If it was so important for them to be married in the first place, then why did
they move to a state that didn't even recognize their marriage soon after?
I kind of assumed that opportunities for marriage and divorce came as a matched
Really Socorny?How many of us move to a place based on the marriage
laws on the books? The fact that your question could not even be asked of a
straight couple is revealing of the inequalities people like this have to
This article tries to spin another argument against same-sex marriage by saying
there is going to be a "boom" in same-sex divorces. Because such a
small number of people are homosexual and only a certain percentage of them will
ever get married, the vast, vast majority if divorces on the docket will be
opposite sex divorces and will always be opposite sex divorces. I would hardly
call the same-sex divorce industry a "boom" for attorneys. Divorce
lawyers have already had an ongoing "boom" with divorces well before
same-sex marriage came along, especially since about 50% of all marriages end in
Seems odd to me, that Utah encourages same-sex marriages so strongly that the
state refuses to help dissolve them.
I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start including polygamists
rights in their fight for equality. And to say that a polygamists
already had the same rights in being able to marry ONE person would be like me
saying a gay already had the same rights as everyone else in being able to marry
someone of the opposite gender.
What a mess this whole thing is turning out to be, Aaarrrggghhh!
I believe this drives home the point even further that we are now, and always
have been, talking about secular CIVIL marriage - not religious marriage. I
fully expected divorces to accompany Marriage Equality. That is just human
nature. Having civil marriage is why we have Divorce Court and not Divorce
Church.Regarding the quote: "What a mess this whole thing is
turning out to be, Aaarrrggghhh!"What mess? This is mindlessly
simple. A state cannot very well recognize the undoing of the marital contract
that it doesn't recognize in the first place. Once same-sex marriage
becomes the law of the land, same-sex divorces will not encounter these
As far as polygamy goes, that is another battle for another day. While I am not
against it, same-sex marriage is a far easier concept to implement than would be
polygamy. Once you go beyond two people in a contract, then you have a wide
variety of issues to address ranging from custody, inheritance, multiple people
on a health policy, and so on. Implementing it looks like a legal can of worms
what will take some time to figure out. It should keep attorneys employed for
years to come.
More slippery slope stuff from messing with a natural and fundamental definition
which had served civilization well for thousands of years.Moving
forward, we MUST legalize polygamy. After all, if two (or more) people love
each other why discriminate? How about the folks that love their pets,
don't be a bigot!But, all of this is sort of irrelevant any
more since a (disgustingly) large number of people play house together, have
children out of wedlock, purchase property together while unmarried, et. Thus,
the necessity for marriage of ANY sort (hetero, same sex, polygamous, etc) seems
to be crumbling onto the ash heap of history.Change is not always
good. Sometimes it is just made legal.
Now that the state of Utah can not define marriage legally ALL types of unions
should be legalized or the ruling is hypocritical and fradulent.Brothers to SistersOne man to 12 womenOne woman to a 13 year old
boyetc.Once you open up Pandora's Box ....
Whoa...wasn't ready for that shocker...That's kind of like
saying the leading cause of divorce is marriage.
@Christopher B "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites
and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality."============Hey, as long as everyone is a consenting adult,
I really don't think it's societies place to dictate who, or how many.
@Christopher B "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites
and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality."The people who fought for interracial marriage in the 1960s... were they
also hypocrites for not including other types of marriages in their fight for
equality... or do you use different standards when it comes to marriage advocacy
you support and marriage advocacy you don't support?
Hey, if they get married, this liberal hypocrite is all for polygamist divorce
rights. In fact, since polygamy is usually driven by religion and therefore rife
with abuse and coercion, I would advocate that every polygamist wedding be
prefaced with a mandatory sitdown of the group with a judge or lawyer and the
various partners of the relationship. Everyone should be informed, and sign off
that they've been informed, that they have legal rights in the process and
may leave of their own choice, and possibly be entitled to a portion of the
assets of the group. Not to be discriminatory, I don't mind if that happens
before same sex or hetero marriages, as well.
What am I reading? Do "same-sex" couples really think that they should
have all of the advantages of "marriage" but none of the consequences?
Do they think that only marriages consisting of one man, one woman should have
alimony and child support levied when that marriage is dissolved? Well, welcome to the real world where actions have consequences. If you want
to be "married" you automatically sign up for the penalties that come
from "divorce". Open your wallet and be prepared to pay for the rest of
your life. Every "heterosexual" couple has known about that
possibility, why should it come as a shock to same-sex couples who demand to be
"married"? Anyone want to guess what the figure for alimony will be? About 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Anyone want to
venture a guess of what percent of "same-sex marriages" will end in
Well of course there are going to be divorces. That's all our gay brothers
and sisters want--to be treated equally. That means marriage, and that also
means, sometimes, divorce.
How ironic that most lgbt activists claim that a prohibition of same sex
marriage doesn't allow them to be happy.Never heard traditional
marriage proponents state that their happiness depended on the law allowing them
if it was't a marriage in the first place, how can it be a divorce? that
is why the will of the people is so important! the will of the people
won't make foolish laws in the first place, including recognition of ss
Kings Court- the article did not try to spin anything nor even attempt to make
an argument. All it did was point out an obvious fact that now with one came the
other. But if you want a little truth though I doubt you do, but in States where
Gay Marriage has been legal a while, there has been a much higher divorce rate
for that group as well. Do a little research. It's not hard, and that fact
has noting to do with any bias, it simply is what it is.
"Never heard traditional marriage proponents state that their happiness
depended on the law allowing them to marry."1.) They were never
compelled to say that because the law has always allowed them to marry.2.) Perhaps you have never attended an LDS meeting, gone to a wedding, or
talked with an engaged couple. I hear all the time how much marriage makes
So... am I supposed to feel sorry for these ladies? Let's get something
straight. I don't agree with same sex marriage. I also don't agree
with people simply getting divorced because they changed their minds 10 months
later. Accept responsibility for the "rights" that you demand access
I recently saw research from Massachusetts that were showing that since gay
marriage has been legal there for ten years, that their divorce rate has
declined. As to whether or not that had anything to do directly with gay
marriage being legal there is not certain. But it stands to reason that it does.
However, in any state in the U.S, divorce is legal, so I feel for this couple.
It stands to reason that both marriage and divorce should be legal everywhere.
Not so much as one would think.If a marriage (or any activity) is
recognized in one state and not in another, then the couple in question would
have to go back to the state in which the marriage was established and apply for
divorce in that state. If plural marriage is legal in Utah, and the couple moves
to a state where it is not legal the same would hold true. This will be a can if
worms in record time...Now about the legalization of marijuana in
one state and not another.........
This liberal has no problem with polygamy as long as it's between
consenting adults. The people saying that people will be able to
marry kids or animals are fools. No one is fighting to marry anyone that
isn't a consenting adult. The fact that you have to act like this is any
kind of argument is telling. This article isn't about gays not
thinking they have to deal with alimony or any of the other pains of divorce.
This woman is complaining that she doesn't have the right to divorce in any
state. That's it. She's right to be upset about that. To
the people saying "the will" of the people is what we should be rules
by, you obviously have no clue what the constitution is for. If we ran
government by popular rule, a majority of people could take your home away if
they felt like it. However the Constitution PROTECTS you from the will of the
people. Homosexuals are PROTECTED by your bigoted opinions concerning their
rights. You people will be look upon the same way that people who
were against civil rights are looked upon today.
The divorce rate in the states that allow gay marriage is 20 percent lower than
in states that prohibit it. The state with the lowest divorce rate,
Massachusetts, was also the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, in 2004.
(Massachusetts’s divorce rate has actually declined since then.) Of the 15
states with the highest divorce rates, all ban gays and lesbians from
marrying.Overall, the divorce rate among same sex couples is roughly
half that of opposite sex couples. I guess conservatives could learn
a thing or two about successful marriages from liberals and homosexuals.
"A federal court ruling striking down Utah’s law defining marriage as
between a man and a woman made it possible for same-sex couples to legally
marry. It also made it possible for same-sex couples to file for
divorce."This is way to funny! Welcome to the world of
marriage.Why would this lady want a divorce? Just move out and move
on. And if she wishes to shack up/move in with someone else, just do it.
Forget the marriage. Marriage is primarily to birth and raise children. In
same-sex relationships this objective/goal is either nonexistent or way down the
line in relevance. The main purpose of same-sex marriage is companionship and
you don't need marriage to engage in/get companionship. And it makes
separating much, much easier.
@ChuckGG:"As far as polygamy goes, that is another battle for another
day."No. Polygamy and all other types of marriage combinations
are the issues of the day as well as same-sex marriage . If one divergence of
marriage beyond heterosexual is allowed, to be fair all types of marriages
should be in the offing."Once you go beyond two people in a
contract, then you have a wide variety of issues to address ranging from
custody, inheritance, multiple people on a health policy, and so on."These issues are easily solved... by prenuptial agreement or other types
of contracts. Divorce courts can easily handle these issues. As for multiple
people on a health policy, that happens now... for a family with children, even
up to age 26 per the ACA.
