Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Protecting Traditional Divorce 7

Posted by samzenpus
from the you're-just-going-to-have-to-stay-gay-married-now dept.
lee1 writes "The Texas Attorney General is determined to help protect the traditional definition of divorce, which is the dissolution of the union between a man and a woman. Therefore any gay married couples who find their way into his state had better stay married. From the article: 'Gay and lesbian couples who turn to the courts when they break up are getting mixed results across the nation. A Pennsylvania judge last month refused to divorce two women who married in Massachusetts, while New York grants such divorces even though the state doesn't allow same-sex marriage.'"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Protecting Traditional Divorce

Comments Filter:
  • In the 1400s and 1500s, some European countries did not recognize any marriage other than a Catholic church registry. This was a problem for Jews and other non-Catholics when it came to such things as inheritance. If "marriage" is defined by religious law, there should be NO reference to "marriage" in civil law. All such relationships defined under civil law should be called "civil union" or something along those lines. (I'm not arguing against the concept - I'm married and happy about it - I'm arguing
    • by jandersen (462034)

      Marriage is a convenient legal framework for two people who have chosen to live their lives together. I am not ignoring the significant, emotional investment people make when they marry, but from society's point of view, that is all it is and all it should be. It is a contract that makes it easier to sort out things like inheritance, custody and a number of other matters. Divorce is the legal termination of this contract, simply.

      I can't in all of this, see any reason to involve God or gods, or require that

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DutchUncle (826473)
        No need to construct a new legal framework; we already have the concepts of partnerships among multiple people, and corporations that include yet live beyond the lives of individuals. The discussions aren't new; Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" included such discussions (as a side note) all the way back in 1966, and he wasn't inventing the discussions from scratch then.

        The biggest problem (that I don't see talked about) is financial. So many projections for insurance, benefits, retiremen
    • by Qzukk (229616)

      In the 1400s and 1500s

      Why look that far away? In the 1700s and 1800s, some American colonies (and states) didn't allow Baptists to marry [brucegourley.com].

      Remember that when conservatives write Jefferson out of our history [aolnews.com] to fit their religious worldview.

    • The US was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. And yet, the legal and religious definitions of "marriage" were allowed to intertwine in a quite promiscuous manner. The solution you propose is absolutely correct: rewrite all the legal definitions to not use the term "marriage", and rewrite the laws such that a church wedding has no effect on your legal status and there is no connection between legal and religious "marriage". I realize some people object to allowing religions to contin

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...