Archive for Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Couple who led gay marriage fight divorcing

February 4, 2009

Advertisement

— A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts have filed for divorce.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

Comments

rusty2 6 years, 5 months ago

Freedom to Marry weekFebruary 8 to 14th.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

34 of 34 states have ratified marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Let's keep it up!

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

First of all Larry, that's not a point. Secondly, god didn't create anything because god doesn't exist. But if there was a god and it did create humans, Steve didn't get left out. He's here, he's queer... deal with it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

" Not Adam and Steve."If God didn't create them, who did?

rusty2 6 years, 4 months ago

dear barrypenders -favorite quote attributed to W.C.Fields:there are two theories about women,both of them are wrong.

rusty2 6 years, 4 months ago

take it from a carpenter separating tongue & groove furniture construction is a lost art -- those kind of joints require a lot of initial craftsmanship but make for long term great fits, usually.much better than glued & screwed or modern composition board.

meggers 6 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, and Ms. 'sanctity of marriage', Lynn Jenkin's husband filed for divorce the day after she won election. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's pretty interesting to see folks railing about how gay marriage will somehow threaten the 'sanctity' of marriage, while their own marriages are falling apart. As long as the government is codifying marriage by providing additional benefits to married couples, the option should be available to all consenting adults, regardless of gender. And yes, a number of those marriages- both gay and straight- will end in divorce.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

Barry I can't find anything that says more men have AIDS than women. The article I found said that as of the end of 2007, about 30 million people were affected and about half were women.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

Rachelisatroll, the point is- it's a human interest story because of the thick irony.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

The divorce is ironic, I think that's the point the story is making. They fought real hard to be allowed to marry, only to end up as most do. Divorced. Thankfully I am pretty sure my wife will kill me long before she leaves me.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

Bang (or should I call you "troll" in kind?) - Thick irony? There's irony in people getting married and then getting divorced???! All this time I thought marriage had a 100% success rate.I never knew such irony. Glad you're here to educate us all. And Trobs - blacks and women fought really hard to get the right to vote, and so many don't vote. Sure you can call it ironic, but that wasn't the "point" this article was really trying to make. It's just a platform for homo haters to shout their hypocritical b.s.

meggers 6 years, 4 months ago

barrypenders,Women make up at least half of all adults infected with HIV/AIDS. This is due in part to the high occurrence of rape in some countries, but also because women are more anatomically susceptible to contracting the infection. The growing number of young women contracting the disease is quite startling. http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=23

Kyle Reed 6 years, 4 months ago

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says… "Thick irony? There's irony in people getting married and then getting divorced???! All this time I thought marriage had a 100% success rate."There is irony in battling for your right to marry and then getting divorced."blacks and women fought really hard to get the right to vote, and so many don't vote. Sure you can call it ironic, but that wasn't the “point” this article was really trying to make."Bad example, I would bet those blacks and women who fought for the right to vote voted every chance they got. Blacks or women not voting now isn't ironic at all. Unfortunate maybe but not ironic.I also find some irony in you proclaiming this a platform for haters to shout hypocritical b.s. while at the same time calling them "homo's". Did that one get by you as well?

Linda Aikins 6 years, 4 months ago

Do you think it should have been that they were separating in 2009, not 2006? Or has it just taken three years to get to the divorce?

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

These stories always bring out the low-watt intellectual bulbs e.g. barry and larry (cute names for a couple, btw)

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

I think they are destroying the sanctity of divorce. barry, "irreconcilable similarities" -- now that is funny!

rusty2 6 years, 4 months ago

duplenty is quoting ONLY the hebraic version of genesis.Indian/Vedic is much older and does not have the embedded morality of the 1800 pioneer america included in it.sorry duplenty your crit is obsolete in the new millienia (plural). to quote author Gore Vidal, "in 2500 years Jesus Christ will be about as well remembered as Jupiter & Minerva."

rusty2 6 years, 4 months ago

i agree beatrice....destroying the sanctity of divorce, absolutely!Kansas allows convicted felons like Marty Miller who smothered his wife to death to marry in prison - makes complete sense for those of duplenty ilk, right?

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

Akreed beat me to it. It's ironic because they fought so hard for it only to give it up. I'm sure the blacks and women who fought for the right to vote did so every chance they had. The fact that many people are simply disenfranchised today and do not care does not reflect on the strides by those in the past.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

Akreed -There is no irony in battling for an equal right and then exercising that right. These women fought for the right to marry (and divorce) just like everyone else and that's what they did. Or did that get by you as well? The so-called irony here is a lie meant to drive at what many people believe, i.e. that homosexuals should never have been allowed to marry in the first place. They can't commit, so we're told. You know that, but you can pretend you don't if it makes your day better. And "homo" is the short version of "homosexual."Larry - My protein levels are just fine. Thanks for your concern. What a sweet person you are. Keep the personal attacks coming. You're all really proving your point.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

If you are reading that as the ironic part I don't see it. You expect the leader of a movement to stick with it. No matter the movement it says a lot more for it when the biggest proponents of it stick with it. If you think the irony is a lie to seduce people into thinking homosexuals can't commit, I don't see it.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

Glad Rachelisatroll took this from what would obviously be a forum for "homo haters" and made it a forum to read self righteous ridiculously overstressed statements. Or else someone could have said something which could have been unfair to a struggle for human rights... on a comment section where people regularly say crazy things for no reason. I'm sure this is a platform where policy makers go to make their decisions that shape society, and you've effectively policed it now. /Sarcasm.I'm glad I'm here to educate you too.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 4 months ago

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says… And “homo” is the short version of “homosexual.”True, homo is defined as:slang noun, plural -mos. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a homosexual.Your inability to comprehend irony is mind numbing so I'll leave it at that but you should at least practice what you preach and not call them "homos".

