Gay marriage law 'could mean the end ...

Gay marriage law 'could mean the end of adultery being grounds for divorce'

There are 348 comments on the www.dailymail.co.uk story from Dec 18, 2012, titled Gay marriage law 'could mean the end of adultery being grounds for divorce'. In it, www.dailymail.co.uk reports that:

Lawyers claim an unfaithful husband could use the courts to block his wife from divorcing them for adultery because same-sex couples are to be treated differently.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.dailymail.co.uk.

poppin in for a wee bit

Boulder Creek, CA

#294 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, we can't ask them about their procreation due to the right...(the right makes it "none of the gov't business)
guess who we DON'T HAVE TO ASK....
(and by the way, ever notice that the right you are seeking is not one that is "none of the gov't business", its issued by the govt?)...
The Government GUARANTEES Rights. It doesn't "issue" them.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#295 Jan 17, 2013
poppin in for a wee bit wrote:
<quoted text>
The Government GUARANTEES Rights. It doesn't "issue" them.
good point. actually its MY point.

Now, how do we get a marriage LICENSE?
the state gov't ISSUES them.

what do YOU make of this?

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#296 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
lets START with a few:
all OTHER things being equal we should have preference in adoption and fostering for couples with BOTH moms and dads...
which is inhibited by providing all with the same rights...
But this doesn't address any "marriage rights", it only outlines what you WANT to happen, who you want "preferred".

You're certainly welcome to introduce legislation outlawing gay couples from adopting or fostering (or from jointly raising the biological child of one of them), if you feel that's a worthwhile fight, but you've still yet to list any specific rights that are present in a "marriage" which should NOT be present in a "CU". You won't find the right to adopt, or the right to foster, on a list of rights provided with marriage.

Specific rights listed so far: zero.
straight shooter wrote:
I do not think gays should get the presumption that a child born during their marriage is born to both spouses since its IMPOSSIBLE in EVERY case... and may effect the non-married BIOLOGICAL parent who should have some sort of right over their "issue".
I don't think that ANY couple should get such a "presumption". What does it DO for them if they get one? What RIGHTS does such a presumption bestow? If you had given that presumption to MY parents, your presumption would be WRONG, as I was adopted. Would this wrong presumption have affected their rights?

Specific rights listed so far: zero.
straight shooter wrote:
and if CU's turn out to have lower instances of child bearing and raising they SHOULD NOT GET THE SAME TAX BREAKS...
No one gets ANY tax breaks UNTIL they have children, correct? Heterosexual married couples who are completely childless should ALSO not get any of the tax breaks that parents get, correct? These tax breaks are granted with PARENTHOOD, not MARRIAGE. You are mixing these concepts again.

Specific rights listed so far: zero.
straight shooter wrote:
Lets set up CU's and see how really the same you are...
Seven years was NOT ENOUGH time to really see....
back to you, ed....
In your post #225, page 11, you said this:

"To me, gays have a need for certain rights and they should have them...."

Admirable sentiment, to be sure. But when you use the phrase "CERTAIN rights", one gets the impression that you have something specific in mind, and that you could list these specific rights. You have yet to do so.

The way that it is currently federally recognized, "marriage" confers a list of over 1000 specific rights onto a couple. None of these rights are changed or affected in any way if the couple has children of their own, if they adopt or foster any children, or if they have no children at all, ever.

"Presumption" is not a "right" that you will find on any list. The "right to adopt, foster, or raise children" is not a right you will find on any list.

If you believe that gay couples have SPECIFIC rights which are SPECIFICALLY not addressed by the rights provided in marriage, then you should be able to list WHICH RIGHTS THESE ARE, and how they should be reflected differently by a CU. Since you support CU's over marriage for gay couples, it should be EASY for you to list these rights in "1, 2, 3..." style, with each right ACTUALLY being a right found on the list of rights provided with marriage. Not some concept of "presumption" which you've created out of wholecloth, which doesn't even apply to heterosexual couples who might be raising children that aren't biologically theirs, or who might be raising none at all. Such presumption doesn't affect their rights. It's nothing but a social courtesy, which might be misplaced.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#297 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to just put this up there...
does this sound "rational" to you?
its a distinction with a difference...
Yep. It is. That's why they call it *case* law, and not law.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#298 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so, your not a believer in "we the people", huh?
a govt OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people?
Huh???

