This is a very interesting comment coming the United Kingdom's Womena and Equality Minister from remarks she said on the radio.
“I can be absolutely clear to you, when it comes to issues of adultery and consummation those are issues that relate to heterosexual marriages. What they won’t be doing is relating to same-sex marriages, but there will be clear protections in terms of grounds for divorce for individuals who are in a same sex marriage, that will be unreasonable behaviour, that’s exactly as it is under civil partnerships at the moment, so clear protections in there, but clearly there will be some differences.”
HMMMMM
The Ugly Vicar has more at "Thou cannot commit adultery" - the (theo)logical impossibility of 'equal marriage'
"unreasonable behavior" what is that ?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Adultery and Consumation Are Not Issues That Affect Same Sex Marriage Says UK Equality Minister
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It has recently been reported that Sarah Palin's son and daughter-in-law have filed for divorce in Alaska. This is one year after they married while trying to hide the bride's big pregnant belly behind a giant bouquet. Yeah, just look at how those homosexuals are ruining the institution of marriage. Just ask Palin's other child, the unwed mother Bristol who is now shacking up with her current boyfriend. She has made millions giving talks about "abstinence" and "family values". I am sure that she could give us all a great deal of wisdom about how the low down perverted homosexual are damaging the institution of marriage. Let's all live like the Palins and other right wingnuts, and defend marriage through the oppression of the homosexuals.
BTW, this story does not make any sense. They are talking about concepts of marriage from a century ago. This British woman is not the ruler of the whole wide world, she is just one woman giving one opinion, and then this ugly vicar takes that opinion and runs off into nonsense over it. Furthermore they are completely ignoring the fact that many homosexuals are born with ambiguous genitals and they can achieve vaginal penetration and meet the outdated concept of "consumation". I wonder just how many women filed charges of non-consumation against their husbands in the whole of the 20th century, much less in this century. Nonsensical stuff to be bringing up in a discussion of marriage equality. Homosexuals are not demanding equality to the marriages of our great-grandparents. We are demanding equal marriage rights to CONTEMPORARY heterosexuals. We are demanding that our Fourth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law be respected.
Well speaking of CONTEMPORARY hetrosexuals in Louisiana ( and I don't think we are alone ) not only is adultery a cause for divorce its a complete bar to alimony
And why should it not be exactly the same for homosexuals? As I said, the British woman who said that adultery related to married heterosexuals, but not to married same-sex couples is just one woman giving an opinion which is hers and hers alone. I happen to know that the state of Lousiana changes all of their rape and sexual abuse laws to take gender and the concept of vaginal penetration out of the equation altogether. I was under the impression that they had also, years ago, established no-fault divorce with no mention of adultery, and said that the only grounds for divorce was that at least one spouse wants to divorce. And I thought that it had long since been established that if a spouse desires to divorce you for any cause or without any cause whatever, you have no right to contest it. All of these re-definitions of marriage and divorce throughout the country has been done by heterosexuals, and for heterosexuals without any involvement of homosexuals whatsoever. It is heterosexuals who have changed marriage to what it is today, one spouse at a time, one spouse after the other, rather than the one spouse for life marriages of our ancestors. Now all of a sudden, you right wingnuts are claiming than homosexuals are destroying your marriages. And you actually expect people to take you seriously in that? If indeed you are correct that no-fault divorce has not come to Lousiana yet, which I find incredible, then it is fine for divorce to be grounds for divorce for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Equality is equality. The first time I saw a report of a woman being charged with rape, I looked it up, and learned that the law in Louisiana now says that genital penetration is not necessary for the crime of rape to have been committed. The crime of rape in Lousiana now means only that some sort of sexual contact has happened. If they are continuing to have adultery as grounds for divorce in Lousiana, then this same standard should apply it to, and the gender of either party to the adultery, and the gender of either party to the marriage should have nothing to do with it.
I should have proof-read before rather than after I hit the "publish". I meant "adultery is grounds for divorce" rather than "divorce is grounds for divorce"
I think the anaolgy between rape not having to cause penetration and the traditional Def of marriage does not get us very far down the road.
I am also not saying that hetrosexuals have not caused part of the problem either. Never said that
Signed
"right wing nut"
Post a Comment