And they said it wouldn't last ...

[jimpeel]

and it didn't.

Watch what you wish for ... you just may get it.

I guess some people can't handle having the pink slip to their ride. We've all seen it, how people will live together for several years and have no problems and once they get married it falls apart in a year. I guess that works for Gays too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487645,00.html

Lesbians Who Led Mass. Gay Marriage Fight to Divorce

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

BOSTON — The lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts are filing for divorce.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples whose lawsuit, Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, thrust Massachusetts into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state, the first to legalize same-sex marriages.

The couple was married on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex marriages became legal under a court ruling. Their daughter served as ring-bearer.

The divorce filing is not unexpected. The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

A clerk for the Suffolk Probate and Family Court said the case, filed last week, is impounded.

Messages left for the Goodridges were not immediately returned Tuesday.

 

[2minkey]

you're wrong, jim.

 

[Professur]

The very same thing happened in Quebec when they started it. They even said outright that the only reason they wanted to marry was because they weren't allowed, and they were divorcing since that wasn't allowed either ... the legal right to marry not automatically carrying with it the right to disolve said marriage.

 

[MrBishop]

Getting married doesn't guarantee that said marriage will work...but that doesn't mean that marriage itself should be outlawed. Hell, the divorce rate in opposite-sex marriage is enormous in comparison to same-sex divorce rate.

 

[spike]

What's the point of this thread exactly?

 

[catocom]

that sinning doesn't pay?

 

[jimpeel]

The very same thing happened in Quebec when they started it. They even said outright that the only reason they wanted to marry was because they weren't allowed, and they were divorcing since that wasn't allowed either ... the legal right to marry not automatically carrying with it the right to disolve said marriage.

So are you saying that this is a ploy to legalize Gay divorce; because the right to marry does not explicitly, or implicitly, bestow the right to divorce?

That is just so desperate if that is what this is all about.

The question is: If they have filed formal legal papers for said divorce; does that not imply that the right exists? That one goes hand-in-hand with the other?

 

[jimpeel]

you're wrong, jim.

Okay.

 

[spike]

The question is: If they have filed formal legal papers for said divorce; does that not imply that the right exists? That one goes hand-in-hand with the other?

Yes, you can get a divorce in Massachusetts whether you're a gay or straight couple. Not sure what Prof was talking about.

 

[Gonz]

Getting married doesn't guarantee that said marriage will work...but that doesn't mean that marriage itself should be outlawed. Hell, the divorce rate in opposite-sex marriage is enormous in comparison to same-sex divorce rate.

More fun with numbers.

First marriages tend to last. Over 55% success rate. Folks who can't make up their mind tend to boost the overall numbers considerably.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward.

NY Times

 

[randomJACKASS]

that sinning doesn't pay?

There are wealths of information regarding the fact that there is no word in the languages the Bible was written in for homosexual. So it was added in later by translators with political motivations. But it is so much fun to hate folks, and feel superior isn't it?

I think we should just strip certain members of society of all rights then we could have feel better and have a personal whipping boy!

Praise the lord and pass the ammo!

 

[randomJACKASS]

BTW, what is so wrong with the idea of civil unions for gays? I mean can't gay folks at least concede that it offends some people and have civil unions, which in legal terms are the same as marriages? Is it so all fired important to legally use the word marriage? Hell have a civil union and informally call it a marriage!

I mean I am pro gay rights, but they sometimes want to shove in our faces as if they were better than straights and that is bullshit.

Oh and when I call them "they" I only mean "not straight" to differentiate, I think gays are "us" when we don't use bedroom activities as a definition of what a person is. Are there any gay members here with any insight?

 

[jimpeel]

There are wealths of information regarding the fact that there is no word in the languages the Bible was written in for homosexual. So it was added in later by translators with political motivations. But it is so much fun to hate folks, and feel superior isn't it?

In the Greek, which is one of the first translations of the Bible, the term "homosexual" means same (homo) sex (sexual), so the term might have been used in that translation -- descriptively, not as a title.

In the original scriptures the term "lie (down) with their own kind" and "lie (down) with the beasts of the fields" was used to denote homosexuality and bestiality; but there was no title ascribed to those which would do so.

 

[randomJACKASS]

In the Greek, which is one of the first translations of the Bible, the term "homosexual" means same (homo) sex (sexual), so the term might have been used in that translation -- descriptively, not as a title.

In the original scriptures the term "lie (down) with their own kind" and "lie (down) with the beasts of the fields" was used to denote homosexuality and bestiality; but there was no title ascribed to those which would do so.

Let's just assume that that's all true, let's further assume that there's really is a spiteful "christian jesus-god", who hates all kind of things, including homosexuality; who the fuck are you, or anyone else around here, even adherents to such religion, to judge gays? Would that job still not be God's?

I'm not saying you or anyone does judge them, but just making the point. Further, would anyone here object to gay civil unions?

 

[catocom]

In the book I believe in (KJ ver Bible) it says it is an abomination to God.
That's all I need.

 

[randomJACKASS]

In the book I believe in (KJ ver Bible) it says it is an abomination to God.
That's all I need.

So how do you feel about gays? I am not asking how you feel about the act of homosexual sex, I could have guessed that and you just confirmed it. What I want to know is what is your opinion on gay rights?

....who the fuck are you, or anyone else around here, even adherents to such religion, to judge gays? Would that job still not be God's?

You ducked the actual question rather nicely!

 

[randomJACKASS]

In the Greek, which is one of the first translations of the Bible, the term "homosexual" means same (homo) sex (sexual), so the term might have been used in that translation -- descriptively, not as a title.

In the original scriptures the term "lie (down) with their own kind" and "lie (down) with the beasts of the fields" was used to denote homosexuality and bestiality; but there was no title ascribed to those which would do so.

If you are talking about the old testament, but the new covenant kind of wipes that theory out.

If you are talking about Jesus' teachings, well I'll get to you later, but be prepared. This is one area I doubt you have out studied me or can out link me having been an "Ametuer theologian" all my life.

 

[Professur]

Amature

 

[catocom]

So how do you feel about gays? I am not asking how you feel about the act of homosexual sex, I could have guessed that and you just confirmed it. What I want to know is what is your opinion on gay rights?

every man has inalienable rights.
THAT will not, and must not change.

Any sexual preference should not affect tax payers.
IMO the children are the responsibility in that arena. If no children, ...

 

[randomJACKASS]

every man has inalienable rights.
THAT will not, and must not change.

Any sexual preference should not affect tax payers.
IMO the children are the responsibility in that arena. If no children, ...

OK I can accept that. It just bugs me when "christians" judge gays as sick perverts who are better off rotting in hell. That is not what Jesus would have wanted. To judge an act or hobby or lifestyle is OK with me even when I disagree, but it's nobody's business to judge people that aren't harming them or anyone else.