Same Sex Divorce

[August1991]

Trapped in a bad marriage?

Sorry, really. But you've got nothing on Larissa Chism and Tara Ranzy, a divorce-seeking Indiana couple doomed to live unhappily ever after and after and after by a legal Catch-22.

Chism, a psychiatrist, and Ranzy, an educator, wed in Toronto in January 2005. In March of this year, they filed a divorce petition.

In many respects, their case was rubber-stamp simple. They had no children; they had already divided their property; neither was pregnant. Unfortunately, an eagle-eyed court employee noticed the one complicating fact in their one-page joint submission: Larissa and Tara are both women's names. Indiana does not grant or recognize same-sex marriages.

And so, a court there ruled Sept. 4, Chism and Ranzy cannot end their marriage because their marriage does not exist.

Toronto Star

In a very different time, but not entirely in a different place, a contract recognized in one US state was not recognized in another US state. Before 1865 in Alabama for example, a slaveowner could purchase another person and this property right would be respected - south of the Mason-Dixon line. North of the line, the contract was not respected and so a slaveowner could not have the contract (or property right) respected in civil or criminal court.

Eventually, the United States fought a bloody civil war over the question of whether individual states could interpret such a contract or property rights individually.

Flash forward to the present day.

Gay rights activists would have us believe that the issues of slavery and non-recognition of gay marriage are somehow comparable. They refer to people opposed to same sex marriage as "bigots".

Yet, I don't see the US ever getting involved in a civil war to resolve conflicting states' interpretation of a marriage contract. And I think there is the main point.

We in the West have reduced debates about individual freedom to essentially debates about sexual freedom - as if other forms of individual freedom don't exist. Moreover, the defenders of individual sexual freedom have raised the issue to an absurd level - far above its true relative importance.

Edited September 23, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

We in the West have reduced debates about individual freedom to essentially debates about sexual freedom - as if other forms of individual freedom don't exist. Moreover, the defenders of individual sexual freedom have raised the issue to an absurd level - far above its true relative importance.

It is obvious that the whole issue has you smirking.

Guess it was better when gay marriage was banned, right?

[August1991]

It is obvious that the whole issue has you smirking.

Guess it was better when gay marriage was banned, right?

Smirk? Not at all. I am not opposed to gay marriage.

This article just reminded me that you can't legislate morality and when the State tries, there areoften unintended consequences.

In this case, a contract in one jurisdiction is not recognized in another jurisdiction. Well, the same thing happened with slavery and eventually the US fought a civil war over the issue. (A war, that in my mind, was fully justified if only because slavery is such a scourge.)

To listen to some gay activists, they are modern day abolitionists - as if there were some equivalent between abolishing slavery and allowing gay marriage.

I merely point out that the two are not comparable. The US is not going to have a bloody civil war because some states recognize gay marriage and other states don't.

Finally, it is sad that in the West (North America in particular) debates about individual freedom only seem to involve sexual freedom. When people say that they are a "social liberal", they mean primarily that they favour freedom in sexual matters - as if individual freedom were limited to the sexual.

[jdobbin]

This article just reminded me that you can't legislate morality and when the State tries, there areoften unintended consequences.

So you are opposed to crime laws? Isn't that regulating morality?

[Guest American Woman]

This article just reminded me that you can't legislate morality and when the State tries, there areoften unintended consequences.

Slavery was really more of an economic issue and a political issue than it was a moral issue, which is why there was a war; and in this regard, wasn't so different from other wars. Political power and economics have historically been the cause of wars.

In this case, a contract in one jurisdiction is not recognized in another jurisdiction. Well, the same thing happened with slavery and eventually the US fought a civil war over the issue. (A war, that in my mind, was fully justified if only because slavery is such a scourge.)

It wasn't so much that one jurisdiction was not recognized by another as it was the limiting of spreading slavery. Slavery was recognized in the states it already existed in, but the South objected when legislation put limits on slavery in new territories. The South saw this as limiting it's political power in favor of the North as the nation grew.

I merely point out that the two are not comparable. The US is not going to have a bloody civil war because some states recognize gay marriage and other states don't.

I don't think the U.S. is going to have another bloody civil war over anything, but again, the slavery issue was more than a moral issue, with the moral issue really being secondary.

Edited September 23, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

From the article:

Ontario, like same-sex-marriage-granting Massachusetts, requires one spouse to be a resident for a year or more before a divorce can be approved.

Seems odd that they wouldn't have the same requirement before a marriage can be approved.

[jdobbin]

Seems odd that they wouldn't have the same requirement before a marriage can be approved.

Niagara Falls would collapse if that was the rule.

Ontario should just make it possible for couples to be divorced despite residency. It would be up to the other jurisdictions to recognize it after that.

[Guest American Woman]

Niagara Falls would collapse if that was the rule.

I take it Niagara Falls performs a lot of same sex marriages for Americans?

Ontario should just make it possible for couples to be divorced despite residency. It would be up to the other jurisdictions to recognize it after that.

They could at least make it possible for people from other countries, who really don't have much of a chance of fulfilling the residency requirements, to get a 'quickie' divorce, so to speak. After all, if there's money in performing marriage ceremonies, there's gotta be money in granting divorces, too, if the divorce statistics for heterosexual couples is anything to go by.

