In regard to the first part...bardkrisDecember 20 2007, 05:58:15 UTC
It's not really that most people who genuinely do their research are having problems getting their rights (at least among the folks I know). If you are legally savvy, you can work around all of that. The real problem I've run into and heard talked to death is that they shouldn't have to.
It's not fair that it's harder to be straight than anything else. It's not fair that some people are allowed this nice tight little bundle called marriage while everyone else has to claim their rights individually. They shouldn't have to. But I'm still tired of listening to it. Act, or submit. It's up to you.
About the second part, I think I already explained the intensity vs intimacy thing to you, and it makes me sound prejudiced... sort of. Anyway, I've already had a long 'make me sad' argument about prejudice this week, so I'll let it lie.
Re: In regard to the first part...lord_of_entropyJanuary 4 2008, 15:35:46 UTC
The lack of established precedent makes means that same-sex divorce will face a greater extent of that messiness, even if the break-up is amicable. The logistics alone are more challenging in basically every area.
I wasn't disagreeing.bardkrisJanuary 5 2008, 06:09:00 UTC
It is messier. There are more hoops to jump through, and very little precedent, as you said.
Still, if you know anything about law, there is always an time in which precedent is built before we can have something to refer to. Whenever a newer situation is legalized, there have to be cases to establish said precedent. This time is a necessary messiness to establish precedent, and to solidify gay marriage's (and gay divorce's) legal standing. The more established precedent, the harder it will be for reactionaries to 'erase' gay marriage from the law books.
In short, the longer this is around, the better it will get. At least it's getting into the law books for once. Was it only a hundred years ago that homosexuality was listed in psychology references as an abberant behavior?
Re: I wasn't disagreeing.lord_of_entropyJanuary 5 2008, 21:31:03 UTC
If it only it had been a century since homosexuality was listed as an abnormal pysch condition. The APA didn't remove it till 1973, & didn't fully remove it till 1986, while it was the 90s for the WHO, the UK, Russia, or China. This is an area where the wiki article seems pretty spot on
It's not fair that it's harder to be straight than anything else. It's not fair that some people are allowed this nice tight little bundle called marriage while everyone else has to claim their rights individually. They shouldn't have to. But I'm still tired of listening to it. Act, or submit. It's up to you.
About the second part, I think I already explained the intensity vs intimacy thing to you, and it makes me sound prejudiced... sort of. Anyway, I've already had a long 'make me sad' argument about prejudice this week, so I'll let it lie.
Reply
Reply
http://bardkris.livejournal.com/92837.html#cutid1
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Still, if you know anything about law, there is always an time in which precedent is built before we can have something to refer to. Whenever a newer situation is legalized, there have to be cases to establish said precedent. This time is a necessary messiness to establish precedent, and to solidify gay marriage's (and gay divorce's) legal standing. The more established precedent, the harder it will be for reactionaries to 'erase' gay marriage from the law books.
In short, the longer this is around, the better it will get. At least it's getting into the law books for once. Was it only a hundred years ago that homosexuality was listed in psychology references as an abberant behavior?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment