does he make a valid point?

[Exaspera]

Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us married folk.

[KnitShoni]

I just love how that idiot says that the government isn't supposed to create new rights. Instead of trying to improve things to be fair for everyone, he wants things to stay the way they are. By his logic, blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus. Hell, maybe we should still allow slavery. Such typical ultra conversative BS.

No kidding. And, seriously? Gay marriage is not a "new" right that's being "created." If marriage is a right, it's should be extended to all or none.

[KnitShoni]

Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us married folk.

Heh, I know a lot of people who joke about this. But, then, if my husband goes in the hospital, I can go back and see him (albeit with some questioning and strange looks). Granted, if this were 40 years ago, we'd be in jail...

[Racket_Man]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US constitution specifically spell out in which areas state law takes precedence over federal law, and vice-versa?

Either way, I wanted to mention a gay rights activist in California whose name eludes me at the moment. He has started a campaign to demand that in defense of marriage, the state should ban divorce. What greater threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage could there be other than divorce? 52% of voters felt that gay marriage should not be legalized in the state with, IIRC, the highest rates of both divorce and extra-marital affairs.

the man who started the petition is NOT a gay rights activist but a full on Catholic who started a petition USING the anti-gay marriage crowds OWN language to petition a ban for hetrosexual divorce. his name is John Marcotte. I actually heard about this person about 6 months ago when he appeared on one of the state Public Radio's talk radio programs

an audio of that program is here but you NEED RealPlayer to stream it
http://www.wpr.org/search/ideas_prog...otte&x=13&y=15




here is the petiton (click on "view full petition" to see it all as short as it is)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pro...ohibit-divorce.

here is his web site: http://rescuemarriage.org/

Ihere is a youtube intervew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fb1Y...layer_embedded

although his initial run with this was on a bit of the humorous side it HAS gathered legs.

the guy makes a valid point. if we want to perserve the "almighty sanctity of marriage" between and one man and one woman then BAN civil divorce proceeding. annulments are still OK since they are purely a chruch matter (LOL).

[jackfaire]

I don't see the two questions as having anything to do with each other. "Opposite-sex-only" is specifically a limitation on who you are allowed to marry."No polygamy" really isn't; it's a limit of how many marriages you are allowed to have at the same time.

That is an excellent point. Honestly if your going to use it as a precedent for making same sex marriage illegal then you can also use it as a precedent for making opposite sex marriage illegal.

The huge difference between multiple marriages and same sex marriages is more than just a minor bit of law.

For 1) There are entire sets of inheritance law that if same sex marriage was allowed would then apply to same sex couples the same way they already apply to opposite sex couples. If however you are talking multiple partners and multiple children then inheritance law for marriage would have to be rewritten to account for having more heirs from differing spouses.

2) Who gets to decide to pull the plug. If you have 6 wives which gets the decision or does it go to vote and what if it's 3 vs 3.

Same sex marriage would simply be allowing existing marriage laws to apply to same sex couples without having to completely rewrite the law books.

[smileyeagle1021]

But for me, the only reason I'm against polygamy (meaning multiple person marriages. Er... More than two, that is... I'll just say polygamy because I consider polyamory to mean having a lot of lovers and I'll stop distracting my post now) is because I think the laws would be very, very difficult.

Actually, it wouldn't be that difficult.
Tax code wouldn't have to be adjusted, you can keep married filed jointly to be the same (married filed separately already pays at the same rate), just don't add additional discounts for multiple spouses on the standard deduction, though dependents would naturally increase with additional spouses. Custody would be held jointly with all parties. Then divorce, without a prenup, would be handled exactly the same way as with a two partner marriage, split everything equally, and then the only custody dispute is whether the biological mother or biological father gets the child. You wouldn't even have to break up the entire group for divorce (unless of course they all want out), if just one person wants out, it is not difficult to say (as an example), the group has one million in assets, there are 4 of you, there is no prenuptial agreement, therefor you are entitled to one fourth of that or 250,000 cash or assets, and leave it up to the group to decide how that will be divided out.

[infinitemonkies]

the man who started the petition is NOT a gay rights activist but a full on Catholic who started a petition USING the anti-gay marriage crowds OWN language to petition a ban for hetrosexual divorce. his name is John Marcotte.