[Moonlight Graham]

Gay rights activists would have us believe that the issues of slavery and non-recognition of gay marriage are somehow comparable. They refer to people opposed to same sex marriage as "bigots".

Yet, I don't see the US ever getting involved in a civil war to resolve conflicting states' interpretation of a marriage contract. And I think there is the main point.

I didn't see the US getting involved in a civil war over women's rights. Does that mean that women's rights issues were not as legitimate?

We in the West have reduced debates about individual freedom to essentially debates about sexual freedom - as if other forms of individual freedom don't exist.

C'mon that's an absurd statement.

[kimmy]

Finally, it is sad that in the West (North America in particular) debates about individual freedom only seem to involve sexual freedom. When people say that they are a "social liberal", they mean primarily that they favour freedom in sexual matters - as if individual freedom were limited to the sexual.

First off, I think you're mistaken on the general premise. Freedom of religious belief is one that is often discussed and generates some contentious debates and moral quandaries. The bigamy case regarding the religious kooks of Bountiful is one current example, occasional court battles regarding Jehovah's Witnesses who'd deny life-saving medical treatment to children being another. Freedom of speech is another that is often discussed, whether in the context of hate-speech complaints being issued against people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, or pornography and obscenity cases.

Secondly, I suggest that the reason sexual freedom is more often a topic of conversation of debate than a lot of your other garden-variety freedoms is that most of our other freedoms are taken as obvious... so ingrained in our culture that debating them is pointless: who's going to disagree?

-k

[jdobbin]

I take it Niagara Falls performs a lot of same sex marriages for Americans?

For everyone, it seems.

They could at least make it possible for people from other countries, who really don't have much of a chance of fulfilling the residency requirements, to get a 'quickie' divorce, so to speak. After all, if there's money in performing marriage ceremonies, there's gotta be money in granting divorces, too, if the divorce statistics for heterosexual couples is anything to go by.

I think we have just found the solution to turning around Ontario.

[Oleg Bach]

Gays and Lesbians had real freedom before they wanted this legal marriage deal - now they are a commodity and part of the usery that is the divorce buisness...ha ha...I warned them.

[Guest American Woman]

I think we have just found the solution to turning around Ontario.

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't see the US getting involved in a civil war over women's rights. Does that mean that women's rights issues were not as legitimate?

Good point, but we didn't get in a war over slave's rights, either. As I said, it was "economic" and "political" reasons first; "moral" reasons second. Same as most wars are fought for economic and political power.

Edited September 24, 2009 by American Woman

[Rue]

This article just reminded me that you can't legislate morality and

when the State tries, there areoften unintended consequences.

To listen to some gay activists, they are modern day abolitionists -

as if there were some equivalent between abolishing slavery and allowing gay marriage.

I merely point out that the two are not comparable.

Finally, it is sad that in the West (North America in particular) debates about individual freedom only seem to involve sexual freedom.

When people say that they are a "social liberal", they mean primarily that they

favour freedom in sexual matters - as if individual freedom were limited to the sexual.

You lost me. First off most criminal law and may statutory civil laws are based on

moral values. I think it is absurd to suggest criminal law is not based on the moral

values of the day.

Moral values are precisely why there is a law prohibiting mercy killings or pedophilia

or sexual assault or polygamy.

Secondly I am not sure what gays you are referring to when you claim they claim to

be like abolitionists. With due respect that sounds like a social construct you created, i.e.,

you are under the subjective impression gays who seek equality rights call themselves

this.

More to the point even if some did, so what? Many people who are straight claim to hate

gays and call gays perverts and lacking in morality. I am straight and I dont think this

way at all and if anything think we straights are more inclined to be perverted and

immoral. So? What was your point? Do you think it is a valid intellectual exercise

to criticize the desire of gays to be equal based on such a subjective pretext?

It is the contents of their argument that make them valid or not.

Pointing out arguments against slavery and arguments about discriminating against

gays not being the same is about as meaningful as saying a weight problem for

an extremely obese person is not comparable to a weight problem for a severely

underweight person. What was your point? Yes we know, a horse is not a cat. Thanks.

Do you think all gay activists see themselves as slaves? Give them a little more credit then

that to know the difference between being a "slave" and being a second glass citizen

in the context they use it and have used it in legal arguements.

Your attempt to simplify their legal arguments in such a manner with due respect

are inaccurate.

You also made some comment about individual freedom and social liberals I did not understand.

I was not aware gay people ever argued individual freedom only entails

being able to have sex with a person of the same gender. I thought it was a bit

more complex then that given the legal cases I have read.

As for the social liberal label, many conservatives using the word in the true sense, i.e.,

Edmund Burke context, would most probably today think of themselves as libertarian

or certainly in favour of individual rights being preferable over collective ones.

Their philosophy couldbe quite compatible with certain idividual rights gay activists champion.

The gay movement, like any movement of a specific people seeking self-determination

is a mix of many beliefs. Trying to simplify them all as liberal or conservative, left

or right is with due respect misleading.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Rue