What if us straight, married no on 8 people decided to REALLY "destroy marriage?"

[K8-EEE]

Since they accuse marriage equality with "destroying marriage," why don't we really destroy it?

I've been married for 22 years in CA. But I'm not so happy about that institution and what it stands for after Tuesday. So what if we get a quickie Legal Zoom divorce and get civil-unioned.

There will be health care and tax benefits and other things to consider...but those are things they've taken away from our gay brothers and sisters!

Besides half the straight marriages fail anyway. Maybe if we push it to more like 70% marriage itself will just be this archaic thing that's only for the fundies. They're the ones who get to "define" it anyway apparently.

Just some thoughts I had after reading about Melissa Ethridge....honestly the outcome of Prop 8 makes me ashamed to be a married Californian!

[readmoreoften]

1. That's a really sweet idea. If you go through with it, make sure you get some media coverage

so that it won't be a lot of hassle in vain.

[K8-EEE]

5. There's the small issue of bringing it up to my husband, er, partner, whatever

he's def a No on 8 guy all the way but he'd probably think this was one of my Lucy Ricardo like crazy schemes.

[TheWraith]

2. Better yet, let's just start screwing in the street.

Since clearly stable, monogamous relationships aren't considered meaningful anymore, let's just give in to our mammalian side.

[maxsolomon]

3. why is the government in the business of "marriage"?

is it not a religious institution that has become formalized in civil law because of custom? should it not be put back exclusively in the hands of religion, and "civil union" be the formal legal component for all?

then it seems the basic objection/argument is removed. no one from, say, the shinto religion objects to the marriage customs of african animists.

[panader0]

4. Married and divorced three times here....

I think everyone should be able to go through what I did.

[CottonBear]

7. Married and Divorced twice here. Everyone should be able to be fucked over by divorce lawyers!

I'll probably NEVER marry again. My partner and I are happily NOT married. We've both been through the financial wringer of divorce and, frankly, can't afford to get married due to the massive amounts of debt we both now shoulder having had to pay off our exes to get rid of them.

[K8-EEE]

8. OUCH!

Wow three times? That's a world of pain, you're a strong person, yikes, I can't imagine getting divorced, well, except for on paper.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You sadist, you -

[crikkett]

6. Not me. While I'm sorry and disappointed that my gay friends' struggle

is not over, I am head over heels in love and I've never been happier in my life than I have been since my wedding.

When I was a single woman, when I co-habitated, I didn't need marriage. Bah Humbug. It was because I couldn't relate.

Today, I'm bonded to my husband like a diamond (all my spare electrons go to him). I can't imagine my life without him and won't give this up for anything.

The profound effect my marriage had on my life is exactly why I'm going to continue to help my gay friends have theirs. The word 'Marriage' means something, and its meaning has nothing to do with "only man and woman". It has everything to do with emotional and spiritual bonds, and my gay friends deserve the right to marry.

[K8-EEE]

9. Do you live in CA?

The word "marriage" officially means something different than what I thought before Tuesday -- right now to me it's just a word, has nothing to do with my relationship with my husband.

[crikkett]

13. Indeed I do.

While I sympathize with your frustration and angst, I maintain that Marriage is more than just a word.

That's why the GLBTQI community wants it, and that's why the Fundies are fighting tooth and nail to keep them from having it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Even tho I'm religious, I can only note that most unions were common-law in the old days.

Why should the state determine who is and is not married? It is not the state's business.

[crikkett]

16. Benefits and rights. When a friend died in 1999, his partner lost everything

to my friend's asshole sister, his only living relative.

On Edit: AND there were problems with hospital visits/ late-term medical decisions. People shouldn't suffer like that. Their loving relationship should have been honored.

[dysfunctional press]

11. how about a ballot proposition to make divorce illegal...?

seeing as they want to protect the sanctity of marriage and all.

[K8-EEE]

18. Why is "sanctity" even a government issue AT ALL?

I mean seriously -- haven't we all known marriages that are not sacred but HELLISH???

WTF WITH THE SANCTITY AND SACRED SHIT BEING IN THE LAWS.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people -- why are we attaching these God words to it. I mean if people WANT to they can but.....to make laws and constitutions about it, that's bizarre.

[dysfunctional press]

19. it's not really all that bizarre...

when people of a common(enough) religious stripe get together, it's not so strange that they would want their laws to line up with their faith(s).

but as the number of people and their different faiths(or lack thereof) increases, it can create problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I suggested REMOVING clergy from the business of civil marraige

in a thread I started... and for some reason the idea of civil unions for all is abhorrent to many

Even if I am using the definition of marriage by another name with the CIVIL emphasized.

Folks really don't like the idea of screwing with tradition

Even when this screwing with tradition will allow us to fully separate church and state insofar as marriage is concerned

[Beregond2]

14. IMO, the wrong approach has been taken to this whole issue.

What is needed is a very clear distinction between marriage and civil unions, and the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Couples gay or straight could get a legal civil union license, and whether or not they add a private "marriage" to that would be entirely up to them and/or their churches. And for CA, a state that still clings to the antiquated idea of alimony, to be carrying the banner for these changes at all is asinine. Let CA bring it's marriage laws up to the standard of most states and countries, before it plunges into these other difficult questions.

[TexasObserver]

17. One point that is important: The validity of marriages between the ruling and the resolution.

I do not believe there can be any legitimate attack on the legitimacy of marriages which occurred after the supreme court ruling and before the passage of the resolution. The resolution may have some period of time before it is effective. I don't know, haven't read it, but an effective date should be contained within it. That date cannot be retroactive.

Courts will treat the marriages which occurred between the ruling and the effective date of the resolution as a class unto themselves. They should have full marital rights under the law.

I don't know what challenges will be made, but I expect the marriages to withstand them.

I know this doesn't make the passage of the resolution less offensive, but it is important to know that those who married in the period between the court ruling and the resolution's effective date will likely have their marital status maintained under law. I'll be surprised if that isn't the case.