Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Friday, July 21, 2006

Gay Marriage Divorce?


Same-sex marriage pioneers split up

Lesbian couple helped make gay marriage legal in Massachusetts

Updated: 5:17 p.m. ET July 21, 2006

BOSTON - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said Friday.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state’s highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.
The women “are amicably living apart,” Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. “As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage. But they are no longer in the public eye, and request that their privacy be respected.”
They have not filed for divorce.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge married on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex couples were allowed to wed, in a festive ceremony attended by dozens of journalists.
Their daughter, Annie, accompanied the women down the aisle serving as ring bearer and flower girl while guests hummed “Here Come the Brides.”
News of their split upset many who had supported their quest for same-sex marriage. “We are very sad for them,” said Carisa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Two states — Connecticut and Vermont — have legalized same-sex civil unions. California, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., offer gay and lesbian couples some legal rights as partners.
The debate over gay marriage recently has heated up again in Massachusetts after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court last week ruled that voters can decide whether to ban same-sex unions.
If enough lawmakers in the state’s legislature approve the measure, it will be put on the 2008 ballot for a popular vote.


Blogger betmo said...

ok? how is this any different than a heterosexual couple?

Sat Jul 22, 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Wadical said...


Sat Jul 22, 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Betmo, it is different because these were the people at the forefront for the right to marry which made them “newsworthy” people. They wanted the media attention for their cause and now that they are separating they suddenly want to be left alone. You can’t ask to have your laundry shown in public and then decide you no longer want to because it is no longer convenient.

Sat Jul 22, 04:14:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

I love it: "not natural."

By all means, let's follow "nature's way." Every male of the species can simply inseminate any woman he chooses whenever he feels like it because that would be "nature's way" of continuing the species. Hand your wife over, pal, I'm ready to procreate.

Now, you know I don't mean that. But that's where that "argument" is headed.

Sat Jul 22, 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

no- i meant how is their marriage any different? 50% of current marriage in america end in divorce. it's fine that it was in the news for the reasons you mentioned publius- i just meant why the divorce was any different than say brad pitt and jennifer aniston who are also in the news.

Sat Jul 22, 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Betmo, The difference to me is that considering they wanted their marriage to be newsworthy, so I believe they have lost any right for their separation to be private.

QD, the procreation argument is a valid one, except for those married couples who only engage in sexual activity for procreation. I assume there are couples out there like that. But even to use your argument, the government would have to determine which males were the most suitable for procreation in order to guarantee the continuation of the species, or we would need some sort of Olympic Games to decide.

Sat Jul 22, 09:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Love said...

Allowing Gay people to marry is backed by a conspiracy of the American Family Law Trial Lawyers Association.

Sun Jul 23, 08:00:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

So we'll have to invalidate the marriages of, say folks who marry in their 60s, 70s, or 80s, like those fine old folks I saw get married in the nursing home where my dear grandmother lived before she passed away. Those two were both over 80 years old.

But, no babies means no wedding, I guess, right? 'Cause that would be "unnatural."

Sun Jul 23, 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Wadical said...

No, QD, the argument wasn't "headed" that direction. You headed it that direction. God gave man dominion over the earth and everything upon it. And humans are set apart from animals. But to humor you and carry your argument to the "n"th degree: Many animals mate for life and do not "inseminate" just whatever female happens along. You knew what I meant by "natural" didn't escape you. Heterosexuality is the natural order of things, whether or not you believe in God. Homosexuality is not.

Sun Jul 23, 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

I believe in God, hence the "Quaker" part. Of course I knew what you meant.

I just don't agree with you.

Sun Jul 23, 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Looks like you all have your own arguments going on here.
QD, what I meant was that if we only used the “nature’s way” of continuing the species than we would only breed the fastest and strongest and smartest as it is in the animal world. But as man does not breed in the same manner as animals, not really at least, we would need some sort of system to decide which humans are the most appropriate to breed in order to continue to the species. It is off topic and only a reference to something you most likely unintentionally said.

Sun Jul 23, 10:34:00 PM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

Publius I agree. This couple needed publicity to help their cause – in which I strongly believe, by the way – and now that they’re separated, it is not as if they have the right to any kind of absence of media attention. It’s just the way it goes unfortunately.

But the comment betmo wrote above makes a good point – I can just hear a lot of Right wingers snickering at this incident and saying, “see! Why should we give them the right to marry if they’re just going to turn around and get divorced, after putting everything through all this legal trouble!”

I’m not saying anyone is making that ridiculous argument here – but to those who think gay marriage is any less valid because the couple that helped pioneer the movement is no longer a couple, well then Rush Limbaugh, who I believe is thrice divorced, should be denied any type of validity in his marriage as well. As should all of the other countless divorcees across the country.

However to the individual who is probably oblivious to perpetuating his own perceived stereotype of being a red-neck imbecile by using Elmer Fudd in his profile: your argument of “it is not natural” fails on so many intellectual and philosophical levels I’m not quite sure where to begin.

First of, homosexuality is found all throughout the animal kingdom, in scientific, documented cases, not just in human beings. There is evidence emerging of a “gay gene” as well as mountains of evidence suggesting homosexuality isn’t a choice, and gay people don’t wake up one morning and decide to be attracted to the same sex. They just are who they are – similarly, you and I didn’t wake up one morning and decide that we thought women were attractive. I’ve felt that way since I can remember.

Second – you mention God in your argument, and what he gave to ‘man.’ Weird – I never expected sexist Bible talk from anyone who doesn’t think gay people should have the same rights as straight folks.

Unless we’ve suddenly adopted the religious constitutions of Saudi Arabia or Iran, I don’t think God should be mentioned at all in the terms of a legal debate deciding what should or shouldn’t be against the law. That’s fantastic if you believed God created this and that, however “what God intended” should never, ever be an argument supporting American law. When people act on what they believe “God intended,” you start seeing airplanes fly into skyscrapers, and militant groups receiving funding to blow the shit out of innocent people in the Middle East and elsewhere. So, let’s instead leave marriage, which is a Civil issue, not necessarily a religious one, in the Civil realm. One need not have God at their wedding to become legally married. And, if God’s approval were the prerequisite for American law, where do you think we’d be politically? Why even vote or have bodies of Congress?

Third – since when has something “not natural” been made illegal simply because it is not natural? Aspartame isn’t natural, yet we’re allowed to drink diet Coke? Cannabis on the other hand is a very natural substance yet I can’t grow a field of it in my back yard without getting arrested? Even if your argument of homosexuality not being natural was accurate – which it is not – but if it was, it still doesn’t mean anything from a legal standpoint.

The simple fact is, most of those on your side of the gay marriage coin – good, god fearin’ cartoon hunters – are actually very quick to claim support of “family values,” and children. Considering gay marriage allows more loving families to form, and allows legal basis for child visitation rights, enforcement of those who violate child support laws, credit and housing protections for the family, adoption benefits, Social security and 401k benefits, death benefits, health benefits, etc…how could you be against those and over 1000 other laws that are entitled to straight married couples?

Or…and tell me if I’m off base here…but with people like you its really not about children and families…its more about not wantin’ them gull darn gays to marry ‘n be kissin’ each other in public.

Mon Jul 24, 05:57:00 PM  
Blogger mistyforeverlost said...

Standing up and applauding Jeremy.

Mon Jul 24, 08:18:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Jeremy, you said it all.

"That's all, folks!"

Mon Jul 24, 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Jeremy, I was a bit concerned at first that your comment was meant for me until I saw that it was actually intended for Wadical.
But as far as what is true and not true in the animal kingdom, I think that is more or less irrelevant. If you believe in Darwin or if you believe in Creation, either way man is above animals and either more evolved or a higher being. We eat the animals, we keep the animals as pets, and we put the animals in a zoo. Man has dominion over the animals. That animals engage in homosexuality means as much to me as the fact that a dog will eat his own poop. Either way, doesn’t mean I am going to.

