Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to Same-Sex Divorce

Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land.  And now that same-sex couples are able to obtain a legal marriage license and bring legal status to their unions, they have, irrevocably, opened the door to the legally mandated process of dissolving that union: divorce.

Divorce will be an inevitable end to some same-sex marriages for one simple reason: a marriage license is a legal document.  Licenses are carefully recorded and preserved because there are literally hundreds of laws that take effect when a marriage license is issued.  These include such topics as inheritance laws, medical coverage, liability for spouses, rights to joint property, foreclosure liability, bankruptcy, survivorship, and so on.

To undo marriage, which is a legal action, a legal action is required.  This involves domestic court.  Divorce will not involve the same issues for same-sex partners, since custody, housing, child support, and other issues may not need to be resolved in domestic court as much as they are in households with children.  There are same-sex relationships that do have children, however.

Right now, most traditional divorces are initiated by the female, since most states allow a woman to easily obtain a temporary restraining order or an order of protection against her husband.  This tactic allows the wife to get the husband out of the house so she can keep the house and custody of the children.  This practice is based on the prejudice many Judges have that men are more likely to engage in domestic violence.  Since women are considered the weaker sex, the presumption is that they need to be protected by the state.

But when both partners are men, or women, the old bias that men are stronger and angrier does not apply.  At least, judges cannot as easily discriminate as they are now allowed to do.  Either partner in male-male or female-female relationships may be the stronger, dominating partner.

Currently, there are many safe houses for women who are victims of domestic violence.  These are most often supported by tax dollars, and counselors are readily available to find temporary housing, clothing, food, and other necessities for women and their children.  In all fairness, then, safe houses will have to be established for men who are abused by a male partner in a same-sex marriage.  And if there are children in the relationship, their needs will have to be accommodated.  The Supreme Court would certainly insist that same-sex marriage partners cannot be discriminated against in the provision of domestic abuse services.

Faith-based service providers for women who are victims of domestic abuse may not be willing, based upon their religious beliefs, to provide domestic abuse services to men who are abused by their male partners.  This type of issue has already arisen with regard to birth control mandates under the Affordable Care Act.

Child custody will have to be dealt with in courts.  It is feasible that a man or woman who obtains custody of children in a traditional marriage could divorce his or her spouse and choose to remarry a same-sex partner.  This will create additional issues for men and women who have traditional religious beliefs.  A woman who divorces her husband, for example, and marries a woman may find herself in court with an ex-husband who challenges her for custody of the children, especially if he remarries a woman, and judges believe that children are best raised by opposite-sex couples.  The husband may not feel it is fair to the children to lose the opportunity to be raised in a traditional family.

Similarly, if a man marries a man and they adopt children, and then he chooses to divorce his male partner and marry a woman, the social biases of judges will also be challenged.  As the child grows up, the ex-partner may insist on visitation rights; attendance at PTA meetings, sports games; and so on.  These issues are very common in divorce now, but there's no doubt society will have to get used to the new issues brought up by same-sex divorce. 

And if a former male partner of a same-sex marriage insists that his adopted child be raised in a same-sex household, this argument is not at all different in principle from the argument that a child raised in a traditional household must be raised in a traditional household.  Right now these issues are not found as topics of discussion in divorce settlements.  There will, no doubt, be judges who issue court orders specifying that a boy or girl must be raised in the same type of household in which he or she grew up.

Marriages that terminate in divorce create issues no matter who is involved.  Since same-sex marriage is now legal, American society and culture will have to find ways to adapt to it in as constructive a manner as possible for the persons and children involved.

TV sitcoms will be created featuring the issues of same-sex marriage and divorce.  This will lead to the creation of same-sex TV divorce courts featuring fights over who gets the car, the house, the furnishings, and so on. 

The redefinition of marriage will redefine divorce.  And in ways that gays and lesbians cannot fully appreciate, their relationships have been permanently redefined.  Paradise is lost.  No longer can gay and lesbian relationships be based purely on emotion.  The euphoria of absolute freedom is tainted.  Pre-nuptial agreements are already drafted.  Just as unmarried women who live with a man for years can sue for maintenance, it is now possible for same-sex partners to be dragged into court by former partners and forced to financially support them for life.  They won't have to be married, just as opposite sex couples who live together for a period of time don't have to be married in order for one or the other to bring the assets of the relationship to court for dispute.  All same-sex relationships, even ones that ended years ago, may be the focus of lawsuits alleging loss of affection, loss of income, insistence on a certain lifestyle that must be paid for by one or the other, and so on. 

While gays and lesbians may not choose to marry, they can no longer choose to keep their incomes, homes, 401(K) plans, and other assets out of court.  It takes only one to bring it into court.

Welcome to marriage.  Welcome to relationships overseen by the government/legal divorce establishment.  Gays and lesbians will soon realize that their support of progressive liberal ideology led to having the most important thing, their relationships, seized and placed under government supervision, along with the assets they have worked to build up.

This is the real goal of liberalism: to deceive people into giving up their freedom and assets.  And there's no going back. 

Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land.  And now that same-sex couples are able to obtain a legal marriage license and bring legal status to their unions, they have, irrevocably, opened the door to the legally mandated process of dissolving that union: divorce.

Divorce will be an inevitable end to some same-sex marriages for one simple reason: a marriage license is a legal document.  Licenses are carefully recorded and preserved because there are literally hundreds of laws that take effect when a marriage license is issued.  These include such topics as inheritance laws, medical coverage, liability for spouses, rights to joint property, foreclosure liability, bankruptcy, survivorship, and so on.

To undo marriage, which is a legal action, a legal action is required.  This involves domestic court.  Divorce will not involve the same issues for same-sex partners, since custody, housing, child support, and other issues may not need to be resolved in domestic court as much as they are in households with children.  There are same-sex relationships that do have children, however.

Right now, most traditional divorces are initiated by the female, since most states allow a woman to easily obtain a temporary restraining order or an order of protection against her husband.  This tactic allows the wife to get the husband out of the house so she can keep the house and custody of the children.  This practice is based on the prejudice many Judges have that men are more likely to engage in domestic violence.  Since women are considered the weaker sex, the presumption is that they need to be protected by the state.

But when both partners are men, or women, the old bias that men are stronger and angrier does not apply.  At least, judges cannot as easily discriminate as they are now allowed to do.  Either partner in male-male or female-female relationships may be the stronger, dominating partner.

Currently, there are many safe houses for women who are victims of domestic violence.  These are most often supported by tax dollars, and counselors are readily available to find temporary housing, clothing, food, and other necessities for women and their children.  In all fairness, then, safe houses will have to be established for men who are abused by a male partner in a same-sex marriage.  And if there are children in the relationship, their needs will have to be accommodated.  The Supreme Court would certainly insist that same-sex marriage partners cannot be discriminated against in the provision of domestic abuse services.

Faith-based service providers for women who are victims of domestic abuse may not be willing, based upon their religious beliefs, to provide domestic abuse services to men who are abused by their male partners.  This type of issue has already arisen with regard to birth control mandates under the Affordable Care Act.

Child custody will have to be dealt with in courts.  It is feasible that a man or woman who obtains custody of children in a traditional marriage could divorce his or her spouse and choose to remarry a same-sex partner.  This will create additional issues for men and women who have traditional religious beliefs.  A woman who divorces her husband, for example, and marries a woman may find herself in court with an ex-husband who challenges her for custody of the children, especially if he remarries a woman, and judges believe that children are best raised by opposite-sex couples.  The husband may not feel it is fair to the children to lose the opportunity to be raised in a traditional family.

Similarly, if a man marries a man and they adopt children, and then he chooses to divorce his male partner and marry a woman, the social biases of judges will also be challenged.  As the child grows up, the ex-partner may insist on visitation rights; attendance at PTA meetings, sports games; and so on.  These issues are very common in divorce now, but there's no doubt society will have to get used to the new issues brought up by same-sex divorce. 

And if a former male partner of a same-sex marriage insists that his adopted child be raised in a same-sex household, this argument is not at all different in principle from the argument that a child raised in a traditional household must be raised in a traditional household.  Right now these issues are not found as topics of discussion in divorce settlements.  There will, no doubt, be judges who issue court orders specifying that a boy or girl must be raised in the same type of household in which he or she grew up.

Marriages that terminate in divorce create issues no matter who is involved.  Since same-sex marriage is now legal, American society and culture will have to find ways to adapt to it in as constructive a manner as possible for the persons and children involved.

TV sitcoms will be created featuring the issues of same-sex marriage and divorce.  This will lead to the creation of same-sex TV divorce courts featuring fights over who gets the car, the house, the furnishings, and so on. 

The redefinition of marriage will redefine divorce.  And in ways that gays and lesbians cannot fully appreciate, their relationships have been permanently redefined.  Paradise is lost.  No longer can gay and lesbian relationships be based purely on emotion.  The euphoria of absolute freedom is tainted.  Pre-nuptial agreements are already drafted.  Just as unmarried women who live with a man for years can sue for maintenance, it is now possible for same-sex partners to be dragged into court by former partners and forced to financially support them for life.  They won't have to be married, just as opposite sex couples who live together for a period of time don't have to be married in order for one or the other to bring the assets of the relationship to court for dispute.  All same-sex relationships, even ones that ended years ago, may be the focus of lawsuits alleging loss of affection, loss of income, insistence on a certain lifestyle that must be paid for by one or the other, and so on. 

While gays and lesbians may not choose to marry, they can no longer choose to keep their incomes, homes, 401(K) plans, and other assets out of court.  It takes only one to bring it into court.

Welcome to marriage.  Welcome to relationships overseen by the government/legal divorce establishment.  Gays and lesbians will soon realize that their support of progressive liberal ideology led to having the most important thing, their relationships, seized and placed under government supervision, along with the assets they have worked to build up.

This is the real goal of liberalism: to deceive people into giving up their freedom and assets.  And there's no going back.