"BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated."

(Further down the article states the couple has not filed for divorce. But still.)

First of all, I'm not married, and never have been. Second, the thought of same-sex marriages doesn't bother me. Hell, if some neighbor of mine wanted to marry his dog, I'd let him.

Personally, I'm dying to know the reasons for the separation. I bet I know the underlying cause: They married for love.

Now, don't get me wrong--there's nothing wrong with that. But it shouldn't be the only reason. I want to know if they put as much effort into planning their marriage as much as they planned for (or fought for) their wedding.

Pretty snarky of me, I admit. But I know of too many people who've spent tons of hours planning every detail of their wedding, saying it's consuming every spare minute they have. I, for one, believe them, and I wonder how they're planning on merging their bank accounts, or discussing the assets they'll soon be buying in both of their names. I'm sure they talked about kids, sometime after spending several hours picking out the right shade of blue for their napkins, but did they talked about retirement?

Did Julie and Hillary? Yeah, all this speculation is pretty unfair of me, considering all I know about their separation is what I read in a news article on the internet. After all, it's entirely possible they've separated because they can't stand the sight of each other anymore.

Posted by: Victor at 06:36 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I don't understand why people are in such a hurry to get married anyway. Personally, I love being single. The thought of having to share my life with someone -- that scares me. I don't think I could ever like anyone that much. But I guess that's the whole point of love -- you can overlook the fact that you don't like someone, because you love him/her/it. That's one reason I think that if you're going to absolutely insist that the state officially declare to everyone that the two of you have regular sex, you should have to wait AT LEAST a year before getting into the unpleasantness of actually merging your assets. Hum. Come to think of it, I wonder why more couples don't just keep their assets separate. Unromantic, sure, but a hell of a lot smarter, imho. But who am I to complain, I am a trial lawyer and we always win

Posted by: The Law Fairy at July 25, 2006 01:05 PM (XUsiG)

2 Yeah, I have to admit that I have a very hard time getting fired up about the gay marriage thing. It's the libertarian part of me. I listen to people like Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger make some strong arguments against, but after thinking about if for a minute I usually get back to..."whatever." Not very analytical or intellectual of me, but, hey, I'm being honest. Each one of us picks our battles. This one ain't mine.

Posted by: Blu at July 25, 2006 02:39 PM (j8oa6)

3 As an expat Masshole myself, my problem isn't with gay marriage but with how the state got there. If I were a legislator, I would vote to allow it, but the idea that the oldest written constitution still in effect in the world, drafted by John Adams, requires gay marriage, but no one noticed until the SJC "discovered" it a couple of years ago, just doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.

Posted by: Dave J at July 25, 2006 05:39 PM (SKqxt)

4 I was thinking "Who cares?", but obviously, some of you fools actually do.

Posted by: shelly at July 26, 2006 06:22 AM (BJYNn)

5 Ecce Homo I was going to be pithy, and leave it at that, but two of the three commenters so far, and the author are too jejune to understand. The au currant state of humanity has reduced God's symbolic relationship with man on earth to a hunt for medical and survivorship benefits. Now THAT is irony.

Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2006 06:22 AM (rEC2k)

6 I'm compelled to jump in, b/c Shelly is calling people "fools." What Casca said. Further - the nation/state has a vested, and proper, interest in promoting traditional marriage: traditional marriage helps the nation/state sustain itself; and traditional marriage helps the nation/state thrive. The state, if it is not suicidal, has a duty to promote any moral thing which does that. Traditional marriage is much more than a dry set of legal rights. Further further - beyond religious importance, beyond importance to the nation-state, bestowing legal rights upon gay couples opens up an unfathomable can of legal worms. It is unforseeable how far the ramifications would stretch. Sanctioning SSM is not to be undertaken lightly. One CAN oppose it, or question it, w/o being a bigot or a fool. However, it appears one MAY not oppose or question it w/o being characterized as such.

Posted by: gcotharn at July 26, 2006 08:05 AM (OuTrm)

7 Hey Casca, There are two grammatical mistakes in your sentence. If you are "too jejune to understand," please let me know. I can assist you off-line. "I was going to be pithy, and leave it at that, but two of the three commenters so far, and the author are too jejune to understand."

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 09:35 AM (zCjMA)

8 Just giving you a hard time, Casca. Not having passion for an issue, doesn't make a person "jejune" regarding its importance or lack thereof. Frankly, I wish more Christian/conservative people would spend at least as much time talking about the issues associated to the divorce-rate as they do gay marriage. Divorce is an issue that has infinitely more impact on families than whether gay people are allowed to marry.

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 09:56 AM (zCjMA)

9 We Christian/conservative people devote our lives - as best we fallibly can - to living the Word of God. If that does not equate to supporting marriage, and to battling the influences which contribute to divorce, then nothing does. I talk, or write, about gay marriage maybe three to six occasions a year - or less. I try to live the Word of God every day, except when I fall short, such as this: "blu, I love ya, but you can take that last uninformed comment and stuff it where the sun don't shine."