My apologies, I stand corrected. I mistakenly took it for satire.

I just love how that idiot says that the government isn't supposed to create new rights. Instead of trying to improve things to be fair for everyone, he wants things to stay the way they are. By his logic, blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus. Hell, maybe we should still allow slavery.

What makes you think that isn't exactly what Cal Thomas wants?

[Hyena Dandy]

the man who started the petition is NOT a gay rights activist but a full on Catholic who started a petition USING the anti-gay marriage crowds OWN language to petition a ban for hetrosexual divorce. his name is John Marcotte.

You're right. Catholics don't understand satire, and none of us support gay marriage. We don't believe in divorce either, which is why we don't have annulments.

[KnitShoni]

We don't believe in divorce either, which is why we don't have annulments.

I thought divorce and annulment were two different things?

[Hyena Dandy]

I thought divorce and annulment were two different things?

An annulment is, for the purposes of the Church, a divorce. The divorce is a legal concept, while the annulment is a spiritual one.

[smileyeagle1021]

Also, Hyena, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a divorce merely ends the marriage and an annulment make it as if the marriage never happened.

[Plaidman]

Indeed. Annulment is when both parties have agreed they want it off and go off.

Divorce is usually one person springing it on the other (usually the wife to the husband), and completely out of the blue, and usually shock to the other who never sees it coming.

[the_std]

Divorce is usually one person springing it on the other (usually the wife to the husband), and completely out of the blue, and usually shock to the other who never sees it coming.

Plaidman, I just want to know where you're getting this information that divorce is generally a surprise to one party, and that the woman is springing it on the man? Do you have any claim to back this up?

From this website, an annulment is making it that a marriage never happened...

A marriage annulment is a legal procedure that dissolves a couple's marital status by establishing that a valid marriage never existed. In effect, it nullifies the marriage, returning the parties to their prior single status. It's a common misconception that short marriages can be annulled, but the length of the marriage is not a qualifying factor. Generally, for a marriage to be declared invalid, one of the following grounds for annulment must be met:

* One or both parties were not old enough to enter the marriage contract;
* There exists a close blood relationship between the parties;
* One party was still legally married when the current marriage occurred;
* One party was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage;
* One of the spouse's didn't have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract. (i.e. due to drunkenness or mental disability)
* One of the spouses entered into the marriage under duress, threat, or force.
* The marriage was entered into fraudulently. This may be due to the concealment of impotence, criminal history, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.

To get an annulment, a person first needs to meet the residency requirements of the state that they live in. The annulment procedure is similar to that of a standard divorce, so it's best to seek the advice of an attorney before your proceed.

[Plaidman]

Plaidman, I just want to know where you're getting this information that divorce is generally a surprise to one party, and that the woman is springing it on the man? Do you have any claim to back this up?

I didn't say that it's always the women that did it, just usually. (Two thirds of the time, to %70 percent based on the state), which is alot more then half which would make it equal.

Also yeah couples do fight. But usually it's not ingrain in the other person that their wife and or husband is unhappy and is thinking about divorce, because even married people fight.

So when it does happen, it puts the person in a shock. Sure, they might agree to it, but when it happens it is a shock. It's not going to be

WIFE/HUSBAND: I want a divorce.
Husband/Wife: Oh, ok sure.


It's

Wife/Husband: WHA... Huyh!? Why?

So yeah, it's a shock and out of the blue USUALLY.

Even if the person has good reason to demand a divorce, (Such as they found a better mate and want to marry them, and want divorce asap so they can finally be with a person instead of cheating (unless they are already cheating), or that their mate is cheating. Or perhaps their mate is drinking themselves toa stupor all the time. Various reasons to ask for a divorce, but it is sprung onto someone. Someone HAS to ask for it, and someone has to start it. They're very very rarely a mutual divorce when both ask for it at same time, in which case, they can get an annulment.

In divorce, both will be fighting for custody of kids, who pays what, who gets what, and both want more and more. (Though the wife normally gets the kids, the house, the stuff, the money. Husband might get a few things and some small cash and maybe joint custody once he gets a home)

[the_std]

Plaid, I was asking if you have any evidence besides "I say". Where are you getting this information? Do you have any proof?