23 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Sunday, May 19, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Vermont does not have same sex marriage. It has civil unions. Massachusetts has same sex marriage. The problem with divorces is if a couple is married in a jurisdiction that allows their marriage and then moves and attempts to divorce in a jurisdiction that does not allow their marriage to begin with. I remember reading about such a case in CN but I don’t remember the outcome. |
There is a notable case of a civil union in Vermont where Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller had a child through donor insemination. When they split up the Vermont court stipulated child support awarded visitation rights to Jenkins. Miller, the birth mother, meanwhile moved to Virginia with the child, became a conservative Christian and decided that she was no longer lesbian. She cut off all contact with Jenkins and didn’t think that Jenkins was a legal parent with rights equal to hers. The case has been tossed about in the courts for years. It was even brought to the U.S. Supreme Court which chose not the hear the case. From a legal perspective, it is an interesting case. The respective legal counsel accounts are here and here. One legal analyst summarizes the case here. |
I don’t see why there’d be any major differences. Potentially child custody could be an issue, but I believe most states moved away from a “mom gets the kids” analysis in favor of a multi-factored “best interests of child” test years ago. I think the Utah Supreme Court decided an issue like this a year or two ago, but I’m not sure where they came down. |
Just found the Utah case–Jones v. Barlow, 2007 UT 20. Apparently, in that case only one of the partners was the legal “parent” of the child. |
I think this is one of the reasons same-sex couples want the marriage choice open to them (no, I’m not in favor of it). So that when they split up, there’s a little more protection under the law. Everything becomes joint property in marriage and if one spouse stays home to raise the children while the other goes to work, he/she would be entitled to some of the other spouse’s income (if I understand this correctly) upon divorce (also depending upon the length of the marriage and the state). It all gets very muddy once the “husband” and “wife” titles are dissolved… |
It only gets muddy if the courts normally favor the mother over the father. |
“Everything becomes joint property in marriage” This is not necessarily true. Depends on the state. |
I guess there might be a big fight over who gets what clothes? |
Or which power tools. |
If same-sex couples aren’t going to be allowed to use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship, then we should also be denying them the use of the term “divorce”. “Domestic dissolution” or “civil disunion” will just have to do. This encroachment has just got to stop. Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a yard, by golly. |
Doubt it… |
Mark N, I believe that the proper designation for the breakup of a “Civil Union” is “Civil War.” |
Well… I do know California is a community property state. |
Miss Miller’s story seems to lend credence to my theory about move people choosing homosexuality when it appears as a viable option. It will be interesting to see what the statistics are for the dissolution of same-sex marriages. Homosexuals have traditionally had a much higher volatility of relationships, especially homosexual men, than heterosexual couples. Even post-AIDS, the CDS statistics for the average number of gay partners is staggering. A piano-mover friend of mine once said gays were a large part of his repeat business because they moved-in and moved-out so frequently. Since such a small percentage of gay men have long term relationships, it makes one wonder what the real motives behind the push for gay marriage are. What might hit the news prior to gay-divorce is gay-domestic-violence, both men and women. It is has a much higher rate of incidence than heterosexual domestic violence. Anyway, annegb, if I remember correctly, the first petition for divorce was less than a year after gay marriage started in Massachussetts. |
Gay couples divorcing? Now there’s a bitch fight I’d love to see |
Bookslinger – I think the push for gay marriage is built on wanting the “ideal” relationship; marriage. However, I believe that it’s impossible for two of a kind to ever completely complement one another the way that a man complements a woman and vice versa. So while a loveing, long-term relationship isn’t created by pinning the term marriage on any relationship, the homosexual community is still trying to prove their relationships are as stable and valid as traditional heterosexual relationships. You’d think Roman history never permiated our society! |
Samuel and others, Knock it off or watch your comments evaporate. If we can’t have these discussions as adults of some sort then you’re going to be asked to not participate. |
I guess I didn’t spell my questions out well enough. You guys, I’m not asking rhetorically. I’m curious about this. I recall that case of the women in Utah who separated and fought over the child. That wasn’t a legally recognized marriage or divorce. I’m wondering how things go in those states that recognize gay marriage and I’m also wondering about the statistics. Do more divorce? Or if they get that far as to make that legal public commitment, are they more vested and do those unions tend to go the distance? I’m not sure if I agree about the violence in homosexual relationships. But I don’t know much about that. I think that males might tend to be more violent with one another as part of a screwed up courtship ritual because men are so aggressive in nature anyway. But that’s not necessarily an abusive relationship. Paroled from Primary, being in my disenchanted with marriage state, I have to say I know a lot of women—and have heard from a lot—-who don’t feel complimented by their husbands. I believe many women stay in unhappy marriages because of societal and religious pressure, especially in Utah. Oh, let’s tell it like it is, especially in my neighborhood. Not that I know any women who want to take off with other women. I just know women who thought my little trailer life in Parown sounded like bliss. But I digress. ARJ, I didn’t even consider that problem of one state not recognizing a same sex marriage. What a can of worms we have opened here! I am starting to be convinced that the Supreme Court must take a stand on this issue because surely the waters will only become muddier and don’t you think more and more children will be involved? What a mess! |
