Congratulations on your new gay marriage ban, Utah! I bet you feel so much better now that you've enacted legislation that would keep The Gay safely marginalized, while ensuring that life for heteros would continue just as before...
Salt Lake attorney Mary Corporon recently filed a motion for a male client who contends that Amendment 3 makes it unconstitutional to enforce a court protective order that his former live-in girlfriend got from a judge.
...oops.
I hate to, uh, preach at you, but this is what happens when you start mucking around with laws for poorly articulated and dishonest purposes. And the people who pushed for these amendments in the first place? The ones who wrote the bills and campaigned for them and figured out how to make them palatable to the majority of voters? They don't give a shit about a live-in girlfriend; she's next on the list, along with people who want divorces, those in secular marriages, single moms seeking child support, and the rest of us who don't fit an ever-more narrow definition of marriage. So thanks for helping intolerance get its foot further in the door, fuckwits! I'm sure that each and every one of you will enjoy the results.
Posted by hilatron at November 26, 2004 11:48 PMI cannot WAIT to see what happens when Spouse A in Marriage #2 starts objecting to the payment of child support or alimony to Spouse B's ex-and/or-kids from Marriage #1 on the grounds that, since it's now null and void, Marriage #1 was clearly only a pseudo-union and doesn't really "count."
Any minute now we'll see legitimate offpsring's legitimacy turned inside out, followed up by some quite amazing feats of juridicial legerdemain required when the heirs of multiply-married Millionaire X start squabbling over the estate, etc., etc. Will it all go to the last, or current, "legitimate" heirs, or will it all go to the first-and-only "legitimate" heirs? Either way, heirs from "middle marriages" are going to get screwed.
Because it's obvious (isn't it?) that a marriage which has been terminated was merely a state resembling a domestic union, not an actual one. Otherwise there would have been no need to terminate it.
This legislation should be re-named. "Full Employment and Handsome Compensation Act for Domestic and Family Law Practices."
Mike had the right idea. I should have gone to law school. I mean, I've got very flexible morals when it comes to my interactions with people I don't know, so I'd be perfect for this sort of work. Right? ;-)
Posted by: Josh at November 30, 2004 01:08 AM