LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 12-10-2007, 08:27 PM   #1
alicewong

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
438
Senior Member
Default R.I.: No Gay Divorce


They get to be miserable like the rest of us?

alicewong is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:30 PM   #2
BodeOmissemia

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
491
Senior Member
Default
Because they had the right. Didn't take time to find out if could = should.
BodeOmissemia is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:35 PM   #3
DoctorGordanBens

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
546
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Go to Massachusetts.

R.I. doesn't recognize their marriage anyway, so really, they could just live seperately and divide the assets through negotiation.... at least until R.I. recognizes gay marriages. In a telephone interview, Ormiston rejected the idea of moving to Massachusetts for one year so she could be divorced in the Bay State.

"I simply will not support my own discrimination," she said. "The courts have denied me my civil rights. But we will prevail because this is the American justice system."
DoctorGordanBens is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:38 PM   #4
RalfDweflywex

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
578
Senior Member
Default
Have you been living under a rock, DD?

-Arrian
RalfDweflywex is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:42 PM   #5
PerfectCreditForYou

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
362
Senior Member
Default
Arrian: I'm just curious why someone would go to such trouble to attain a status they valued so little.
PerfectCreditForYou is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:43 PM   #6
janeloveslifenow

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
422
Senior Member
Default
(DD).

Imran
janeloveslifenow is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 08:46 PM   #7
Unergerah

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
399
Senior Member
Default
This reminds me of a scene from "Porgy and Bess"

As I recall it:

Bess: "I gotta get deevorce from Crown"
"Lawyer": "Dats ten dollars"
Crowd :" Bess aint never been married to Crown"
"Lawyer" :" Dats a complication. Its gonna cost 20 dollars"
Unergerah is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:01 PM   #8
ChyFDjfed

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
as info, Jewish court, (a bet din) will NOT grant a divorce to a couple consisting of a Jew and an (unconverted) gentile. Since, you know, to that court theyve never been married. AFAIK, most such couples are cool with not getting a Jewish divorce.


Im befuddled exactly what the gay couple in RI actually expect to gain legally from a divorce (unless theres property in Massachusetts at issue) that they dont get by simply being unmarried.
ChyFDjfed is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:06 PM   #9
carreraboyracer

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
418
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why'd they get married to only divorce this quickly? 3 years is enough time for folks to change, or to recognize things they didnt at first. Im not about to defend the contemporary divorce rate, but this wasnt like 6 months.

Though Id suspect most hetero married couples who were offered what is effectively an annulment, wouldnt go fighting to get a divorce instead.
carreraboyracer is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:08 PM   #10
Loopyjr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
481
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Arrian
(DD).

Imran
Loopyjr is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:14 PM   #11
JakeBarkings

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
471
Senior Member
Default
A bet din is a Jewish, religious court. They won't grant the divorce for the EXACT same reason the state govmt won't grant it-because they do not recognize them to begin with. It is a legal thing, you can't divorce sommeone if they were never married to begin with.


Virtually no one who marries a non Jew is going to go to a bet din to get a divorce anyway so the point is really moot.

Jews were at the heart of the civil rights movement and amoung the first whites to vocally support it, they are so racist and opressive :/ It still boggles the mind why black seem to people hate Jews, which is part stereotype but well, partly true.
JakeBarkings is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:21 PM   #12
BartRonalds

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by lord of the mark
3 years is enough time for folks to change, or to recognize things they didnt at first. Im not about to defend the contemporary divorce rate, but this wasnt like 6 months. 3 years is enough time for the case to wind its way through the RI court system. It might very well have been 6 months before they decided to file for divorce.
BartRonalds is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:23 PM   #13
illignocearia

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
554
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Asher
DD, representing redneck values since 1980 Well definately not since the day I was born but what about my posts in this thread do you find worthy of what you consider a pejorative?
illignocearia is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:25 PM   #14
Immusaatmonna

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
576
Senior Member
Default
Your holding of gay people to a standard that straight people demonstratively do not achieve.
Immusaatmonna is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:28 PM   #15
XKAgustin

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
461
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Ramo
Your holding of gay people to a standard that straight people demonstratively do not achieve. Actually I'd be for fewer straight people marrying given the rates of divorce but that's really beside the point because I haven't espoused that view in this thread or elsewhere.
XKAgustin is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:31 PM   #16
Optosypoeds

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Actually I'd be for fewer straight people marrying given the rates of divorce but that's really beside the point because I haven't espoused that view in this thread or elsewhere. The only real solution to divorce rates is to just stop marrying altogether.
Optosypoeds is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:33 PM   #17
leyliana

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
476
Senior Member
Default
LS: Well Lori gave a good try at it. May even be the correct one.
leyliana is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:35 PM   #18
Goksiodiffeli

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
440
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by DinoDoc
LS: Well Lori gave a good try at it. May even be the correct one. Unless Cassandra Ormiston, Margaret Chambers, or one of their close friends or relatives posts here, we may never know
Goksiodiffeli is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:37 PM   #19
Aceroassert

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
444
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is there a word you would find less amusing? Im just punchy - but yeah, expressed, supported, etc would have been less amusing in context than "espoused"
Aceroassert is offline


Old 12-10-2007, 09:38 PM   #20
ElegeExcest

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
Why do you guys care about age?

Look at whathisface from Poly. He doesn't discriminate on age. His partners are all sorts of ages.
ElegeExcest is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity