In Some States, Gays Fight for Right to Divorce

[revert_jen]

But she is not unmarried. Do you really see no hardship in having to establish residency in another state just to get a divorce?

They chose the situation they are in by going to another state to get “married” when they knew that their marriage wasn’t recognized in the state in which they lived (nor was it likely to be any time soon). If they needed for some reason to be treated like they were married, they needed to move to a state where they could be legally married.

You can’t get divorced unless you are married, and two women can’t be married in Mississippi, so if they are in Mississippi, they can’t get a divorce. In fact, in Mississippi, they don’t need a divorce because they are not married.

The property settlement can be the same as if it were two friends living in a house who had a falling out. Which, from Mississippi’s point of view, is what they are. I don’t think people should have special rights just because they have sex.

If one of them were to move to a state where their “marriage” is recognized, then they could obtain a divorce there quite easily, since all of the property matters would be settled already. This would alleviate the “hardship” that they set up for themselves by disregarding the laws of their own state and going to another to obtain an unrecognized marriage.

-Jen

 

[Peter_Plato]

You could tell that side of the story, sure. But you could also a story that goes: gay couples are entering into partnerships that sure look a lot like "marriage." And when those partnerships fall apart, because of the similarity the relationships have to “marriage,” the rules governing dissolution of marriage (divorce laws) would seem to govern the dissolution of gay partnerships.

There wouldn’t be any different rules for gay divorce because from a legal standpoint the relationship is identical to regular marriage. There’s no rhyme or reason to alter divorce law just because the spouses are the same sex.

BUT, I will grant you that dealing with children in gay divorce would be a bit different since courts tend to treat fathers and mothers differently when it comes to kids (regardless of whether that is sexist or not). But in all other areas, divorce law should probably be the same.

Why do we have any reason to believe that these relationships “look a lot like marriage?”

They don’t. They look like affectionate friendships.

Where they fail is they cannot accomplish what marriages typically do - produce offspring.

It appears to be exactly the opposite. “Marriage” has to be redefined to make it look more like one of these relationships.

That is exactly why a redefinition of marriage is a necessary step.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

FWIW, “civil marriage” in the United States is no longer marriage in the traditional sense in any way, shape, or form. All anyone has to do to see that is write a list of what one considers essentially to the definition of marriage, and then compare it to the law.

Civil marriage does not require permanency, expectation of sex, expectation to have children, and now in many jurisdictions is gender neutral. Does that sound like marriage to anyone???

Quite frankly, my own civil marriage certificate means nothing to me…it simply a piece of paper that the Church required me to get. Civil marriage is a sham.

 

[frobert]

FWIW, “civil marriage” in the United States is no longer marriage in the traditional sense in any way, shape, or form. All anyone has to do to see that is write a list of what one considers essentially to the definition of marriage, and then compare it to the law.

No one is denying that Civil law and natural law are different

Civil marriage does not require permanency, expectation of sex, expectation to have children, and now in many jurisdictions is gender neutral. Does that sound like marriage to anyone???

Besides your displeasure with what civil marriage does not require,

Does it effect your own marital commitment in any way?

Does it prevent you from being a good Christian?

Quite frankly, my own civil marriage certificate means nothing to me…it simply a piece of paper that the Church required me to get. Civil marriage is a sham.

It’s more than a piece of paper. Besides being needed to receive the sacrament t of matrimony it gives you the rights and obligations of a legal marriage.

 

[Lochias]

But she is not unmarried. Do you really see no hardship in having to establish residency in another state just to get a divorce? The fact they would have to take children out of school, leave jobs and move away from family and friends is not a hardship? You really need to explain that one. Because it sounds like you just don’t understand the hardship.

They didn’t have to move/work in a state that doesn’t recognize “gay marriage”. They could have settled down elsewhere.

Just another example of the secular world forcing itself where it’s not wanted.

 

[livingwordunity]

They didn’t have to move/work in a state that doesn’t recognize “gay marriage”. They could have settled down elsewhere.

Just another example of the secular world forcing itself where it’s not wanted.

The “gay” lobby doing this is nothing but political maneuvering. That they are already demanding for a “right to divorce” is proof that they only wanted to redefine marriage to use it as a political and legal truncheon to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal. It’s the ideology of “might makes right”.

 

[Slavonic]

They chose the situation they are in by going to another state to get “married” when they knew that their marriage wasn’t recognized in the state in which they lived (nor was it likely to be any time soon). If they needed for some reason to be treated like they were married, they needed to move to a state where they could be legally married.

You can’t get divorced unless you are married, and two women can’t be married in Mississippi, so if they are in Mississippi, they can’t get a divorce. In fact, in Mississippi, they don’t need a divorce because they are not married.

The property settlement can be the same as if it were two friends living in a house who had a falling out. Which, from Mississippi’s point of view, is what they are. I don’t think people should have special rights just because they have sex.

If one of them were to move to a state where their “marriage” is recognized, then they could obtain a divorce there quite easily, since all of the property matters would be settled already. This would alleviate the “hardship” that they set up for themselves by disregarding the laws of their own state and going to another to obtain an unrecognized marriage.

-Jen

They didn’t have to move/work in a state that doesn’t recognize “gay marriage”. They could have settled down elsewhere.

Just another example of the secular world forcing itself where it’s not wanted.

The couple is can petition the court and bring their grievances against the state.

 

[revert_jen]

The couple is can petition the court and bring their grievances against the state.

Well, probably they can, but I hope they are unsuccessful. As far as I can see, they don’t have any actual grievances, just stuff that they did to themselves that they want to rewrite their state’s laws to undo.

–Jen

 

[Lochias]

The couple is can petition the court and bring their grievances against the state.

And waste a bunch of peoples’ money in the process; I’m sure they’ll do just that.

People like this couple are just like little kids throwing a tantrum. Zero respect for them, zero.

 

[stevegravy]

But she is not unmarried. Do you really see no hardship in having to establish residency in another state just to get a divorce? The fact they would have to take children out of school, leave jobs and move away from family and friends is not a hardship? You really need to explain that one. Because it sounds like you just don’t understand the hardship.

No hardship… her self- described marriage doesn’t exist. If she wants some legal paperwork then it is incumbent on her to go someplace that will cater to her fancy. It isn’t the states responsibility to make her happy happy. happy

 

[Slavonic]

No hardship… her self- described marriage doesn’t exist. If she wants some legal paperwork then it is incumbent on her to go someplace that will cater to her fancy. It isn’t the states responsibility to make her happy happy. happy

Wrong. They are lawfully wedded spouses and that has been established by the State of California. Mississippi, for the time being, has the power to recognize that marriage or not but it does not have the power make the marriage completely non-existent once they cross the state border.

 

[CaptFun]

Who are “they” fighting? Each other?

Is there some state somewhere that has legalized Gay Marriage – under the condition that it must be permanent?

*** “What God hasn’t joined together – let all men put asunder?” *** – Andonthemess

Pfft. I just read post #1. The “divorce” like the “marriage” is a legal trick it seems. Aimed at playing havoc on our society at society’s expense. Already the lawsuits against Churches have begun … which was the idea in the first place. Notwithstanding that less ambitious people are tricked into committing to their sin for life, and trying to corrupt their believing neighbors.

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. 11 Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.

 

[Brendan]

Wrong. They are lawfully wedded spouses and that has been established by the State of California. Mississippi, for the time being, has the power to recognize that marriage or not but it does not have the power make the marriage completely non-existent once they cross the state border.

If I got a contract notarized in the State of California where that State recognized me as being Napoleon, it still would not mean that I actually am Napoleon.

All that meant is that the State of California issued me a document stating that I was.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Wrong. They are lawfully wedded spouses and that has been established by the State of California.

They are free to go to California and have the issues addressed.

Mississippi, for the time being, has the power to recognize that marriage or not but it does not have the power make the marriage completely non-existent once they cross the state border.

Mississippi is also free to recognize my professional licenses in their state, but don’t. Common sense dictates that I shouldn’t go to Mississippi to address my grievances, nor expect them to change their laws because I wish them to. It not only common sense, but common courtesy…things that are severely lacking the “me” generation.

 

[Slavonic]

If I got a contract notarized in the State of California where that State recognized me as being Napoleon, it still would not mean that I actually am Napoleon.

All that meant is that the State of California issued me a document stating that I was.

Marriages and making you Napoleon (?) are different things.

They are free to go to California and have the issues addressed.

Mississippi is also free to recognize my professional licenses in their state, but don’t. Common sense dictates that I shouldn’t go to Mississippi to address my grievances, nor expect them to change their laws because I wish them to. It not only common sense, but common courtesy…things that are severely lacking the “me” generation.

But if they were treating straight people’s licenses from California differently from your license from California because you are gay or lesbian, not because it’s from California, it’s an entirely different thing and you should fight to have the laws changed.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Marriages and making you Napoleon (?) are different things.

But if they were treating straight people’s licenses from California differently from your license from California because you are gay or lesbian, not because it’s from California, it’s an entirely different thing and you should fight to have the laws changed.

Brendan is as much Napolean as these two are married.

That is the simple truth of it. Whether or not you like it or believe it is irrelevant.

When we steer off of God’s plan for mankind, all bets are off. Want to avoid this sort of problem? Don’t spit in God’s face and try and redefine marriage to fit your selfish, whimsical, unimportant desires.

 

[estesbob]

Marriages and making you Napoleon (?) are different things.

But if they were treating straight people’s licenses from California differently from your license from California because you are gay or lesbian, not because it’s from California, it’s an entirely different thing and you should fight to have the laws changed.

Hospitals do not provide pregnancy tests for men. How do we stop this heinous dicrimination? Perhaps a good start would be to redefine pregnant Only when men can become pregnant can they be truly equal

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But if they were treating straight people’s licenses from California differently from your license from California because you are gay or lesbian, not because it’s from California, it’s an entirely different thing and you should fight to have the laws changed.

Discrimination exists in law. When law eliminates overt discrimination, such as affirmative action, woman’s reproductive rights, etc. maybe I’ll change my mind.