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

These women fought for an equal right, which included both the right to marry and the right to dissolve said marriage.Your inability to comprehend that is mind numbing, Akreed, so I'll leave it at that. They were leaders in a movement to gain the right to marry and divorce just like everybody else and they stuck with it, Trobs.And bang - you're a troll. We're even now. Glad I could join the big boys club.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

The problem is this feeds fuel to their detractors that say they can't commit. I don't care one way or the other if they want to get married. This gives those opposed to it a big stick to swing around on the "Can't Commit" arguement.

ifihadahammer 6 years, 4 months ago

rachaelisacancer is right. If the women had fought for the right to love each other til death did them part and then gave up on that, then it would be ironic. But they just fought to do what heterosexual couples do and considering the 50% divorce rate, they did it quite well.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm not really a troll, a troll is someone who casts a wider net to ensnare many people into arguments. I'm merely someone who got dragged into the net by pointing out it's a human interest story. For the most part arguing the definition of irony on your part has been asinine. True irony involves two things; events and situations (or the like) that go in the same direction. Notice there is nothing going in opposite directions. There is a parallel involved, not repulsion. Try to picture "similarity with a twist" or "equivalence reciprocated" (if that helps). Picture a train track when you think of a parallel. They don't separate from each other but instead resemble each other. Now throw in a role reversal and you have irony. That's how something opposite plays a part in irony, but such contrast is not always a part of irony. There are far to many variables to list but now you get the idea. Now, I wouldn't quite say we're even. On any level.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

Well bang, you cast your troll net by calling me a troll and pointing out "thick irony" where there is none. So you are a troll.You give a very good explanation of irony, yet you fail to notice you counter your own suggestion that this story is ironic by saying "now throw in a role reversal and you have irony." There's been no role reversal here. These women fought for equal rights and then exercised those rights. And no, we're not even. I was being sarcastic when I said we were. You understand name calling, I thought you'd understand sarcasm as well. I'd have a long way to go to get down to your level.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6" of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you.

Angela Heili 6 years, 4 months ago

One Half of All Marriages End in Divorce"This statistic is the ace in the hole when it comes to showing the moral decay of our times--politicians use it, preachers use it, marriage counselors use it--but statistically speaking, it's useless. This figure is derived by taking then number of marriages per year and comparing it to the number of divorces per year. And since there are nearly half as many divorces as marriages, people conclude that half of all marriages end in divorce. This statistic would be correct if everyone married only once and divorced only once, but thanks to the Larry Kings and the Elizabeth Taylors of the world, things just don't add up. The actual number of marriages that end in divorce is closer to 1 in 4, or 25 percent."Reference: Stupid History: Tales of Stupidity, Strangeness and Mythconceptions Throughout the Ages. by Leland GregoryAlso:http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htmhttp://www.population.govt.nz/myth-busters/Myth+1.htmetc, etc.

Shane Garrett 6 years, 4 months ago

From what I hear, the newest thing for women is something called "the rabbit".

denak 6 years, 4 months ago

It is unfortunate that Julie and Hillary Goodridge is getting a divorce but sometimes marriages/relationships fall apart once the "cause" is achieved. The cause becomes the defininig characteristic of the relationship/marriage but once that is taken out of the picture the couple finds out that there isn't enough to sustain the relationship.I have a cousin and he and his ex-wife were together for 8 years. My late aunt hated this woman(for what reason I don't know) but for 8 years, it was them against her. That was the cause. The moment that my aunt died and they were free to marry, they did. They got divorced less than 6 months later. I have friend who was involved with a certain political issue and there was a couple who were involved. The director of this organization always discouraged relationships because the relationships were more about the cause then the people. And sure enough, once one of them left and pursued other things, the relationship fell apart.So, that is what I think might have happened with them. The divorce isn't an indictment on "gay marriage" nor does it prove that homosexuals and lesbians are less able to commit.I think that they were two people who perhaps made this issue the center of their relationship and once achieved, there was nothing to hold it together.Dena

denak 6 years, 4 months ago

"......Why are women involved in more divorces than men?...."Economic freedom. Look up the stats. The more economic freedom women have in a society, the more likely they are to initiate divorce proceedings. Dena

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

Okay I've defined irony for you now I'm going to have to define the word "role" for you. Role is a set of connected behaviors, rights and obligations as conceptualized by actors in a social situation. Homosexuals and heterosexuals exhibit different behaviors and have been afforded different rights, when one of those rights changed something occurred called a "role reversal". You should also look up "stupid" in the dictionary, there is an unflattering picture of you.

