"Pro-fams' and gay divorce: If they don't like it, then they'll put a hostile ring on it
When states allow for legal same-sex marriage, some couples utilize that right. But just like in the heterosexual world, sometimes these unions comes to a point of irreconcilable difference. So when this happens, the married couple needs a divorce. And this happens regardless of whether or not said couple is still living in the state where they married.
That is, of course, the gist of same sex divorce in 2009 America. So easy to understand, even a non-indoctrinated child can understand it. But social conservatives don't want to see us as human beings with civil rights. And they don't want others to see as Americans who live, love, and pay taxes just like everyone else. They want everyone to see us a "tactic" or a "strategy" rather than a person. They want everyone to see our couplings as an "experiment" rather than a bond. So when looking at our unions and the sometimes need to dissolve them, they don't turn to the law and a reasoned assessment thereof. They instead say intellectually divorced things like this:
DALLAS (BP)--Homosexual activists, fighting to attain legal "same sex marriage," are creating an unlikely battleground: divorce courts. In the latest skirmish, a Dallas judge, Tena Callahan, has ruled that her court has jurisdiction to hear the "divorce" case of two men "married" in Massachusetts in 2006 and now living in Texas.
The decision caused quite a stir in the state because in 2005, 75 percent of voters passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Everybody thought that meant no "gay marriage." Period. End of story.
But homosexual groups are trying to figure out how to force "same sex marriage" on states where voters are clearly and overwhelmingly against it. This attempt to get the courts to grant divorces to homosexual couples is one way they're going about it. Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for the homosexual advocacy group Lambda Legal predicts "an eventual end to bans on same-sex marriage in Texas and across the country," the Associated Press reported.
The idea is to persuade the courts to recognize "same-sex marriages" just enough to dissolve them. The momentary recognition of the marriage licenses for the purpose of granting a divorce would allow homosexual activists a foot in the door, cracking it open enough to begin shoving through demands for full "gay marriage" rights.
KEEP READING: FIRST-PERSON: 'Gay divorce' a backdoor path to 'gay marriage' [BP News]
To these folks, the only question they would afford to our divorces is "Who gets the copy of the agenda, and who gets custody of all the America children that gays threaten?" Because it's easier for them to think this way. If they detach their fight from humanity, then they can more easily convince themselves that their bias isn't actually hurting anyone. That's it's just another day at the office, no more incidental or consequential than any number of other chores. Hands clean.
Well for us, it is not a simply "agree to disagree" issue. Their hostility is insulting, and their faith-based rhetoric muddies this CIVIL discourse. Forget Kramer vs. Kramer: The title of this divorce-centric flick would be Shamer vs.Tamer (we'll let you guess who plays who). And until our opposition agrees to drop their dehumanizing ways, no amount of counseling is ever going to salvage our relationship as humans who could be and should be bound by respect. We have worked hard enough at this marriage. It is they who must give.
I'm just laughing at the irony that in their attempts to keep same-sex marriage illegal, they're trying to keep a same-sex couple married.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Oct 15, 2009 7:46:32 PM
Let's see. Gays get married, move to another state, then file for divorce just so they can get the idea of gay marriage in the door of that state? Makes perfect sense to me!
But then, I have been drinking....
Posted by: ColdCountry | Oct 15, 2009 8:07:58 PM
I'm waiting for the case where a bisexual man marries a man in Massachusetts and they then move somewhere where same sex marriage isn't recognized. The couple breaks up and the bisexual man now meets a woman and wants to marry her. So he tries to get a divorce, but since the new state didn't recognize his marriage, they won't divorce him. So they will be forcing him to stay sort of married to a gay and prevent him from marrying a woman!!
Or would they prevent it? If they aren't recognizing it, does that mean he would be free in that state to marry someone else?
Posted by: John | Oct 15, 2009 8:45:05 PM
Sorry, I meant "Guy" in the above, not "Gay".
Posted by: John | Oct 15, 2009 8:45:57 PM
Rainbow Phoenix, I love the way you think.
Posted by: Em | Oct 15, 2009 8:46:34 PMcomments powered by Disqus