Here's what I wrote, "The state is the government that represents the people that live there. The people that vote there are a subset of the people that live there."

And from that you got that I don't believe in "we the people"???

You're tap dancing so hard now that you're losing track of the music, dude.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#299 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
did you miss the part that said come back when you do?
Ooops!! You must have missed the part where I explained my position. You know, the part you deleted before you responded?

Here! I'll post it again for you to read:

Please show some support for your contention that our laws are about "our preference for how we do things" and not about fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality.

Many people might prefer that women stay home and keep house after they get married. "our preference for how we do things" would suggest that it would be perfectly fine to pass a law that bans married women from keeping a job outside the home. But fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality would clearly forbid that.

So please do explain to me how it is we would disregard the constitution and substitute personal preferences for certain lifestyles choices instead.

You're turn!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#300 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, we can't ask them about their procreation due to the right...(the right makes it "none of the gov't business)
guess who we DON'T HAVE TO ASK....
(and by the way, ever notice that the right you are seeking is not one that is "none of the gov't business", its issued by the govt?)...
Nope. You don't have to ask anyone because it's not relevant when it comes to the right to marry.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "equal protection under the law"?? It's in one of those pesky constitutional amendments. SO annoying. Since the ability to procreate isn't relevant when it comes to straight couples marrying, it's also not relevant when it comes to gay couples marrying.

Three couples wish to marry:

1. a fertile straight couple
2. an infertile straight couple
3. a same-sex couple

Based on your premise that couples have the right to marry because they can procreate, which of the above couples have the right to marry?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#301 Jan 17, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. It is. That's why they call it *case* law, and not law.
as opposed to *statutory* law which i guess is not the law either, then?
we are down the rabbit hole now!
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#302 Jan 17, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh???
Here's what I wrote, "The state is the government that represents the people that live there. The people that vote there are a subset of the people that live there."
And from that you got that I don't believe in "we the people"???
You're tap dancing so hard now that you're losing track of the music, dude.
nope, I am merely showing how your a little in need ofa civics lesson, the govt is "the people" dude...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#303 Jan 17, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Please show some support for your contention that our laws are about "our preference for how we do things" and not about fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality.
sure just read your discussion of why we ban polygamy...
administrative headaches are the reason you cited and yet you said nothing about "fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality."
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#304 Jan 17, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Have you ever heard of the expression, "equal protection under the law"??
sure, what part of it says "equal rights"?
only equal protection for similarly situated people, which gays are not ****as to marriage*****...

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#305 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
sure, what part of it says "equal rights"?
only equal protection for similarly situated people, which gays are not ****as to marriage*****...
And around in a circle you go, as you continue to fail to SPECIFY WHY gay couples are not similar enough to straight couples to merit marriage. You'll want CU's for us, and you'll say that you expect CU's to address "our needs" differently, but you won't SPECIFY HOW those needs are different, or how CU's should be different.

When a gay couple is raising a child (or children plural), they are EXACTLY like a straight couple. They have taken on the burden of providing for all that child's needs, ensuring its future, and guiding it to respect the social constraints of law and order. They are NOT doing a "less than" job, so there's no reason they should accept "less than" rights.

Being specific is very important when arguing a position, no matter what the subject. Vague pronouncements that gay couples are "different", and an insistence on "certain rights" without enumerating what they should be, does not make your position appear solid.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#306 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>sure just read your discussion of why we ban polygamy...
administrative headaches are the reason you cited and yet you said nothing about "fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality."
Wow. Your reading comprehension is even worse than usual today.

Administrative headaches?? No. Legal quagmire is what I wrote. Our laws *cannot* accommodate plural marriage. There's no "headache" about it. It's simply not possible.

You, being a pretend lawyer, shouldn't have to have such obvious differences explained to you, should you?

And I actually DID address "fairness, equal protection under the law, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality." Did I not say that if the polygamists wish to pursue changes in the law that would accommodate their families, they are more than welcome and have every right to so do??

I also said that that's not my fight and it's not. But I would never stand in their way. It's none of my business who someone else marries, is it?(Of course, you won't understand that because you obviously believe that other people's marriages ARE your business, don't you?).

So NOW what are you going to twist my words around to be so that you can argue against something I didn't post?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#307 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>sure, what part of it says "equal rights"?
only equal protection for similarly situated people, which gays are not ****as to marriage*****...
When you can support that "gay couples aren't similarly situated" claim of yours, let us know. So far, you just keep repeating it over and over like a three-year-old throwing a tantrum.

Care to give it a try again? Not similarly situated how, from a civil point of view, not from an "I hate and fear gay people but I'm not adult enough to just admit it so I'll pretend I'm a lawyer and throw up a bunch of irrelevant drivel and hope they buy it" point of view.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#308 Jan 17, 2013
All other things being equal, the law already demands that gay couples receive EQUAL consideration with hetero couples in adoption in most states.

The state doesn't a good goddamn who the genetic parent is; it cares only that someone is taking responsibiliy. If th biological parent from outside the marriage want to assert parental rights, there are already procedures for that.

Civil unions are off the table, sparky--they've been around longer than SSM. Do kids raised by gay parnts deserve less consideration?
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
lets START with a few:
all OTHER things being equal we should have preference in adoption and fostering for couples with BOTH moms and dads...
which is inhibited by providing all with the same rights...
I do not think gays should get the presumption that a child born during their marriage is born to both spouses since its IMPOSSIBLE in EVERY case... and may effect the non-married BIOLOGICAL parent who should have some sort of right over their "issue".
and if CU's turn out to have lower instances of child bearing and raising they SHOULD NOT GET THE SAME TAX BREAKS...
Lets set up CU's and see how really the same you are...
Seven years was NOT ENOUGH time to really see....
back to you, ed....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#309 Jan 17, 2013
It only takes one person's case to change everything--look at loving v virginia, lawrence v texas, RvW, etc. Percentages mean nothing; recognition of individual rights is what is important.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, instead they have found that our RIGHT to procreation INFERS a RIGHT to marry...
you do get that the marriage LICENSE is not the "right", right?
just kidding I know you don't...
but as a point of clarity the SCOTUS did affirm and thereby make their own a decision that said this which essentially addresses your argument as pure bunk:
"[THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT]Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited."[This is how the court addresses it (it ain't pretty)] "Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
Exceptions don't negate rules, we do not let a 10% exception (infertile straights)allow for an entire class of people that would fit that exception (gay marriage)...
you are welcome.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#310 Jan 17, 2013
fr "straight shooter":

>...Should gays who will NEVER have a natural family get the same encouragement we give to natural families?...<

My wife and I have a LOVELY natural family, a lesbian FAMILY. I'm sorry that you obviously can't see that.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#311 Jan 18, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Administrative headaches?? No. Legal quagmire is what I wrote. Our laws *cannot* accommodate plural marriage. There's no "headache" about it. It's simply not possible.
so our laws prefer a certain family structure?

see how this works?

you should spend less time pretending you know what a lawyer would say and more time trying not to sound consistent...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#312 Jan 18, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr "straight shooter":
>...Should gays who will NEVER have a natural family get the same encouragement we give to natural families?...<
My wife and I have a LOVELY natural family, a lesbian FAMILY. I'm sorry that you obviously can't see that.
are you both the natural parents of the child?

your word games mean nothing to me sweetie...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#313 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>so our laws prefer a certain family structure?

see how this works?

you should spend less time pretending you know what a lawyer would say and more time trying not to sound consistent...
And you should spend less time pretending to BE a lawyer and twisting around people's words so you can argue against things they didn't post.

Our laws don't "prefer" anything. They are what they are and were written to accommodate the needs of the times in which they were written. That changes over time. Like everything else. That's why we can and do change laws--to accommodate our ever-changing culture.

How awesome is that??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Unhinged pastor tells "gay world" to "go to a M... 5 min Tony 10
News Philippines' Duterte says he supports gay marriage 8 min Albert 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 19 min RiccardoFire 15,011
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 34 min Wondering 103
News Conservative woman wonders if BFF is homosexual... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 4
Meadow Grove Crime Blotter 1 hr Meadow Grove PD 1
News Indonesia court rejects bid to outlaw extramari... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 4
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 1 hr Red Crosse 368
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) Fri GodSmacked 26,930
More from around the web