No. Facts that make someone look bad are hateful, bigoted, racist and BAD facts.
Further evidence that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals...Dave D, thanks for your response to Socorny. It was spot on.
I suspect that Taylor is right. There will be an influx of Homosexual and
Lesbians couples filing for divorce within a few years. As I said before, when
the dust settles, reality sets in, and people soon realize that there is no
magic in maintaining stable healthy relationships. The problems that plague
married couples will be the same for Homosexuals and Lesbians as it is with a
man and a woman. I think they will be more severe because a man can't be a
woman, and a woman cannot be a man.
Ah, Christopher B, you don't understand how equal treatment works, do
you?You people seem to expect a higher standard from LGBT people
than you do from yourselves. Gay/Straight, we all marry for the same reasons.
Gay/Straight, when we divorce, it'll be for the same reaons. @DN Subscriber 2;Is it so difficult to treat a same-sex couple the
same as an opposite-sex couple? Why?@Mike Richards;We
are fully aware of the rights and risks associated with marriage. We
weren't born yesterday. We actually make our decisions after thoughtful
consideration, since it is generally pretty difficult for us in the first place.
And it wouldn't surprise me in the least, if at some point down the road,
the numbers are comparable.@CDL;Citations please.
oragami, "..Massachusetts, was also the first state to legalize same-sex
marriage, in 2004." Massachusetts never legalized same-sex
marriage, a Federal judge did. Mass had laws against same-sex marriage until a
judge overruled.Just a little but big clarification.
@ DN Subscriber 2: "More slippery slope stuff from messing with a natural
and fundamental definition which had served civilization well for thousands of
years." Do you realize that arranged marriages were the common method for
pairing couples up until about the 19th century?I didn't think so. It
never ceases to amuse me that stringent supporters of "traditional
marriage" no so very little about which they speak.
Razzle2 said, "Massachusetts never legalized same-sex marriage."Good point.Massachusetts is not so socially liberal (as the
west coast, while even California voted to ban SSM.) We are now the most
Catholic state in the U.S. at 45% of the population. The Catholic Church does
not support SSM nor does it support divorce or abortion.I lived in
Boston when the Massachusetts law was turned over. With the Catholic Church and
Romney as governor we were shocked that our laws could crumble by a court
decision.By the way, Razzle2, although it was not the people of the
Commonwealth or the Massachusetts legislature, it was not a Federal Judge that
overturned the law either; it was the Commonwealth's own Supreme Court.
@KimberI think the resurgence of the Catholic Church in
Massachusetts, which is against divorce, has more to do with the low divorce
rate than the same-sex marriage rule.
@Canyontreker: Mass is also 48 in the nation in live births, so is it really
good Catholics (who believe it a sin to use birth control) that are causing a
change? I mean Utah is number one, so not worried about a decline in Utah child
bearing because of gay marriage. Even 50% of 5% isn't going to
compare to the male/female divorce rate, so maybe get your house in order before
worrying about people who are used to fighting for every right they receive,
instead of just having it by being born.
What a Gay couple getting divorced? According to some people on here, Gay
marrage is the epitome of society.
@ CDLI wouldn't be surprised that in a state like Utah where SSM came
so suddenly and many couples rush to marry fearing that the window of
opportunity to marry could close quickly. Probably, you will find some higher
than normal rates of divorce. But, once it becomes the norm, only then we will
be able to make some reliable studies.@sanpaco"So... am I
supposed to feel sorry for these ladies?". No! they don't even know who
you are. @ wrz"Why would this lady want a divorce? Just
move out and move on. And if she wishes to shack up/move in with someone else,
just do it." You... such a romantic fool (sarcasm) Kind of crude and vulgar
btw (no sarcasm)
@ RanchWhy should CDL list citations? It appears from your past posts that
when they are given you discredit them as being flawed in some ridiculous
Why marry in what state and live in another?
KMchenry, ILWhy marry in what state and live in
another?-----------It's never happened before, has
it? No one has ever gone to Las Vegas to be married, even though they do not
live in NV! These two actually lived in CT, but when they broke up,
one moved to Utah. Maybe she has family here? Maybe her job transferred her
here? Who knows why.
Someone wrote, "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start
including polygamists rights in their fight for equality. "I
might be open to the right of people to marry multiple people; however, I am
also open to arguments demonstrating that it may harm people, which is an
argument that doesn't work for gay marriage. If the argument doesn't
hold any water, I'll accept it. If more and more men marry
multiple women, it means that more and more men would have less opportunity to
marry. I think marriage is healthy, so shrinking the population of available
women would probably do harm to society. But, again, I'm open to contrary
views. The bottom line is this: gay marriage and polygamy are two
different things. So far, no one can make a reasonable argument that gay
marriage should be banned. I'm not sure about polygamy. I haven't
thought about it and researched it enough to have a strong opinion either way.
@Breathe Deep;Facts are important. Flawed studies lead to incorrect
conclusions. Incorrect conclusions lead to incorrect actions (like Amendment 3,
for instance). Should we continue to let people think the Earth is still flat?
If he isn't going to cite his sources, he's probably just
blathering.@Lane Myer;I know, isn't it just
amazing? Straight couples are born, live and die in the same state and never,
ever go anywhere else. It just boggles the mind.
If marriage is a state issue, than divorce should be a state issue.
@Mugabe:"There will be an influx of Homosexual and Lesbians couples
filing for divorce within a few years."These people can avoid
the vicissitudes of divorce. The need for same-sex marriage is mostly for
companionship. That can be had very easily without marriage. And separation is
a snap because there's no divorce. Just wave good-bye. With heterosexual
marriage the primarily goal is to give birth and rear children. Children
survive best in a stable long-term relationship albeit some heterosexual
marriages end in divorce... which seems to be increasing year after year."You... such a romantic fool (sarcasm) Kind of crude and vulgar btw
(no sarcasm)"Crude/Vulgar? (sarcasm) Try imagining how
SSM's consummate marriages. (no sarcasm)
SSM is a work in progress. As long it is done state by state we will find these
discrepancies.The SCOTUS (forget Congress)should come out with a ruling
for the whole country. As long as states have reciprocity for the so called
"traditional marriage", that reciprocity should be extended to all legal
marriages.(Activist) Passive Aggressive authorities who oppose SSM
will delay any action that may benefit the implementation of SSM or Divorce for
those couples.It will take time but we are getting to
"Equality". Actually faster than anyone would have predicted.It is a good time to be alive.
@Mr. Smitty:"If more and more men marry multiple women, it means that
more and more men would have less opportunity to marry."How many
men have been killed in all the wars of the world? My guess is in the hundreds
of millions. How many woman? Probably a few hundred. Leaves a perpetual sex
imbalance. Don't you have concerns for the many women who can't find
husbands because potential mates have been killed in wars? Further, women live
longer than men... by as much as 10 years in some societies.Besides
the Christian Holy Writ says: "In that day (last) seven women will take hold
of one man and say, 'We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name to take away our disgrace.'" Isaiah
The claims in this article are hogwash. Since the state does not recognize the
relationship at all, this lady had the much easier option of ignoring it as
well. The state would not in any way act to enforce her "marriage" and
so she would not in fact be married. Stop believing false spin. This
person was not in a bad situation, but people locked into same-sex marriage
contracts will find it hard to ever truly get away, as happened to a lady in
Vermont who eventually fled to Nicaragua to avoid being forced to continue some
connection to the relationship.
Actually, it was the top Massachusetts court, not a federal court, that ruled in
favor of same-sex marriage. A federal ruling in favor of same-sex marriage did
not happen until 2010 after Prop 8, before that all rulings had been in state
John Pack Lambert of Michigan, in 18 States that recognize marriage equality, it
does matter. And it matters for Federal law. Ignoring the marriage doesn't
mean it goes away. Just because you don't want to recognize it,
doesn't mean government entities don't. The problem is most states
have residency requirements before you can get a divorce. This left these two
women in a bind.Also, please be honest about the Vermont case. The
woman illegally kidnapped a child of whom she no longer had custody.
Oh how simple it would be to go back to living conservative logic that
doesn't have to be consistent nor make sense.Gay divorce means
gay marriage is illogical? Mmmmm, lets ponder that about ALL marriages.
wrzWhy would this lady want a divorce? Just move out and move on.LDS4Would you give that same advice to a straight woman with no kids at
home....like your mom or daughter/granddaughter? What about community property
or alimony? If your mom left your dad, would you be OK with her moving out with
just the clothes on her back with no alimony community property?wrzThese people can avoid the vicissitudes of divorce. The need for
same-sex marriage is mostly for companionship. That can be had very easily
without marriage. LDS4Gays want SSM for the same reason
heterosexuals do...to provide legal and financial stability for each other and
to provide a stabile environment in which to raise children. Why is this so
hard to understand and accept?
First they want to get married, now they want to get divorced? Why cant the gay
community make up there mind?