MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
It would be nice to have some of those superhuman, bigger-than-life, do no wrong civil rights leaders from the past, but I suppose there's never been such an animal. It just seems that way because the opposition has gotten a lot better at exploiting individual human faults. Fucking shameless.
That being said, equal rights is equal rights is equal rights. If the dominant class has a moral and legal right to marry and divorce, so does everyone else.
At any rate - if this is being brought forth as an issue (and it obviously is), a proper article should compare divorce rates between same-sex married couples and male-female married couples - in the first year of marriage, second year, third, etc.
There is going to be a higher than average divorce rate for the first few years. Even though a lot of the couples hadn't been allowed to marry previously, they'll have been together for a whole range of years. All of the couples will only have been married since it was legalised. It looks like Julie and Hillary were together for 20 years. That's a long time.
Add to that the people who got married because (for the first time ever) they could get married, and the figures are going to be skewed even more to a lot of early divorces.
After a while, the figures will settle down, and then it'll be interesting.
There's the myth that Gay relationships should be measured in dog years. (e.g. two men married for a year is equivalent to a straight couple married for seven years). I don't know the truth of the myth or, if it is true, whether the shorter relationships are caused by extra social stresses, but hopefully all this will settle down, it'll become more mainstream and we'll see that any two people have the same chance at forming a long term relationship regardless of sexuality.
I can't think of a single thing I've had to do that involved giving my government $34 and filling out a form which should be denied anyone. I've had more trouble transfering title on a car, for fuck's sake.
Wow, 20 years, then they get married and POOF! This just proves my point that marriage ruins EVERYTHING. World peace, the economy, and it's the reason the aglets keep coming off my shoelaces.
This just supports my movement to BAN MARRIAGE OUTRIGHT. Seriously; let's abolish this draconian ceremony, and put the fucking wedding industry out of my misery. Instead, we'll create a new form of business arrangement called the Family Corporation, which will detail in its charter which parties (and how many) will be joined, what the responsibilities of each member are, and the disposition should the partnership be dissolved of anything generated as a result of the merger (money, property, children). You just go down to your county courthouse with whoever or whatever you want to marry, show ID, sign, pay a fee, and you're done (oh, and if you check the box that says you plan to have children, you'll need a blood test with whoever in your party you plan to inseminate/be inseminated by). If you want, you can buy some flowers and throw them at people, or poison birds with dried-out rice grains; be as wasteful as you want. It's cool; you're married now. It's still carte-blanche to ruin things for everyone else; we've just taken the middlemen out (wedding industry, conflicting religions, grandstanding politicos).
It's the only way to save our crumbling society, which has been falling apart gradually for the past 4,000 years (or more; the Egyptians probably complained that things had really gone downhill since Babylonia) until it has deteriorated to the point where we have harnessed the atom, visited the moon, and probed the depths of the ocean. It's truly disgraceful how far up we've fallen.
No, but I once slept with a chick who went on to become a lawyer. I'm not taking the blame for that one, though; she was f'ed up before I ever met her.
I once had two tongue-out-drooling admirers who were lawyers. I'm not taking the blame for that, though; they were drooling before I ever met them.
I've seen your LJ marriage rant, too, Eid - I just don't really get where it's coming from personally with you. I'm not insulted, myself, because for me it mostly has to do with legal stuff. We feel what we feel, we do what we do, regardless of legal documents. The most crucial definition of our own marriage is in our heads and our hearts, and that's the one I really care about.
not sure eideteker's right about it being anything to do with saving society, but i do think that's a fair description of what the state should be doing as far as marriage goes.
if people want to associate marriage with particular regligious customs that's ok with me, of course, but i don't see what that has to do with the state, or why i should suffer if i don't want to play along.
here in chile, because i am not married to my partner, we have a real problem - if either of us dies there is no way for the other to inheirt their half of our house. instead, it will go to the family of the dead partner. this is crazy - by law i cannot leave my half of the house to my partner in my will.
getting back to the topic of the thread (i am straight - the above is nothing to do with that), it's the same problem - the state is forcing some random (historical) social/religious/political choice down the throats of everyone. it's not their job; they shouldn't be doing it.
