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

Dec 18, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.dailymail.co.uk

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.

Comments
301 - 320 of 348 Comments Last updated Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#314
Jan 18, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
so I again refer you to your answer about why its valid to deny the rights to polygamists...
seemed to me you relied on them not fitting with current law...

and I again refer you to my post about the uselessness of your attempted "digs" about my level of expertise...
okay johnny boy?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#315
Jan 18, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

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??
here I found YOUR quote for you:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"

"Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."

"Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."

yup, both sides a of your mouth must be exhausted!
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#318
Jan 18, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was *valid* to deny polygamists equal marriage rights. I simply explained why the laws are the way they are. I would be perfectly comfortable with polygamists seeking civil marriage equality. I just noted that they'll have a much harder road than the gays do.
no, you said:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"

your "note" means that their inability to fit with current paradigms is a strike against them...now simply apply that CONSISTENTLY...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#319
Jan 18, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not even a little bit.
Where in there did I say that such a denial is valid?? Where did I say I support it? I didn't because I don't.
Civil marriage discrimination is wrong no matter who is being harmed by it.
I suspect what you're now trying to twist into something it's not is where I said that if the polygamists wish to pursue marriage equality, they're most welcome to. I won't stand in their way. But since I'm only looking to have ONE legally recognized spouse, I'm just focused in rights of same-sex couples right now. As far as I'm concerned, the poly folks are on their own.
But maybe after we get out full civil rights recognized, maybe then I'll help the polygamists get theirs, too. If we need and attorney, can we give you a call?
"Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."

yup, you said it...

I didn't twist ANYTHING...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#320
Jan 18, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>no, you said:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"

your "note" means that their inability to fit with current paradigms is a strike against them...now simply apply that CONSISTENTLY...
No problem. I did and I am. Bans on same-sex marriage equality are just as unconstitutional and just as discriminatory as bans on legally recognizing polygamous families. How am I being inconsistent??

Gay couples and our friends and families are working to get those laws changed and I suspect someday the polygamists and their supporters will do the same. Just because a law is in place, doesn't mean it's just and fair, does it? If that was the case, why would we need a judiciary?

I simply noted that the polygamists are going to have a much harder time changing the laws because of the legal dynamics involved, on top of the religious hypocrisy issues.

And do you wanna know WHY those legal hurdles are so much more difficult for the polygamists?? Because..... Wait for it..... Because, unlike polygamous families, gay couples are..... Wait for it..... SIMILARLY SITUATED to straight couples!!!! GO FIGURE!!

No laws have to be rewritten or reevaluated to extend recognition to same-sex couples. Just a simple additional law that states, "for purposes of marriage, the two people marrying are not required to be opposite gender."

See how easy?? And here you thought it would be such a big deal. So wrong.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#321
Jan 18, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>"Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time."

yup, you said it...

I didn't twist ANYTHING...
You sure did. You twisted it from me stating what the current laws are to me voicing support for those laws. I never said I supported them because I *DON'T*. You said that, not me.

I know you'll get your panties all in a bunch again over me saying this, but seriously, NO attorney doesn't know the difference between stating a fact and twisting it into something it's not. No attorney I'd ever hire, anyway.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#322
Jan 22, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure did. You twisted it from me stating what the current laws are to me voicing support for those laws. I never said I supported them because I *DON'T*. You said that, not me.
I know you'll get your panties all in a bunch again over me saying this, but seriously, NO attorney doesn't know the difference between stating a fact and twisting it into something it's not. No attorney I'd ever hire, anyway.
you don't grasp these concepts and that makes me not an attorney?

good luck with that...

its not that you supported them, its that you cited them as a reason polygamy is denied...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#323
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't grasp these concepts and that makes me not an attorney?
good luck with that...
its not that you supported them, its that you cited them as a reason polygamy is denied...
One can state a reason without expressing support for that reason, no?

That's what I did. But you couldn't argue against me over a stated reason, could you? You had to pretend I *supported* that reason, too, and then argued against that.

So you STILL have not stated a non-circular reason to deny same-sex couples equal marriage rights....
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#324
Jan 23, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
One can state a reason without expressing support for that reason, no?
That's what I did. But you couldn't argue against me over a stated reason, could you? You had to pretend I *supported* that reason, too, and then argued against that.
So you STILL have not stated a non-circular reason to deny same-sex couples equal marriage rights....
no, I only suggest that if its a REASON for one, its a REASON for another...
I could care less what you support...

different relationships get different rights, its that simple...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325
Jan 23, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
One can state a reason without expressing support for that reason, no?
That's what I did. But you couldn't argue against me over a stated reason, could you? You had to pretend I *supported* that reason, too, and then argued against that.
John, I just looked again and what I wrote and you responded to.
I wrote:

"its not that you supported them, its that you cited them as a reason polygamy is denied..."

