Gay Divorce

[foxy]

With all the press lately about gay marriage (which I support) I've found myself wondering about the implications of gay divorce. I have a lot of friends who've talked about marriage and it seems like weeks later they are already breaking up with their latest flame. Makes me think it's probably just as well they weren't married in the first place. So I wonder how many gay men consider what will happen if the marrige fails. Who gets the house and the dog? If I were a gay divorce laywer I'd start doing my homework now. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

[Guest Merlin]

A related question is that of bigamy. I assume that eventually gay marriage or something very close will be legalized. The laws relating to divorce and bigamy will presumably also apply to gays. So, I doubt that gay marriage will be all that popular with gays. Once it is a possibility, I think most gays will decide that the burden of eventual possible divorce will make it less attractive than it now appears. Just an estimate.

[trilingual]

I agree. I don't think there's going to be ANY difference in divorce laws. What applies to straights will apply to gays. Which is as it should be, since what we want is EXACTLY what straights have, not a bit more and not a bit less. So of course, if we have legalized marriages we'll have to have a way to end them, and that, of course, is divorce.

 

In Vermont that's how civil unions are dissolved, since they carry all the rights and obligations of marriage except the actual name "marriage." I don't know if there have been any actual divorces yet of people who were united civilly in VT, but chances are it won't be long before there are and we can see exactly how it works.

 

And yes, the laws of bigamy/polygamy would apply to same-sex partners, too. Why wouldn't they?

[OneFinger]

>A related question is that of bigamy. I assume that eventually gay marriage or something very close will be legalized. The laws relating to divorce and bigamy will presumably also apply to gays.

 

I live in Utah and last year we convicted a man for heterosexual bigamy. (His second wife was 13 years old when he married her in a religious ceremony.) He's currently appealing that sentence based on the recent sodomy law decision. You're right that laws regarding gays are being used for bigamists.

 

Now, for another twist, there is a group in Utah that believes in the religious aspects of gay bigmay. There are several gay "families" in Utah that have multiple monogomous gay partners who live together in a committed relationship.

[trilingual]

Really? That's fascinating! Has anyone checked Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's graves since this developed? They must be whirling in them so fast they could probably be harnessed to make up for a big part of the current energy shortfall!

[OneFinger]

You might find this link interesting.

 

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=44343

 

They just held a summit to discuss pologamy that is prevelent in Utah and Arizona. Hasn't been until the past 2 years that they've actually started prosecuting men for being bigamists. One, last year, was for a guy named Green that took a 13 year old bride. They got him on child abuse charges. In the past week they also convicted a guy that was a policeman on bigamy charges.

 

Not sure that Brigham and Joseph are rolling over in their graves. I suspect they are rotting in hell (but that's just a personal opinion).

[VaHawk]

Well, I believe a lot of regular posters brought all the major issues up during the threads about gay marriage, but it is good to see them get their own thread, after all the hoopla has died down.

 

As I felt then, and do so again, the lawyers are probably loving it! as legal gay marriage just doubles their client base.

 

If gays want the benefits of legalization of gay unions, then let's not hear any bitching about them having the same rules as heterosexual marriage unions. That includes, divorce, alimony, child support and a legal obligation for the debts of the spouse.

[VaHawk]

>Not sure that Brigham and Joseph are rolling over in their

>graves. I suspect they are rotting in hell (but that's just a

>personal opinion).

 

Just curious. If you dislike the Mormon faith so much then why do you continue to live in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is the "Holy city" of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ?

 

I'm glad to see that you qualified your statement as just a "personal opinion" but I doubt that doing so made your statement any less offensive to those of the Mormon faith. Was there some reason that you felt it necessary to make such a statement in order to make your point?

 

IMO, the issue of bigamy should be a decision for the Mormon Church to decide. I never could understand the position of the Federal government in mandating the abolition of one of the practices of the Mormon faith, as two of the founding principles of the nation are freedom of worship and the separation of church and state.

 

Also just my opinion, but I feel that branding people of other faiths and cultures as pedophiles because they marry 13 year olds, is somewhat intolerable.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Also just my opinion, but I feel that branding people of other

>faiths and cultures as pedophiles because they marry 13 year

>olds, is somewhat intolerable.

 

Well what term would you use to discribe someone who marries and presumably has sex with a 13 year old? Enlightened? - or just lucky?

 

 

fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>As I felt then, and do so again, the lawyers are probably

>loving it! as legal gay marriage just doubles their client

>base.

 

Doubles? I doubt it - try increase by 10%

>

>If gays want the benefits of legalization of gay unions, then

>let's not hear any bitching about them having the same rules

>as heterosexual marriage unions. That includes, divorce,

>alimony, child support and a legal obligation for the debts of

>the spouse.

 

Who's bitching?

 

 

fukamarine

[woodlawn]

>Well, I believe a lot of regular posters brought all the

>major issues up during the threads about gay marriage,

 

Except that the discussion I hoped to see about the implications of gay marriage for gay relationships never really happened. Truly, for a straight guy looking to date, the expectations of women regarding marriage are always an issue. For the gay man looking to date that has never been true. One doesn't have to deal with the other person's expectations regarding marriage if marriage is not possible. Suppose that changes?