annegb – I didn’t say women and men compliment one another (though they can and often do). I said they complement one another; it’s a different word meaning one thing that completes or fills up another. And it’s true that not every marriage can find a balance that provides this type of completion but I do not believe it’s even possible in same-sex marriages. The relationships may be rewarding on some level–and even comforting–but the relationship between a man and a woman creates the potential for completion in a way that a same-sex relationship cannot. I’ve been disenchanted with marriage myself and have often thought my single girlfriend might have figured out a better life (even as a single mom of three kids) but I also see what she misses without a husband. So while “traditional” marriages are not perfect (in fact I’ve never known anyone with a perfect marriage), they do have the potential to be much more than same-sex unions. |
On a different note… My brother-in-law is an attorney and studied family law for a time before choosing his current line of work. He is LDS but is actually somewhat in favor of new laws regarding same-sex marriages/unions because he believes everyone is entitled to protection under the law; gay or straight. He also believes children should be protected and given rights when their parents choose to build a life with a person of the same gender. He recently received a request from a former coworker who is asking people to donate to the “Question 8″ ammendment in California protecting same-sex marriages. But while he agrees everyone is entitled to protection under the law, he also takes the Prophet’s recommendations seriously and would never contribute money to such a campaign. So, all in all, he’s rather conflicted about how to vote should the question arise in his own state. |
Paroled from Primary Presidency (I find your name so compelling, it reflects my current train of thought regarding church callings)…I think I understand where your brother-in-law is coming from. I experienced a similar moral dilemma a long time ago during the MX missile debate. I was virulently opposed to the project. When the prophet came out against it, agreeing with me (personally, my butt felt so gold for awhile LOL)I had such chills because I kept thinking, “what if the church had come out in favor of it?” What would I do then?” I have many beliefs that, while not necessarily in opposition to the church’s official stance, skirt issues. How I handle it now is to just keep my mouth shut, unless I feel I must advocate and then I try to do it as sensitively as possible, always leaving the matter in God’s hands. I think a vote is a private matter and he could vote how he wanted, it’s the open opposition that gets people in trouble. IMHO. I never knew what that word meant, complement. How interesting. I recently found out the difference betweeen mementos and momentos and it’s always illuminating. I don’t know “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” sort of runs through my mind every once in awhile. When I was a single mother, most of my 20′s I was desperately lonely. Then I got married, instantly became the mother of three instead of one, and yearned for the good old days. I certainly don’t feel Bill and I complement each other in any way. (Those who remember my old posts about my marital bliss, I don’t know what to tell you, I’m unhappy these days.) Couldn’t we make the argument that a soulmate, male or female, could complete another? I still haven’t heard an answer to my question about statistics re the incidence of divorce in same sex marriages. You just don’t hear about it. I’ve wondered if they even occur, although there have been instances cited here. They don’t seem to occur very often. |
Couldn’t we make the argument that a soulmate, male or female, could complete another? I don’t believe in soulmates completing one another. I just don’t. You have to build and work at it. And if we really believe our own theology, we recognize that a “complete” union can only be a celestial one. So there’s no way even at death here on earth, that we are as complete as we can be. [That's not an argument for or against extending certain rights to every person here on earth. I'm only addressing here what we perceive to be the highest order of marriage, and whether or not it has implications for the idea of earthly completeness.] |
…we recognize that a “complete†union can only be a celestial one. Thanks, qeuno. This is my point regarding the plan for men and women to be together. No relationship is perfect because as humans we are not perfect. But the only way a union can be complete is by following the prescribed plan put forth for our happiness by our FIH. Every relationship requires work and I also do not believe in “soulmates”. I believe at various points in our lives we have the opportunity to build relationships with people who help us become better than what we have been in the past. Who I married at 22 is probably not who I would have chosen if I were marrying at 40. Likewise, a poor match for me in my 20s could be a great match for me later in life. Sorry that I don’t have an answer to your questions about the hard facts related to the fallout from same-sex marriages, annegb. My guess is while these relationships have been around since the dawn of time (well, maybe since “The Fall”) I would guess there is little statistical information regarding the breakdown of such relationships. And because same-sex marriages are so new, it will probably take a good decade to figure out how marriage and divorce applies to same-sex unions in all 50 states. |
