Gay Divorce

Amy Austin | April 12, 2005
I'm so happy to see the end of the Gay Marriage discussion that I'm not even going to start a "Gay Marriage II"... but the new title is more appropriate anyway.

Like *most* people here, I don't have anything against gay people or their unions -- I support equal rights for everyone. However, that's just it -- "equal rights" are equal rights. Listening to NPR on the way home yesterday, I heard this story:
(link)

It's another example of people wanting to have it both ways -- all the perks & bennies, but none of the yucky stuff. If gay people want to be "married" so badly, then this shouldn't even be a complaint. Such whining is only shooting themselves in the foot for their cause. Hell, I don't want the nightmares of divorce, either... but that's the price we heterosexuals pay for messing up in matrimony -- what the hell makes gay folk think that they should be immune to these consequences???

Anna Gregoline | April 12, 2005
Is there information that's not audio? I can't listen to it right now.

Amy Austin | April 12, 2005
Sorry, I really had to search just to find this -- as I said, I heard it on the radio, and so was glad to find the same story, but I can't find a print source. Perhaps you can find it? But I'm sure you realize & can appreciate how difficult a keyword search for this subject is...

Denise Sawicki | April 12, 2005
The particular couple interviewed in that story apparently hadn't signed up to be married in the traditional sense. When they became "domestic partners," the domestic partnership laws only included a few things such as letting one person be covered under their partner's health insurance. Then the laws changed and became much more like a traditional marriage, requiring division of assets on termination of the partnership, etc. I can understand wanting out if the laws change and the definition becomes something that they hadn't wanted in the first place. I'm sure some straight people decide not to get married for reasons such as these. I can see why you say it hurts their cause, however.

Anna Gregoline | April 12, 2005
Yeah, I'm not really turning up much. I don't really know the gist of the story so I can't really comment (although I probably wouldn't listen anyway as I have little patience for listening to news - I'd much rather read it, so hopefully this story will surface in a paper somewhere). If the laws changed though, after a union was final, I can see how it might change what people wanted to do regarding their union.

Amy Austin | April 12, 2005
Yes, the couple "signed up" for "domestic partnership" before a law changed things. *However*... the law that supposedly changed things was created with the express purpose of giving gays the *right* to divorce -- something that apparently struck a chord with the one partner (the one with more earnings, property, and children from a previous marriage -- if you notice, the second partner did say that he was at first hurt by the other's decision to "go through all the nasty stuff up front" -- he obviously had to be made to see things the same way).

My point is, how is it fair for couples like this to seek out the benefits of being married, if they *aren't* willing to take the bad with the good? This is part of what people who are against their cause are talking about with regards to "the sanctity of marriage" -- it isn't just a "religious" term/concept... it's a "good faith" principle and something that shouldn't be entered into lightly. Only marrying for the bennies *is* making a mockery of marriage, because without the penalties of divorce, then what else -- besides good faith commitment -- will compel a couple to stick it out and make the marriage work? Or, more pointedly, I guess, what's to keep any two people of the same sex (let's just use myself and my college roommate -- herself a straight divorcee at that time -- as an example) from forming a union that exists solely for the exploitation of rights... such as medical coverage. My friend was a state employee of the university, with comprehensive insurance coverage -- while I had none. Under the "domestic partnership" arrangement, it would have been quite easy for me to avail myself of her coverage until one or the other of us decided to call it quits and/or get married "in the traditional sense" -- and we did joke about it plenty, because for all intents and purposes (except for sex), we were a lot like any married couple.

Yes, perhaps these seem like minor concessions to make "for the cause!" -- after all, straights can perpetrate their own fraudulent marriages, too -- but the spotlight on stories such as this is what will be causing everyone to see marriage as essentially bereft of any real purpose and a fraud... thus defiling its "sanctity". And yes, this kind of selectivity is *very* detrimental to their ultimate mission of acceptance and equality as couples. What, after all, is one to conclude from that story other than that gays only want "fair weather" marriages, where they're entitled to pure monetary gain and not subject to possible loss? At a minimum, it surely doesn't show any good faith in their own marriages.

Denise Sawicki | April 12, 2005
You have a point, Amy. The one partner apparently didn't want to be married with all the rights and responsibilities, and may have been taking advantage of the system to get health coverage or other benefits. That doesn't mean every same-sex couple is like that, but it is unforunate that it could be interpreted as such by those who oppose gay marriage.

I looked up that (California) domestic partnership law and, strangely, it only allowed such partnerships to occur between either same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples in which at least one of the partners is over age 62. It does seem quite odd and discriminatory towards opposite sex couples under age 62. Then again, despite how odd the law was, I think it is to be expected that anyone, gay or straight, might take advantage of such a law if they do not want to be married.

In other news, speaking of insurance, I'm somewhat annoyed that: 1. I could have gotten Darrell health insurance for half the price if we weren't married, and 2. The fact that he once had a speeding ticket increases my car insurance despite his having no desire to drive my car. :P

Anna Gregoline | April 12, 2005
but the spotlight on stories such as this is what will be causing everyone to see marriage as essentially bereft of any real purpose and a fraud...

I see it differently - that it's people who WANT to see gays as trying to be sneaky or something, or wanting special rights that are putting the spotlight on stories like these, which, from what I can tell, aren't all that different from what straight people are doing, in an effort to show how ungrateful/disrespectful gay marriage peeps are being.

But, I still don't understand the story, so I'll butt out now.

Scott Hardie | April 12, 2005
Once again, Anna says it before I can (and Denise too). This is what one couple is doing, not what all gay couples would do or are doing. There's no need for the right to see a pattern, and no need for the left to worry about the right seeing a pattern.

You make a lot of good points, Amy. One male friend used to joke with me (several times) about how we should get married for the wedding presents and then get divorced, but I finally had to ask him to stop the jokes out of my respect for the institution. :-\

Anna Gregoline | April 12, 2005
You know, I never realized it until I started planning my wedding, but at least for me, it really ISN'T about gifts or whatnot. I wouldn't be put out if one of my friends didn't give me a gift - their well-wishes are good enough! I'm not getting married for presents, I'm getting married to make that commitment to my guy. It will be awesome to be surrounded by family and friends at that moment, and I'm priviledged to be able to do so.

It amazes me that people take marriage so lightly these days (And of course, that is NOT a comment on gay marriages - you all know my position on that - gay people are just as worthy of a marital union as the straights).

I don't know if they would ever dare say anything, but I wonder if anyone is gay on this board...I wish we had at least a few gay members here. I dislike having a debate about any group of people without hearing from someone in that group.

Scott Hardie | April 12, 2005
Anna, I think you just invited Dave Mitzman and/or Scott Horowitz to "out" the other one. :-)

Denise Sawicki | April 12, 2005
I was rather shocked that we got any wedding gifts, since I told people not to give me any! We got gifts from people who weren't even informed of the wedding in advance, let alone invited.

Scott Hardie | April 12, 2005
Denise, I was all proud of myself because I went out and bought gifts when I figured most other people would follow your instructions. Then I got what I deserved: My gifts turned out to be possibly the cheapest ones there. ;-)

Denise Sawicki | April 12, 2005
Your gifts were very nice, thank you! It's slightly more exciting to get gifts rather than money since money just goes to the same place that all the rest of my money is sitting in. Yeah, I'm sure that our monetary gifts have more than paid for all wedding-related expenses, which is not the way these things are supposed to go. (I feel guilty.) It is funny, Darrell's aunts don't speak to him or anything but one after another they gradually sent checks... They must have heard through the grapevine that the rest of the aunts were doing it so they all had to do so, to keep up appearances...