The official Prexus message board that won't sell out.
gay couples having hard time divorcing
| Author | Comment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 ellocopato |
gay couples having hard time divorcing |
Lead | |||
|
Posts: 3908 04-22-08 12:10 PM
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Aielman KajiraLiege |
#1 | ||||
|
Posts: 4788 04-22-08 12:12 PM |
So let me get this right. They can't get married in the state they are in but are surprised they can't get divorced there either?
peace, Aielman "Bush said that he now believes in Global warming...as a result...I'm not sure
anymore." - Lewis Black
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Klark |
#2 | ||||
|
Posts: 1050 04-22-08 12:37 PM |
This is the funny part...
Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first. The state wanted access to marriage easy but divorce hard. I'm not sure who to laugh at more - the state for being so short-sighted in pursuit of a liberal ideal or people thinking they can just get hitched in another state without realizing the consequences of shopping for a marriage. |
||||
|
|
|||||
 Zifnab |
#3 | ||||
|
Posts: 2739 04-22-08 12:50 PM |
This falls under "Be careful what you wish for!"
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Feydakin Rainsong |
#4 | ||||
|
Posts: 5295 04-22-08 9:07 PM Wholly Shi'ite |
I'm not sure who to laugh at more - the state for being so short-sighted What makes the state short-sighted? The fact that there'll be a bunch of gay couples that'll establish residency (and pay taxes, and patronize local businesses, buy real estate, etc.) just so they can get their divorce? Sounds like a win all around for Massachussetts.
A door is sometimes a jar, but a jar is never a door.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Fishbeak |
#5 | ||||
|
Posts: 2662 04-22-08 9:59 PM |
I think there's a comic who talks about this. Something about gays being as miserable as straights.
Borofin's bitch
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#6 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 4:21 AM BANNED |
I don't see how this is a gay issue. In most (if not all) states it is way more difficult for a non-resident to get divorced there than it is for them to
get married there.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Muerta |
#7 | ||||
|
Posts: 2671 04-23-08 5:09 AM Legend in the making... |
Wouldn't the issue be that if a state does not allow gays to marry but allows them to divorce, isn't that like acknowledging the marriage? Also, with a civil union, would it be a divorce or a dissolution of the civil union?
My Life Summed Up on a Bumpersticker: Religion is for those who believe in Hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#8 | ||||
|
Posts: 3167 04-23-08 7:12 AM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Kayso Gnomehater wrote: It's an issue due to Mass. changing the rules to allow gay marriages (even for those from other states) and not addressing the rest of the process,
i.e., divorce. They should have known that they would have a large number of out of state couples seeking marriage and planned accordingly, but did not.
While it is true that most all states make it difficult for non-residents to divorce, only Mass. has made it legal for gays to get married which sets them
apart and open to the ridicule of not thinking the whole process through.
Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#9 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 1:38 PM BANNED |
Cinabre wrote: But Mass also allows straight couples from other states to marry there without looking in to divorce laws in their states of origin. Texas, to pick a state at random, could outlaw divorce entirely tomorrow and Mass would still marry hetero couples from Texas, right? And those couples would then have problems getting divorced, no? The fact this situation only affects gays is circumstance. Neither Mass nor gays did anything wrong. From 1000 - 1900 (ish) most people went into marriage with no realistic means of terminating the marriage. Those of you who are bigots hiding behind "definition of marriage" bullshit should appreciate this -- that was the definition of marriage for a pretty long time. I think it was sometime after the depression where common people in the US could get a divorce for reasons beyond abandonment/lack of familial support. Who was at fault there?The other 49 states need to get with the times and figure out something before local civil courts start making the laws as they go along. That's exactly what happened in a lot of places when marriage first started being viewed as a civil contract. States are essentially nullifying their own rights due to their inaction -- if they let this go long enough cases are going to start to wind up in federal courts as equal protection cases. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#10 | ||||
|
Posts: 3167 04-23-08 2:25 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Kayso Gnomehater wrote:The key word is in your first sentence - "also". Other states don't allow gay marriage and thus have not modified their rules for divorce. Mass. did allow for gay marriage but didn't change the rules for divorce. Who's at fault there? The state(s) that didn't change the rules for marriage or the state that did? Guess it is all in how you look at it. Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Phrustum ChubbyJerk |
#11 | ||||
|
Posts: 613 04-23-08 2:43 PM |
Why should the state care whether or not the couples can get divorced? It's not their responsibility.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#12 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 2:49 PM BANNED |
The key word is in your first sentence - "also". Other states don't allow gay marriage and thus have not modified their rules for
divorce. Mass. did allow for gay marriage but didn't change the rules for divorce. Who's at fault there? The state(s) that didn't change the rules
for marriage or the state that did? Guess it is all in how you look at it.