But I agree with you. There are a lot of people on the Right talking about the protection of marriage and yet have been divorced or divorced more than one time; that is hypocrisy at its worst. This is the glass houses argument. I don’t think that means the pious should lead, but it also means if you live in a glass house don’t have a pile of stones sitting by your door.

But, I think God is, has been, and should be an important aspect of our laws. Perhaps I believe this because the Judeo-Christian values this country was founded on are my own. But, those ideals are not the values and beliefs of those who fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up. Christianity is a religion that adapts. Speaking from a Catholic perspective, we no longer engage in Crusades to the Middle East, we no longer attack non-believers, and regardless of the stance on abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and stem cells, it is still debated. There is no discussion in Islam.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I believe in a God I have never seen, I have never heard, I have never touched, and yet I still believe and in believing I follow the teachings of my religion as best I can; no one is perfect. I believe in something that has no scientific proof and there is no basis for my beliefs other than my beliefs. So it is impossible to engage in debate of any real nature when that discussion involves the statement, “well that is just what I believe.” But, even if beliefs alone are the basis of your argument that doesn’t make it any less valid.

So here is the big sticking point. Gay marriage will not be allowed in this country while there are still a large number of religious conservatives in this country who are against it. The two are virtually incompatible. The same holds true on a lot of other issues. So there is only one choice for those who are religious Christian conservatives in this country, to keep fighting and keep yelling from the mountain top because the secular side is growing and if they don’t keep fighting and keep yelling, they will lose.

Tue Jul 25, 01:38:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Marriage rights should have nothing to do with religion. If a gay couple wants to marry at my Meeting, and we support that, it's the decision of our faith to "bless" that marriage. That's a ceremonial (or sacramental, if you have sacraments, which Quakers don't) thing. Marriage rights should have more to do with a *legal* sanction, and therefore should be free of interefence from religious institutions. If a Catholic or Methodist church doesn't want to bless a union between a gay or lebian couple, they can refuse to do so. Fine with me.

We'll take 'em. But the state of New Jersey should still issue the license to wed.

As far as the poop thing, you must have missed that one John Waters mover... ;-)

Tue Jul 25, 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

*movie* obviously...

Tue Jul 25, 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Uh yeah, I am not sure what the John Waters reference was, and I am not sure who he is either. It must be something for you older folks.

But I guess there is also some misguided or naive idea that marriages only take place in a church. Sometimes it is hard for me to remember that there are people who get married outside of a church and without a priest, reverend, pastor, rabbi, etc.

Tue Jul 25, 11:36:00 PM  
Blogger Wadical said...

Wow, that's pretty strong talk there Jeremy. I challenge you, however, to offer this "evidence emerging of a gay gene". Science has yet to prove anything remotely supporting that "theory". If it's so damned natural, then explain why genetically identical twins could have two different sexual preferences. Explain how a "gay gene" could, over thousands of years continue to proliferate itself without substantial reproduction and avoid killing itself off. While your at it, why don't you cite those examples of Homosexuality in nature. As a matter of fact, I'd like to know just one species that has been observed to exhibit homosexual behavior that is able to proliferate by other than heterosexual reproduction.

You say that “what God intended” should never, ever be an argument supporting American law. You're either in great denial, or you're completely ignorant of American History. Laws are based on what it right and wrong. Right and wrong is determined by what is morally acceptable. And whether you choose to admit it or not, what is morally acceptable has been passed on from generation to generation by religion.

Calling me a redneck imbecile, while knowing NOTHING of me says volumes about you. My intelligence is not in question. Yours, however seems to be debatable since you can do nothing but vomit what's been force fed to your weak mind. I can assure you that my IQ is quite sufficient to comprehend or pick apart whatever weak argument that you decide to make on your own.

Wed Jul 26, 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Wadical said...

Wow, Misty, your stepping off some of your principles too. I believe I can directly quote 4 or 5 of your posts or comments which strongly condemn calling names, yet you stand and applaud one ignorant mind that can do nothing but that. Perhaps your true colors shine atlast.

Wed Jul 26, 10:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home