Seems they haven't ammended the divorce laws to re-define the legal definition of 'spouse' from "Man or woman of the opposite sex" to, um, person to which the um, divorce-seeker was married.
This is just sad. I mean, we see "oops" marriages in the hetero realm all the time. I guess I had just hoped it would take longer to spread to the gay community, since the fight to get the right to legally marry was such a long one (I know this is Canada. The U.S. fight will be longer and probably much more acrimonious).
[ July 30, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think there is a couple in San Francisco that is still waiting to find out if their marriage will be declared legal so that they can get a divorce.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sanctity of marriage: gays shouldn't be allowed to divorce.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I wonder if they're doing it as an activist sort of thing, or if they really wanted to divorce after 5 days of marriage.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh, they were almost certainly doing it for the activist thing. Of course, I have no real idea, it just seems to make sense.
Anyway, the whole situation is pretty stupid and I'm sure it won't take long for the divorce laws to catch up with the marriage ones. In a way it's probably a good thing it's come up as soon as it did. It brought up that there's a host of other things that need to be taken care of other than who can marry who.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Feh - I'm not sure why you need to define a marriage from the divorce standpoint. If you were married, we're simply undoing the marriage.
As to the five day thing - that happens all the time. Without statistics to back it up, I'd imagine quite a few marriages in Vegas' all night, drive-through wedding chapels lasted until someone sobered up.
-Trevor
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, and there's the best reason for either remaining single or marrying the opposite sex only . . . . legally bound for eternity? Gadzooks, how stifling . . .
Sorry - my sarcastic streak has run amok this e'en . . . forgie me . . .
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker - while I can't personally speak as to the fulfilling nature of a homosexual relationship, it seems to work for the parties involved.
If that's your thing, great - but I'm not sure why being bound to a woman for all eternity is a great thing either.
-Trevor
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Another reason I'd rather not be Mormon. One lifetime is enough.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I mean, we see "oops" marriages in the hetero realm all the time. I guess I had just hoped it would take longer to spread to the gay community, since the fight to get the right to legally marry was such a long one (I know this is Canada. The U.S. fight will be longer and probably much more acrimonious).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)