The Huffington Post just put up an article about the challenges facing would-be gay divorcees. Getting the endorsement of the President is a big deal, but what do you guys think about the issues beyond gay marriage?
To me that article is simply more reason to have marriage equality nationwide. Once that happens there will be no such thing as gay marriage or gay divorce. There will be simply marriage and there will be divorce; the same rules will apply to all couples. That’s true equality.
ETA: Actually I think this isn’t the correct forum for this topic.
Sorry, not in a position to read the article (could you quote some parts you think are relevant??), but I don’t see the problem. Make marriage uniform, regardless of who is getting married. There you go…problem solved. Divorce is exactly the same between two humans of the same sex as it is between two humans of opposite sex.
Seriously, this is like saying ‘well, now that we “allow” interracial marriage, think about what a divorce would mean!’.
-XT
I don’t see a debate, here.
I suspect that I will be moving this thread to IMHO unless an actual debate breaks out.
I disagree!
That’d be an interesting Onion article.
Major gay rights groups have announced that after reviewing the statistics on American heterosexual marriages, they have learned that any same-sex marriages made after they are legalized have a 50/50 chance of ending in divorce, they have withdrawn all support for legalizing same-sex marriage and have started a nationwide campaign to pass a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh made light of the announcement later on his radio show, saying that “it’s good that the gays have come to their senses on this”, though he was later heard muttering that he wished God would have made him gay as he signed his monthly alimony checks for his three ex-wives.
It would be interesting if same sex divorce was not allowed due to some legality, though SSM permitted.
It was an issue in Canada after the courts in some provinces recognised same-sex marriage but before Parliament passed uniform legislation. There was a couple who got married then split up shortly afterwards and wanted to get a divorce. They had to challenge the constitutionality of the federal Divorce Act, using the same arguments that had been used to get same-sex marriage recognised.
Good grief…why would they make marriage symmetrical while having divorce be asymmetrical?? 
I guess I just don’t get it. Why complicate things? Simply allow any two consenting adults who want to get married to do so…and then, have the divorce laws be the same for any married couple. Who cares what the sex of two people who want to marry is??? What matters if if THEY want to get married…or, conversely, if once married they want to get divorced.
For that matter, make divorce more uniformed wrt the division of property (I’m assuming that this is the issue?? How to divide the property if it’s two men in a marriage, or if it’s two women?? Who gets the kids, assuming they have any?? Something like this?), at the very least by state if not federally.
Why do people need to make something as simple as this so freaking complex??
-XT
They wouldn’t. The problem is that married gay couples don’t always reside in states that recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and you can’t just travel to another state to get a divorce like you can to get married.
Which can lead to a situtation were Carol and Alice get married in North Tacoma, they break up and Carol moves to South Tacoma, where she can’t file for divorce from Alice since South Tacoma considers them to have never married in the first place, Carol then meets Bob, decides she’s bisexual & marries him. As long as she stays in ST she’s married to Bob, but if she sets foot in NT she’s married to Alice. She’d also be married to Alice in in say a dozen other random states, but to Bob in the rest of the Union. Which would be a problem if they moved to one of those states, or even went there on vacation or one of the got in an accident. Or if NT later decided to legalise same-sex marriage. Good news for everybody’s lawyers though.