Tristan Moody 6 years, 4 months ago

See, bangaranggerg, you had the makings of a good argument there. Then you went with the ad hominem and lost all credibility. It's a shame.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 4 months ago

Bangaranggerg:If insulting me is the best you've got, so be it. You think you sound clever? Think again. If you're capable. Can you dispute the fact that these women fought for an equal right and then exercised that right? Let me remind you: calling me stupid isn't a rebuttal. And you can call me stupid from here to kingdom come, but that doesn't change the fact that you're the one being willfully ignorant and immature. I'm not angry that you're calling me stupid without being capable of refuting what I've said. I just feel sorry for you now because you won't stop and you can't come up with anything better.

ifihadahammer 6 years, 4 months ago

Bangaranggerg - If you're trying to make a point, focus on developing an argument. Name calling makes you look weak and only furthers dismissal of whatever you were trying to say.

denak 6 years, 4 months ago

"....Oh dena, go make me some dinner. ;)..."My pleasure, sweetpea I have a lovely arsenic casserole that's just to die for. :)

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Linda Aikins 6 years, 4 months ago

and this could have been so much fun....

ifihadahammer 6 years, 4 months ago

Bang - You went ad hominem before you ever even attempted to make a point. Post at 10:17 a.m. - first thing out of your mouth was an attack on me personally. Ah, truth. Irrefutable. I understand the words, I'm just refusing to acknowledge how you twist them to fit your agenda. Kind of like how you refuse to address a real argument, only not so lame. You have nothing to offer, yet you keep on running your mouth. How ironic.

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

Dena, I have no issue with free food. Besides, I have tums.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm going to throw up. You just stated "How ironic." Seriously if you don't like my opinion of you - improve yourself. You're not even close to making sense. Is ifihadahammer and Rachelisacancer the same person?

zettapixel 6 years, 4 months ago

Wallythewalrus said..."From what I hear, the newest thing for women is something called “the rabbit”."Wally... rabbits are old and outdated... the "in thing" now is the Sybian! ;)

asleepinthechapel 6 years, 4 months ago

I've never even heard of the Sybian. Sounds scandalous. Better not google it at work.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

Did Rachelisacancer create a new profile- ifihadahammer and then post "Rachelisacancer is right"? Pretty sure that happened.

Shane Garrett 6 years, 4 months ago

Zettapixel Thanks. I learn something new everyday. Now I'll know what to buy for Valentines day. Again Thanks.

asleepinthechapel 6 years, 4 months ago

Multi you crack me up... I love real life sex.

badger 6 years, 4 months ago

So I look at this and I think, "What would I do next, if I lived in a state where same-sex marriage was legal, to make things difficult for states where it's not?"I think, "I would marry someone of my own gender and then divorce, making sure that there was some fiscal obligation inherent in the divorce decree, like an alimony payment or a continuation of insurance. Then I would move to a state that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman, and refuse to abide by the court-ordered divorce decree on the grounds that since the marriage isn't recognized by my state of residence, the decree covering its dissolution shouldn't be either. And then I would let the state governments fight out whether or not one state has the right to protect someone from the orders of a court in another state based on the legality of a marriage, and let my new state of residence enjoy its status as a haven for deadbeat gays looking to dodge their obligations."Same-sex divorce looks like it would hurt the cause of same-sex marriage, but ultimately, it's things like "can a child support agreement made as part of the dissolution of a legal marriage between two same-sex adults in one state be enforced if one of those adults flees to a state where the relationship has no legal standing?" that will decide this issue on the national level.

Tristan Moody 6 years, 4 months ago

Bang--If you want to be taken seriously, you should never make the decision to "go ad hominem." Attack the argument, not the person. Calling someone stupid is what you do when you can't think of any good points yourself.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

SWGlassPit- I'm glad you learned what ad hominem meant and am sure you want to point that out to people as often as you can. I called someone stupid only after having to define what words mean to them. Is it "ad hominem" to call a spade- a spade?

ifihadahammer 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm her husband, troll. If you don't sign out of your account that sort of thing can happen. But I'm glad she got under your skin.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

Ya, I started to question if anything was real. It was wild. Kept asking myself "what if they are all the same person"... Na it was funny though.

Shane Garrett 6 years, 4 months ago

What was really funny was watching Carmen Electra ride the Sybian!

West_Sider 6 years, 4 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says… ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6” of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you.**********According to Bill Clinton, acts involving the insertion 6" of flesh into another human are definitely NOT sex. I think that answer is the most imaginative (and hilarious) of all.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

meggers (Anonymous) says… "As long as the government is codifying marriage by providing additional benefits to married couples, the option should be available to all consenting adults, regardless of gender."A gay man has exactly the same right to those benefits as a heterosexual man does. And he can get them in exactly the same way as a heterosexual man does.By marrying a woman.*****beatrice (Anonymous) says…"ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6” of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you."If six inches is all you can talk about, it's you that has the limited imagination, bea.

bangaranggerg 6 years, 4 months ago

I'd say that this took a strange turn but this article's comment section was doomed from the start.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.