is by extending it to gay couples.

They were only married in one state; What is the problem? They really are not married, hence no real need for divorce.

This never happened to Fred and Ginger.

LOL. Beat me to it.

The couple filed for a divorce decree that says they aren't married.

A divorce decree isn't just a statement of "okay, your not married", it involves determination of a variety of property and other rights. Really, the problem here has some parallel's to those that produced Dredd Scott (I'm not arguing, here, that gay marriage or its absence is equivalent to slavery), in that radical differences between the states in the understanding of the scope and application of basic rights and property interests create huge problems when people affected by those differences move between states.

Various responses:

Most straight married couples clamor for divorce eventually.

Most people who get married don't; the only reason the overall divorce rate is slightly over 50% is because of serial divorce. The failure rate for first marriage is below 50%, but people whose first marriage fail and remarry are more likely to have their second marriage fail and those who remarry again are even more likely to have their third marriage fail.

At least among straights, divorce rates are higher for couples that had cohabitated for a long time prior to getting married.

This is frequently cited though somewhat misleading; the evidence is that there is a correlation, but there is evidence from various studies that this is not causation but rather covariance as various factors (particularly shared, active religious involvement) which contribute both to marriage success and the propensity to cohabit.

My first thoughts about gay marriage were why should they not have the advantages of alimony, community property, divource lawyers, and child support as enjoyed by straights? Well maybe not child support so much!

OOPS! Meant divorce. Too much Tammy Wynette influence.

So this means that gay couples have something not unlike "covenant marriage," which the fundies in Louisiana pushed so hard for- marriage that's extra-hard to get out of. So gay couples are really MORE married than the rest of us are, for better or for worse. God bless 'em.

Divorce saved me from potentially being dead or in prison, not to mention the misery of the time spent with my ex husband. I see nothing wrong with divorce, what I see wrong are the laws surrounding the divorce in respect to children and stay at home spouses which at least in Texas strongly favor men. I also believe that it's how the participants choose to behave that really reflects how divorce is perceived.

It has gone so far that in at least one case, a biological mother used anti-gay marriage laws to keep the spousal mother from sharing parenting of the child.

Since opposite-sex couples have been using the same strategy for years when one of them turns out to be gay, why are you surprised that gay couples would do the same?

Bluwlf_8503:

You're exactly what's wrong with America.

This subject sure brings out the assholes, doesn't it?

Bluwlf_8503:

Another thing. There is no objective basis for saying marriage is "sacred," even though one hears this constantly in the U.S. and virtually no one challenges it. One may choose to believe marriage is sacred based on religious convictions. But otherwise, it's only as sacred as it is in the minds of the people who are married. The "sanctity of marriage" is a myth.

Speaking of gay divorce, perhaps we should see the issue from the perspective of a gay man i.e. Justin Raimondo in his Takimag. article entitled "Gay Marriage Sucks!"

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/gay_marriage_sucks/

I am opposed to gay "marriage" for the following reasons: 1. They can't reproduce. As a couple, that is, without significant outside assistance. Which leads to 2. My belief that marriage exists to a great extent to legitimize children. Which nods indirectly at the fact that 3. I am straight and single. For years I cared for my elderly mother. I could not include her on my work-based health-care package. I believe that 4. The fact that "married" gays would enjoy couple-style health-care benefits, while people such as myself could not share health-care benefits with an older parent, or, indeed, with any significant other of our choosing, is grossly unfair. And 5. The more I hear them cry and moan about how they have no rights whatsoever (even though they have jobs, they own property, they can sit wherever they damn well please on the bus, and they're not being forced to wear pink triangles on their sleeves en route to forced-labor camps), the more I think that gays and their lifestyle are completely unnatural. It's not a religious thing; I'm an atheist. It's a simple matter of electronics: you can't string together the lights on the Christmas tree with two plugs or two sockets. You need one of each. Anything else won't work.

Nemo, You are just finding ways for discriminating and engaging in heterosexist privilege. The argument that YOU can decide who's life is natural or unnatural is completely outside of the question. The constitution does not say that one particular way of "pursuing happiness" is right and another is wrong, and says that human rights are inalienable rights. The issue of natural unnatural you used thend to be foudn inteh minds of folks that want to perpetuate and enforce their point of view and lifestyle on others: right wing fundamentalists.
Your argument about marriage being only for reproduction has so many holes that it falls on its face. For one, your argument would apply to infertile straight couples, an that would see them all divorced in the name of fertility! Nice! Second, it would be an argument FOR gay marriage, in the case of gay and lesbian couples adopting children. The argument about anatural -unnatural is completely false, if we were living so close to our natural instincts, marriage would not exist at all, together with anything that is created in a cultural environment, and you would not be driving a car or a bicycle, for example, which are completely artificial.

Its interesting you bring images of the Holocaust in relation to gays, because your arguments bring to memory the same ridiculous comments about gays success in society that German Nazis made about Jews. Not all gay and lesbian people have access to power as you indicate. Many of us have to accept that we are liked more for what we offer to society through our work than as full persons.

I found lots of interesting information on www.washingtonmonthly.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. www.washingtonmonthly.com keep it that way.

pv05Bw comment2 ,

Great site. Good info.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!