Yah, I am not really interested in speaking with you if this is the level of your comprehension...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#326
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
John, I just looked again and what I wrote and you responded to.
I wrote:
"its not that you supported them, its that you cited them as a reason polygamy is denied..."
Yah, I am not really interested in speaking with you if this is the level of your comprehension...
hahahahahahaha
ahahahahhahaha
ahahhahahahaha

He's got your number, phony dick.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#327
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, I only suggest that if its a REASON for one, its a REASON for another...
I could care less what you support...
different relationships get different rights, its that simple...
And if you could come up with even one supportable, non-circular, civilly-based reason to treat straight and gay relationships differently under the law, you MIGHT have a point.

But since you have not, there's obviously no reason to treat them differently.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#328
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
John, I just looked again and what I wrote and you responded to.
I wrote:
"its not that you supported them, its that you cited them as a reason polygamy is denied..."
Yah, I am not really interested in speaking with you if this is the level of your comprehension...
I cited the reasons why polygamy is currently not allowed under civil law. I didn't say I supported those reasons or that I believe them to be just.

I can also cite the reasons why same-sex couples are denied equal civil rights, but that doesn't mean I support them or that I believe them to be just. I don't. In both cases.

You could end this whole discussion and win this debate really, really easily if you would just supply a supportable, civilly-based reason to deny equal legal treatment of same-sex couples.

Why don't you just do that?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#329
Jan 24, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I cited the reasons why polygamy is currently not allowed under civil law.
yes, john you did, and that reason was that they do not fit in with the law which prefers a different structure?

is that an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

and I suggest that is equally applicable to gays and the title of this thread is an example of EXACTLY that (in another country)...
and so this is my non circular answer to you, you are not the family structure our society has set laws in preference to...

your simple denials are not arguments...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#330
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
and so this is my non circular answer to you, you are not the family structure our society has set laws in preference to...
Oh really? What did Vermont (YOUR society) do? You being a 'lawyer' and all, don't you have some special handbook as to why Vermont extended marriage rights to gay couples?

OOOOOO.... I bet I can read your mind. Your response is WHAT ABOUT NEW JERSEY? A typical non-answer dodge from our resident fake lawyer.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#331
Jan 24, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Oh really? What did Vermont (YOUR society) do? You being a 'lawyer' and all, don't you have some special handbook as to why Vermont extended marriage rights to gay couples?
OOOOOO.... I bet I can read your mind. Your response is WHAT ABOUT NEW JERSEY? A typical non-answer dodge from our resident fake lawyer.
if you know I am going to ask you about your consistency, why not be consistent?
you just cant be, can you...

So more about my job, what was your job?

you wouldn't know consistency if it bit you...
and keep your joisey attitude in jersey...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#332
Jan 24, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if you know I am going to ask you about your consistency, why not be consistent?
you just cant be, can you...
So more about my job, what was your job?
you wouldn't know consistency if it bit you...
and keep your joisey attitude in jersey...
Bingo. You're SO predictable.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#333
Jan 24, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, john you did, and that reason was that they do not fit in with the law which prefers a different structure?
is that an accurate assessment of what you wrote?
Nope. Not even close. Laws don't show "preferences". Laws define processes. There's no "preference" involved. It the IRS Code in place to express the government's "preference" that people pay their taxes? Or does it define the who, what, where, when, and how of tax obligations and under what circumstances the government can collect them?

Seriously, did you think I wouldn't know that??
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and I suggest that is equally applicable to gays and the title of this thread is an example of EXACTLY that (in another country)...
and so this is my non circular answer to you, you are not the family structure our society has set laws in preference to...
your simple denials are not arguments...
Again, while laws obviously reflect the personal preferences of whoever was behind putting them in place, just because a law is in place doesn't mean that it's fair or just. That's why we have a constitution--so that we have something to measure laws against to ensure a fair and just government. Sometimes it takes time for the unjust laws to change, but eventually they always will.

If I'm wrong, please demonstrate where we have laws in place based solely on what the government "prefers" with no logical or applicable, supportable reason.

(And before you go there, marriage isn't one of them--civil marriage is about property rights and inheritance rights. There are other reasons, too, but that alone debunks your "government preference" claims.)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#334
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if you know I am going to ask you about your consistency, why not be consistent?
you just cant be, can you...
So more about my job, what was your job?
you wouldn't know consistency if it bit you...
and keep your joisey attitude in jersey...
So, in other words--no answer, huh?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#335
Jan 24, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, you said:
"But the reasons that polygamy is STILL illegal basically comes down to two issues--religious bigotry and the Herculean task of examining and changing absolutely every single law that we currently that in any way deals with marriage, family, property rights, divorce, child custody, etc. to accommodate plural marriage. Our system it just not setup to deal with more than one legally recognized spouse at a time. It's that simple"
your "note" means that their inability to fit with current paradigms is a strike against them...now simply apply that CONSISTENTLY...
Polygamy is consistently illegaL.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Gay dads dispel same-sex adoption myths - and a... 50 min DebraE 108
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr DebraE 54,805
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr The Rogue 49,393
Chile sailor publicly discloses his homosexuality 3 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 1
Legislature Says No to "Gay Panic" Defense 3 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 1
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 3 hr Dalmatino 942
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 4 hr Ashley1204 243
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... 4 hr Fa-Foxy 34
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 386
Becker & Poliakoff Lawyer Sends Anti-Gay Email ... 4 hr DNF 21
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••