 

>As I felt then, and do so again, the lawyers are probably

>loving it! as legal gay marriage just doubles their client

>base.

 

According to what I've read, fewer than 5% of American men consider themselves gay. The percentage who would seriously consider marrying another man is probably even smaller. The result would be that a small number of matrimonial lawyers would see a significant increase in their practices while most would see little or no change.

 

>If gays want the benefits of legalization of gay unions, then

>let's not hear any bitching about them having the same rules

>as heterosexual marriage unions.

 

In most states divorce is not terribly difficult unless there's a substantial amount of money involved or unless there are children. I really don't know how many gay marriages would involve either or both problems.

[+ glutes]

As someone else said in a earlier post:

 

"Ah, the institution of marriage, and who wants to be in an institution?"

[Trixie]

RE: Gay Divorceé

 

Î don't really have a clue how heterosexual divorces are reckoned these days. I believe once upon a time it was presumed in such proceedings that the woman would be a housewife, and as such had no means of support once the marriage was terminated. It was also presumed that she would continue to be the main caregiver of any children involved. Thus alimony and child support became the major factors in any divorce case, to ensure a "raft" of survival post-divorce (not to mention the stigma "divorcee" once carried.) Although times have changed, and the average divorced woman is far less likely to be "without means" than in the past, women are still economically disadvantaged in our society. And to a certain extent, divorce laws reflect that.

In other words, divorce laws reflect traditional heterosexual roles, it seems to me.

Since gay marriage has no traditional roles defined by society (and won't, I'm sure, for another 200 years or so), I wonder on what basis

property and financial decisions will be ruled. Will "roles" have to be defined within gay households? Or, will decisions merely be made on the "palimony" concept, that the less affluent partner in a relatioship has a "right" to continue to live in the "manner in which (s)he has become accustomed."

Trix

[Trixie]

RE: "Other Cultures"

 

It's always fascinating to me to witness when and how the idea of an "other culture" becomes relevant in a discussion of right and wrong. Acts that would not be tolerated in the US are often dismissed as "Well, it's a different culture..." when they happen in another country.

Acts such as female genital mutilation, or arranged marriages. Or, bigamy. I guess the question is whether Utah (or more correctly, members of the Church of Latter Day Saints) qualify as a separate culture. Certainly one can make a case on freedom of religious belief. But if one were to travel that road, one would have to consider the cultural and spiritual traditions of many other american citizens. For instance, the significant numbers of Hmong-(americans) for whom kidnapping the desired bride is a tradition. Or for the many asian-(american) cultures for whom arranged marriage is a tradition. Often well before the age of 13. Imagine the arranged marriage of two people when they were 8 being considered a binding legal contract in the US!

If we allow for the spiritual/cultural desires of the Mormons, must we not also allow for the spiritual/cultural traditions of other minority groups? Even if they are deplored by the majority?

Needless to say, most individuals understand that they must give up such traditions when they choose to immigrate to the US. But maybe some don't want to. As we strive to become a "multicultural" society, must their wants be catered to?

Trix

[OneFinger]

>Just curious. If you dislike the Mormon faith so much then why do you continue to live in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is the "Holy city" of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ?

 

I can answer that question in one word -- WORK!! I have a very good job and haven't been able to make as much money living in other areas of the country.

 

My home, taxes, and overall quality of life is better here than other locations. For example, my property taxes in Michigan were 5 times higher for a home of the same value. In less than one hour I can access 6 ski resorts, approximately 12 large lakes, and numerous rivers. In less than 30 minutes I'm at my mountain property. Other than religious oddities, Utah a nice place to live. (The laws here are a little strange but that was also true when I lived in Connecticut, Missippi, and even California.)

 

BTW the "Holy City" is home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. To my knowledge there is no religious organization called Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ.

[foxy]

Damn!

 

All I've got on my doorstep is New York City!

 

Well, ok Fire Island too.

 

But seriously...who gets to keep the dog?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Focus, People

 

One of the beneficial aspects of legal recognition of a committed relationship between two men or two women would be that it would afford certain rights to both parties, jointly and individually. Personally, I do not find it necessary to have either a document to advise me (or the world) that I am in such a committed relationship or public recognition of such a relationship. What I might want and need is that legal recognition and the legal rights that flow thereon.

 

There are too frequent instances of families dispossessing the remaining partner at the death of their relative because there was no will, or because the family simply successfully challenged a will; instances of surviving partners being locked out of their own homes; or being unable to make medical or other significant decisions for their partners in the partner's incapacity, etc.

 

Not every same sex couple would seek this type of legal recognition and some who might benefit from it would possible not like to consider the implications or consequences. But the opportunity should be there for them to exercise and that is a consequentially right that is being denied and which might logically come to fruition as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision.

 

There are substantial public policy rationales which would limit, in a legal manner, bigamy, bestiality and many of the other absurd concerns being raised. Irrespective of legal recognition of committed relationships between two men or two women, these public policy rationales would remain. They would simply be more equitably applied, which no logical person could be against.

[Rick Munroe]

Derek told me that if we ever get divorced, he gets custody of my ass.