randomWalks

I was under the impression that the breakup of civil unions has already resulted in same-sex palimony cases.

So why wouldn't gay marriage potentially end in palimony?

Is he nutty? There are lots of gay male couples with children where one spouse gives up working to stay home and care for the kids or the house or whatever. If they were to divorce, why on earth wouldn't the stay-at-home spouse deserve to be compensated for the loss of prime working years by getting alimony and child support?

And since he specifically says "gay male couples" does Bernstein think the legal accouterments are appropriate for divorcing lesbians? It just boggles the mind.

That's exactly why I'm wondering. I mean, people like that who aren't really making a commitment to each other don't exactly exemplify the marriage ideal. But if even one truly committed gay couple is denied the right to marry because of assumptions about the behavior of gay people as a group (behavior which is at least in part influenced by their second-class status in society), then our policy on the issue is a failure.

Maggie Gallagher's article (the one Bernstein is criticizing) tries to frame marriage as a public action, but that can certainly be an element, there is nothing inherently public about the committment between two people that is at the heart of marriage.

But if even one truly committed gay couple is denied the right to marry because of assumptions about the behavior of gay people as a group (behavior which is at least in part influenced by their second-class status in society), then our policy on the issue is a failure.

Word. I think of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon finally being able to get married after 51 years together.Anyone who looks at pictures of them on their wedding day (or any of these couples, for that matter) and doesn't understand that standing in their way is just wrong plain and simple is, to me, ignorant and hateful.

Bernstein updated with a link to, as he put it, "this snide piece" about how marriage for gay men is a "financial trainwreck" waiting to happen. It gave me the shits and giggles because everything described happens to heterosexual couples every single day -- it's so commonplace and boring that you'd never be able to make a movie out of it with straight characters.

So what I'm wondering is, how is that supposed to make me anti-gay marriage? Everyone should have the legal rights to be as potentially happy and potentially miserable as me.

You breeders are so hopelessly naive that I almost (but not quite, since the gay agenda doesn't allow me to) pity you. Don't you understand what's going to happen? When the gays are allowed to marry, that means you'll have to buy us wedding gifts. And we won't register at anyplace sensible, oh no, no, no. It's all going to be [expensive fashion brand] and [expensive toiletry brand] and [uberexpensive purveyor of china and whatnot]. And, of course, the marriages won't last, but will we return your gifts? NO!

Look at it this way. You have four gay males, Alfonso, Bernardo, Christopher, and Damien.

a. Alfonso marries Bernardo; Christopher marries Damien. You give FABULOUS gifts to both couples.

b. Divorce ensues. Alfonso and Christopher get the china, etc.; Bernardo and Damien get custody of the shih tzus

c. Alfonso marries Damien; Christopher marries Bernardo. Once again, you give FABULOUS gifts to both couples [the upside here is that the wedding receptions are TO DIE FOR]

d. Divorce ensues. Bernardo and Damien get the (newer) china, etc. Alfonso and Christopher sell some stock and buy their own shih tzus

e. The four men go on vacation together and laugh at the breeders while engaging in HIGHLY SINFUL (albeit fun) ACTIVITIES.

the bernstein teaser is based upon an assumption that men support women, and that alimony etc. is based upon that.

However, this view was abandonned by most states decades ago in favor of the "partnership theory of marriage" which is more analogous to a corporation-type partnership, acknowledging that both people form this social unit (i.e., marriage) and contribute their resources and energy towards this social unit for the benefit of each.

Equitible distribution, under this theory, is just that. Both partners make sacrifices for each other, and therefore it would be unjust not to distribute the assets of the partnership equitably upon dissolution.

The same logic applies to what was once called "maintenance". Ex: If one spouse sacrifices a career to raise children, then that spouse may be entitled to a continuing income stream. A better example: In the state of NY, (and others) if one spouse supports the other while s/he is in graduate school, then that degree earned is treated as tangible property, and the supportive spouse would have a right to some of the income earned by that degree. Gender plays no role in these decisions.

Bernstein's comments are completely out of touch with the law.

Anapestic, though more humurous than Bernstein, appears to be out of touch with reality, and inapposite to his/her cause. A friend of mine was denied access to his partner in a hospital as he died from complications due to HIV. Another friend is not accepted by her parents because she is not accepted by society at large. Further, because there is no right to inheritance if Alfonso were to bequeth to Damien the assets, including their residence, that they spent years acquiring, the will would undoubtedly be contested, and Damien would lose because historically Juries refuse to honor dispositions between homosexual couples. If Damien were an heir at law, he could not be disinherited. The above greatly overshadow the fabulous gifts, which materialistic self-loathing breeders ask for too.

May I suggest that anapestic's post was pure humor, designed to shed light on the ridiculousness of Bernstein's apparent assumptions (which you do a good job of examining) about the consequences of gay divorce as well as to elicit a laugh or two.

Rob, I understand that this issue is a serious one, but I would gently suggest that your irony sensors are badly in need of a tune up. I am, as it happens, a gay divorcé, and while I'm not really anxious to be married again, it certainly pains me to see gays who want that right to be deprived of it.

I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that has been significantly less ridiculous than the one I posted above, so I was poking a bit of fun.

point taken. apologies.

re: http://randomwalks.com/archive/2004/03/gay_divorce.php#16110

the other night on america's most wanted there was a segment about a couple who videotaped their rape of a physically handicapped infant.

the photos of these subhumans appeared to be of a very happy and well-adjusted everyday couple.

making assesments of people based on frozen photographic moments is a very problematic practice.

"the photos of these subhumans appeared to be of a very happy and well-adjusted everyday couple."

man bellefontaine, that's exactly what people have said about Raymond and Vanessa Williams, and many other straight couples like them over the years who have beaten, starved, sexually abused or even killed their children, biological, adopted or foster, over the years. Predators are predators, regardless of their sexual orientation, class or race; evil transcends all those boundaries.

So does love, but obviously you are too bigoted to know what love looks like. I'm sorry for you because your heart is not open, and you see and feel less love in the world than the rest of us do.

incredibly, you have restated my point while simultaneously missing it entirely.

quite an accomplishment.

No, actually I reinterpreted your point and you missed that entirely.

I'm sorry you're hateful and dumb to boot!