So states shouldn't pass laws that might affect another state depending on that state's laws? That sounds borderline federalist coming from a guy that I thought (maybe I am characterizing you wrongly) was a state's right kinda guy. My personal feelings on what's right/wrong aside -- states that don't recognize or specifically prohibit same-sex marriage are within their rights to do so. But that doesn't mean they get to live in a vacuum unaffected by the rights of other states... Technically the other states shouldn't have to do anything. But, if they don't, there will be consequences for their inaction. I'm not saying the Jesus states need to allow gay divorces. I'm saying it MIGHT be in their best interests to come up with something before civil courts and, ultimately, federal courts get involved and start making up the rules as they go along. Maybe the best course of action would be for Texas, again for example, to pass a law that says divorces are only to be granted in Texas for couple who would have qualified for marriage in Texas at the time of their marriage. Then the gay couples can go to civil court and sue each other for assets. I don't know, but the states probably should look at doing something.
Last Edited By: Kayso Gnomehater 04-23-08 2:52 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#13 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 2:55 PM BANNED |
Why should the state care whether or not the couples can get divorced? It's not their responsibility.
Because the state could find civil courts in the states making up the rules for divorce as they go along -- that's the history of divorce law. There's also the chance the state could find itself in federal court defending against equal protection (or whatever the term is) action. Why leave it up to the wind when they can pass a law and actually get some say in the matter. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Feydakin Rainsong |
#14 | ||||
|
Posts: 5295 04-23-08 3:02 PM Wholly Shi'ite |
I'm not saying the Jesus states need to allow gay divorces. Since you mentioned "Jesus states" I'm going to chime in here... what is it about gays getting divorced that is worse for "Jesus states" than hetero couples getting divorced? I'm not aware of any state where divorce is not codified, despite whatever the "Jesus" constituents of that state might happen to feel about divorce. If anything, all this line of argument does is highlight the fact that preventing gays from getting married (or divorced) is a form of discrimination, and one that has no reasonable basis in law.
A door is sometimes a jar, but a jar is never a door.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#15 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 3:24 PM BANNED |
I'm not sure. It seems to me states are potentially throwing away their rights for the sake of appearing tough on homos. They need to act or accept the
fact that civil courts and/or possibly federal courts will end up doing their jobs.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#16 | ||||
|
Posts: 3167 04-23-08 3:27 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Kayso Gnomehater wrote: I think you are grasping a bit Kayso. I just don't see the equal protection being used by a federal court since you can get divorced in the original state. It would be no different than teens that run from Georgia at age 16 to get married not being able to be divorced in Georgia since Georgia doesn't allow them to get married at that age. They can run back to Alabama and get divorced, once they meet Alabama's requirements. If Mass. has set a 1 year residency requirement on all divorces, why make the rest of the states change? That would really screw up a thriving business in Las Vegas. Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#17 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 3:47 PM BANNED |
But that's just it... no one is suggesting "make the rest of the states change". I'm saying it's not Mass' fault it made things
difficult for gays residing out of state, those state, or the courts in those states -- which is where the cases will end up.
No couple splitting up is going to pack up and move together to Mass for a year. They're going to get resolution somehow. Welcome to civil court. Welcome to civil courts making up laws as they go. Welcome to eventual protest in federal court on some grounds... |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Phrustum ChubbyJerk |
#18 | ||||
|
Posts: 613 04-23-08 4:03 PM |
Because the state could find civil courts in the states making up the rules for divorce as they go along -- that's the history of divorce law. There's also the chance the state could find itself in federal court defending against equal protection (or whatever the term is) action. Why leave it up to the wind when they can pass a law and actually get some say in the matter.I think either I was unclear in my statement or I don't understand your point. I'm saying from Mass's perspective, why do they care if the gays they married from out of state can't get divorced? They have rules to cover it already. Edit to correct: meant Mass, not MD.
Last Edited By: Phrustum ChubbyJerk 04-23-08 6:07 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#19 | ||||
|
Posts: 4987 04-23-08 5:40 PM BANNED |
Yeah, I didn't get you the first time around. I agree, it's not really as problem for Mass for the same reason it isn't "their fault". As
you pointed out, they're already covered. Now it's up to the other states to decide what they're going to do or they're the ones who are going
to have matters that should be state jurisdiction decided in civil and/or federal courts.
Last Edited By: Kayso Gnomehater 04-23-08 7:49 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#20 | ||||
|
Posts: 3167 04-23-08 5:52 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Okay, now I'm on the same page as you after your second to last post, Kayso. Don't have time to answer right now, but will try to get to it later
tonight.
Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
- General
- Rants and Flames
- Politics, Religion and other things you shouldn't discuss at the dinner table
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Non-EQ MMORPGs
- Computery type stuff (aka House of Nick Burns)
- Trading
- Guild Recruiting
- Guild Leadership Forum
- The Retirement Home
- Armchair Science
- Spam and Chips
- Gallery
- Garage / Yard / Tag Sale
- Nearly Anything Goes
- Fallen Friends
- Board Information & Administration
- BUGS
- FEEDBACK
- The Hall of Fame
- Polls
- Test Forum