I'm always amazed when people take me seriously. Mostly because it never happens when I'm actually serious (and no, it's not just this time, so don't feel bad; I need to work on marking things with a sarcasm tag or something because I'm apparently really bad at it). This and the lj marriage rant were about segregating the mental and emotional state of "marriage" from the business of marriage, the politics of marriage, and the religion of marriage. Marriage is not a piece of paper. Or maybe that's all it is. People seem to disagree on which definition of marriage is more important. (in case you're wondering, taz, I agree with you)
Andrew should be free to leave his property to whomever he chooses. Out of curiosity, ac, is it possible to leave your estate to an organization in Chile? Like a trust, or a foundation, or something? Or does the family of the deceased have to do all of that if they want the money to go to a certain charity? Because in your situation I'd try setting up a dummy nonprofit or something, just to stick it to the government (not like I have anything to leave). But I'm not conversant with the laws of Chile; I'm just asking as a thought exercise for myself.
Rants aside, I have a hard time believing anyone here, you too pup, is really all that shocked by this news story. Disapointed, maybe, but shocked? No.
Those comments quoted could have been written by a conservative god-bot.
Pie, yeah, I am actually kind of shocked. Not shocked that people feel that way, because I know there are people out there whose brains are simply too feeble to look at the issue rationally or objectively. It's more about being shocked that someone would actually say it, out loud, to a reporter, and not have little voice in his head that says something like "Oh man, I sound like a huge asshole."
One of the local always-running-for-something politicians has an enormous sign in his front yard that says "STOP GAY ADOPTIONS" and then a smaller sign that says "Pro-Life" with one of those Jesus fish things.
Yes, force people to bring unwanted children into the world and then do not let people who might actually want to care for them adopt them. Good plan.
"But ... they have clearly shown just how little they value the institution of marriage and provide a chilling look into what our nation faces if homosexual marriage is legalized elsewhere."
Chilling? You know what's chilling? The hetero divorce rate. We heteros hold the sacrament so sacred that we have a 50+% divorce rate.
I really do support Civil Unions for Everyone! The act of declaring to a community the spiritual bond between two people (marriage) should be separate from the legal and tax obligations associated with a certificate handed down by the state. And any two consenting adults should be eligible to apply for the second one. Hell, why not allow commune certificates, where a group of adults can get a license to be jointly and severally responsible for the welfare of each other and their offspring? Let the churches keep their "one man with one woman" philosophy - the rest of us want to live our lives. (Only half joking).
Actually it's no where near that high even for heteros. The cohort with the highest rate (men 50-59) is only 41%.
Okay, I'm mathematically dumb and all, but I can't wrap my head around this. If there's a 41% stat for men, isn't there necessarily an equivalent figure for women? Because, you know, the men in the outrageous-divorce-rate category have to be divorcing someone.
I'm no mathematician, either, but let's say a guy in that bracket has married and divorced three times, and each time he married a woman for whom it was her first marriage and divorce. Each of them would have only one divorce as an individual, while he has three.
Perhaps marriage isn't for them, Pie, but they don't hold it against people who want it. I never understood all this argument against homosexual marriage-I just figured that no matter what, the lawyers will make money. Marriage should be for anyone who wants that level of committment in their adult lives, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
It took me this long to figure out mudpuppie's "NSFWness" was the word 'fuck.' I didn't realize there were workplaces where the f-word was verboten; unless, you know, you work with kids or something (in which case you're probably not checking MeCha with them in the room). I've managed to get so jaded that I forgot fuck could be objectionable! 12=year-old me would be so proud.
Woah there! How many of you "omg marriage is teh sux" people posted in the pipsmc congratulations thread(s)?
I think jonmc and pips got it right. They got the piece of paper for themselves, and possibly for insurance/inheritance reasons. There wasn't that much to-do (on the one hand, Vegas; but on the other hand, they wore jeans). They still love each other; nothing's changed other than the fact that that is now recognized by the government. But you probably weren't talking to me; I already explained that I'm not anti-marriage. =)
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