Posted by: gcotharn at July 26, 2006 11:31 AM (OuTrm)

10 I don't doubt your personal commitment, gcotharn. It is not mine to judge anyway. My point was political not personal: I constantly get "alerts" from the AFA about gay marriage. That's fine. They, along with many other good conservative groups, do a lot of important work fighting the good fight. I have NEVER received an alert from AFA decrying the divorce rate - among Christians. My point was that I'd like to see same amount of the political capital used on gay marriage used on a more important issue like divorce. That is a topic that is discussed "in-house." (I don't know your particular denomination, but I go to a conservative evangelical church. The importance of marriage is a constant topic as it should be.) And I suspect one of the reasons that this issue is not given the same sort of public viewing from groups like the AFA is that the divorce rate among Christians is the same as it is for the general public: that is not a good record. I don't know of one child from a broken Christian family that is hurt more by gay marriage than by the fact that their parents didn't hold true to their vows. At any rate, this discussion aside, I'm still not fired up about the topic. That doesn't mean I support it, and it doesn't mean I'm not conservative or Christian. Indeed, I argue as fervently as anybody for conservative positions - especially as they relate to foreign policy and economics. My comment is hardly uninformed. However, it may have hit a sore spot.

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 02:00 PM (zCjMA)

11 If political capital were used on the issue of divorce - what would that look like?

Posted by: gcotharn at July 26, 2006 03:04 PM (OuTrm)

12 I'm not certain how to frame that issue in a (political) way that resonates or that would be effective. Perhaps making divorce more difficult(in states like California, for example.) That particular example would be a very difficult sell and would have the femi-nazis up in arms. But there is a powerful societal interest in keeping families together. Something a little more radical (and that has not a snow ball's chance in hell of ever happening) would be to make getting married more difficult. I think some states have attached conseling requirements to marriage. However, this had the Left up in arms because the marriage "training" (if my memory is correct) had some religious connotations. I think Annika's second to last paragraph, though written with humor in mind, makes a lot of sense. At my church, our pastor will absolutely not marry a couple of they have not gone through an extensive marriage counciling session that includes a multitude of topics, including finaces, views on raising children, attitudes towards the importance of family, etc.

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 05:31 PM (zCjMA)

13 Blu, I actually wrote that post--annika is still on holiday. Greg, I think you're missing part of Blu's point (and Blu, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me): Divorce has a greater impact on the American family than anything else--a statement I agree with entirely. The US is fortunate the divorce rate is dropping but it's still pretty high. I'm curious about one thing: Greg, you wrote bestowing legal rights upon gay couples opens up an unfathomable can of legal worms. I honestly do not see that; could I trouble you to discuss that a bit more (or direct me to one of your posts where you discuss it)? Thanks much.

Posted by: Victor at July 26, 2006 07:01 PM (l+W8Z)

14 Billy Graham once said Christians get too wound up about homosexuality. Graham said he considered homosexuality a sin, but it was no worse of a sin than the sins he (Graham) committed every day. I think Christians tend to get too wound up about sexual stuff in general. However, a person can be perfectly relaxed about a tremendous plethora of sexual practices - including homosexuality - and still oppose gay marriage; and also not be a bigot; and also not have his/her priorities misplaced. My calculation is that gay marriage would have a significant negative impact on the strength and the health of the American nation. I could be right or wrong - none of us can see the future. But I do not dismiss SSM as an issue of low significance. Blu, I retract and apologize for my "sun don't shine" comment. I can see you sincerely believe lowering the divorce rate can be effected at the legislative level. I disagree, but I acknowledge that you are sincere, and were not merely making a drive-by slur at conservative Christians. If counseling ever became a state a requirement for marriage, I would be first in line to protest the new law. IMO, that's an appropriate requirement for a church to impose - but not a state. Victor - for a quick look at the wide-ranging legal ramifications of SSM, this Weekly Standard article, by Maggie Gallagher, is excellent: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Posted by: gcotharn at July 26, 2006 08:35 PM (OuTrm)

15 Yeah, the requirement idea is pretty radical, and I don't think many would buy into it. It would really come across as a Big Brother move. It was just a thought given your appropriate challenge as to how the issue could be addressed. With that said, a marriage license is a government sanctioned license just like other licenses that require a certain amount of knowledge in order to obtain. The problem is in the details (i.e. what would you teach and whose values would dominate the requirements?) From a federalism perspective, one could argue that this is exactly the sort of thing that should be decided at a state level. Anyway, this is a topic that deserves a much more detailed and thoughtful response than I could ever give it in this type of forum. Gallagher write quite a lot of thoughtful pieces related to marriage - it's her niche.

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 09:31 PM (zCjMA)

16 p.s. Thanks for the retraction, but I wasn't offended. I figured that you just misread me. You read enough of my posts to know that I'm not a moonbat. So, I figured that it was my bad for not explaining myself well enough.

Posted by: Blu at July 26, 2006 09:34 PM (zCjMA)

17 Blu wrote: >Frankly, I wish more Christian/conservative people would spend at least as much time talking about the issues associated to the divorce-rate as they do gay marriage. Divorce is an issue that has infinitely more impact on families than whether gay people are allowed to marry. I completely agree, though there is some attention given in some circles to attempt to keep marriages strong. The divorce rate, however, is roughly the same among Christian and non-Christian couples.

Posted by: will at July 27, 2006 09:36 AM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment