What's tougher to get than a same-sex marriage? A same-sex divorce

Boo hoo what a surprise, guess they did not know when they were well off.

bemused wrote:

Boo hoo what a surprise, guess they did not know when they were well off.

That one marriage didn't work is not a reason to keep everyone else from marrying. Are you 12?

I've heard for at least 5 or 6 years that what will break the whole thing wide open is a divorce case to the USSC.

It's a bit ironic that to get the right to marry and be recognized by the federal government it will take what heterosexuals do much to often and what is destroying marriage(or at least what people like to refer to as traditional marriage and the family).

Gay divorce, I can see the lawwyers drooling from here.

Being able to get divorced is an important right too. While not as glamorous in the eyes of the media (because it lacks the religious element that "marriage" infuses), divorce provides couples with a formal, legal end to the relationship and distribution of any assets. I feel sorry for the women in Rhode Island, their lives are on hold while they are in this limbo state. It is completely unfair.

- I can easily get out of the army.

- My employer would be afraid to fire me as I would sue.

- I could sue anyone I want for discrimination and at least get a settlement.

- I would not be in the mess of a marriage I was in.

- I would not be in the mess of the divorce I am going through.

- I would have sex 100 times a week with 100 different partners.

- I would be be on a Bravo tv show.

- or I would be a dentist.

bemused wrote:

Boo hoo what a surprise, guess they did not know when they were well off.

If we denied marriage based on divorce there wouldn't be anymore hetero marriages EVER! Have you checked the divorce stats lately? Seriously.

I Wish I Were Gay wrote:

- I can easily get out of the army.
- My employer would be afraid to fire me as I would sue.
- I could sue anyone I want for discrimination and at least get a settlement.
- I would not be in the mess of a marriage I was in.
- I would not be in the mess of the divorce I am going through.
- I would have sex 100 times a week with 100 different partners.
- I would be be on a Bravo tv show.
- or I would be a dentist.

You could also face the risk of and often times reality of:
-being disowned by your family
-being abandoned by your "friends"
-excommunicated by your church while being told you are evil and going straight to hell
-being bullied at school
-being fired by your employer
-being evicted by your landlord
-being refused service by businesses
-being denied equal marriage/family rights and protections by the government
-being kicked out of the miliary when all you wanted to do was serve your country
-being denied the right to adopt in some states
-being beaten within an inch of your life
-being murdered

Yeah your right - gays have it soooo much easier than straights.

Who gets custody of the gerbils?

>>>"I'm a good citizen, a good American. And then to be told I don't have the same rights as everyone else."<<<

She does have the same rights as everyone else. Just like any other woman, she has the right to marry any eliglbe (unmarried, of age and mentally competent) MAN who agrees to marry her.

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue, or fairness issue, it is a public policy issue.

To date, 48 states and the Federal Government have not endorsed it, and no legistlature has approved it, except under court order.

If its advocates of homosexual marriage want to redefine the meaning of marraige, they should convince the governments of all 50 states, or the Federal Government to pass it into law, instead of convincing activist judges to overstep their authority by nullifying state laws and constitutions and creating their own new "laws" from the bench.

Watch the Gap wrote:

>>>"I'm a good citizen, a good American. And then to be told I don't have the same rights as everyone else."<<<
She does have the same rights as everyone else. Just like any other woman, she has the right to marry any eliglbe (unmarried, of age and mentally competent) MAN who agrees to marry her.
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue, or fairness issue, it is a public policy issue.
To date, 48 states and the Federal Government have not endorsed it, and no legistlature has approved it, except under court order.
If its advocates of homosexual marriage want to redefine the meaning of marraige, they should convince the governments of all 50 states, or the Federal Government to pass it into law, instead of convincing activist judges to overstep their authority by nullifying state laws and constitutions and creating their own new "laws" from the bench.

Why do you expect gays to fight for a right differently then others?

Ike wrote:

<quoted text>
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that you have no "right" to undemocratically force your contrived philosophy of homosexual "marriage" on an unwilling nation.

Where has it been demonstrated? Since when don't certain people have a right to fight for a right the same way it's been done before?

Are you saying that all people will be required to enter into a same sex marriage?

OH YUUUUUCK!!!!!

I just responded to Wil..........eeeewwwwww.

Going now for my cootie shot.

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you expect gays to fight for a right differently then others?

This is not a "fight for rights". This is an attempt to change public policy by fundamentally redefining the definition of marriage. Though I oppose this, if its supporters can accomplish this legislatively, then homosexual marriage will legitimately be legal. I would not like it, but I would respect it as law.

The propper use of the courts is to fight to protect rights already granted under the constitution or statutes.

For example, if the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, and a law is passed banning newspapers, publishers should go to court to have that law overturned.

However, if the same publishers decide, for instance, that they believe the government should subsidize newspapers, they would need to go to the legislature to pass such a law.

Courts are supposed to protect existing rights and uphold existing laws, not unilaterally create new ones. Our nation's government was founded on a system of checks and balances, with 3 branches of government. When one branch is allowed to usurp the authority of the others, we are on road to tyrrany.

The same is true where the Exuctive branch refuses to recognize the powers of Congress or the Judiciary.

Watch the Gap wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not a "fight for rights". This is an attempt to change public policy by fundamentally redefining the definition of marriage. Though I oppose this, if its supporters can accomplish this legislatively, then homosexual marriage will legitimately be legal. I would not like it, but I would respect it as law.
The propper use of the courts is to fight to protect rights already granted under the constitution or statutes.
For example, if the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, and a law is passed banning newspapers, publishers should go to court to have that law overturned.
However, if the same publishers decide, for instance, that they believe the government should subsidize newspapers, they would need to go to the legislature to pass such a law.
Courts are supposed to protect existing rights and uphold existing laws, not unilaterally create new ones. Our nation's government was founded on a system of checks and balances, with 3 branches of government. When one branch is allowed to usurp the authority of the others, we are on road to tyrrany.
The same is true where the Exuctive branch refuses to recognize the powers of Congress or the Judiciary.

You are quite welcome to think that marriage is not a right and that the benefits granted through marriage are not a right. But then it raises questions as to why state constitutions are being changed and an attempt to change the federal constitution. That plus the USSC has already said that marriage is a right. It certainly is not because gays are in the minority and forcing courts to make changes.

The courts have not created any laws in declaring that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Which pretty much follows your idea as to how the courts should work.

Whether you want to accept it or not marriage is a right and this is a fight for equal rights and it is being done just other fights for equal rights.

I Wish I Were Gay wrote:

- I can easily get out of the army.
- My employer would be afraid to fire me as I would sue.
- I could sue anyone I want for discrimination and at least get a settlement.
- I would not be in the mess of a marriage I was in.
- I would not be in the mess of the divorce I am going through.
- I would have sex 100 times a week with 100 different partners.
- I would be be on a Bravo tv show.
- or I would be a dentist.

first on is not true, the second one, also not true, I have been fired from jobs, being gay(anytype of sexed person) is never the issue in employment. the third show your retardedness, because that would mean that all gays are rich thru some litigous reason or another, when in fact thay are wealther because of their ability to work and not have to deal with children(that is the reason most people miss work).Fouth yes even GLBT persons will still find that the person they loved turned out to be someone they did want to stay with, if your marriage sucks, do what other STR8's do, D.I.V.O.R.C.E. unless you cant make it on your own. So, no concern for what the kids are going thru, all about you in the divorce, well you are a selfcentered (wait your ex know the names). That much sex is for kids, but when I am seeing some one it is as often as we like. When I am not seeing someone, only if we hit it off, I think the str8 do that too. So we have a couple of channels, don't watch, you have 100+ other channels to fit your viewing needs, BTW I prefer NFLNetwork, and the history channel.
I dont understand the dentist part, I would assume that is what your ex does and that is a jab at that person.

OOOH, I choose the gay lifestyle, because being str8 is too easy.(that was a jab at those that think it is a choice). It is the one reason I never understand why trolls/xtians think it was a choice.

verad wrote:

<quoted text>
You could also face the risk of and often times reality of:
-being disowned by your family
-being abandoned by your "friends"
-excommunicated by your church while being told you are evil and going straight to hell
-being bullied at school
-being fired by your employer
-being evicted by your landlord
-being refused service by businesses
-being denied equal marriage/family rights and protections by the government
-being kicked out of the miliary when all you wanted to do was serve your country
-being denied the right to adopt in some states
-being beaten within an inch of your life
-being murdered
Yeah your right - gays have it soooo much easier than straights.

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
You are quite welcome to think that marriage is not a right and that the benefits granted through marriage are not a right. But then it raises questions as to why state constitutions are being changed and an attempt to change the federal constitution. That plus the USSC has already said that marriage is a right. It certainly is not because gays are in the minority and forcing courts to make changes.
The courts have not created any laws in declaring that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Which pretty much follows your idea as to how the courts should work.
Whether you want to accept it or not marriage is a right and this is a fight for equal rights and it is being done just other fights for equal rights.

Actually, I don't think marriage is necessarily a constitutional right for heterosexuals either. It may be in some state constitutions, but it is not in the US Constitution.

If both houses congress passed a law to abolish all marriage and the president signed it into law, I believe it would be constitutional. The only constitution issue I could see is whether it should be a state or federal matter.

As for the changes and attempted changes to state and US constitutions, those are legitimate avenues for changing the law. If you can get an amendment to the US Constitution allowing same sex marriage passed by 2/3 of both houses of congress plus 75% of the state legislatures, same sex marriage will legitimately be part of the the law of the land.

If others could get an amendment passed banning it, that would also be legitimate.

I believe the Supreme Court of Mass ordered the legislature to pass a same sex marriage law.

devons wrote:

OH YUUUUUCK!!!!!
I just responded to Wil..........eeeewwwwww.
Going now for my cootie shot.

You should always make sure to keep some antiseptic wipes around when on here in case you find your self in that situation again.:-)

Watch the Gap wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I don't think ...

And it shows.