Thursday, November 14, 2013

Marriage Equality

15 down, 35 to go.

HONOLULU (Reuters) - Hawaii's governor signed into law on Wednesday a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, capping 20 years of legal and political rancor in a state regarded as a pioneer in advancing the cause of gay matrimony.

The new law, which takes effect on December 2, makes Hawaii the 15th U.S. state to legalize nuptials for gay and lesbian couples, rolling back a 1994 statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Marriage Equality will soon be law in all 50 can bet the house on that.

I know a lot of people here who are upset about this state of affairs. Many of the folks opposed to today's legislative milestone were opposing it under the banner of DEFENDING MARRIAGE.

Others are exultant and exuberant. They feel like they were a part of a movement as momentous and historical as the civil rights movement for teh Blacks in the 60's. WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!!!!!

This new law signifies two things: its just another milestone for the gradual, incremental progress for the social engineering of our society towards the Brave New World Order, and oh yeah...the Family Law Industrial Complex in Hawaii has just acquired a whole new niche market for developing future revenue streams.

You see, prior to the passage of Marriage Equality in 15 States here in USA Inc., the State had a hard time finding profits in the dissolution of gay relationships, unlike the lucrative harvest the Family Court Industrial Complex has enjoyed in deconstructing heterosexual relationships since the advent of No-Fault Divorce for cis-Gendered marriages.

These sorts of injustices have gone on long enough!

Take the case of one gay man in Pennsylvania, who was denied the benefits of Marriage Equality, as recounted by a Divorce attorney:

The related, and far more common, would-be client is the unmarried gay person whose long-term, marriage-like relationship ends. Can he avail himself of the remedies available to married people under our divorce laws? Is she entitled to any assets or support from her ex?

That’s the question I was asked by Eddie, who’d been in a relationship for twenty-two years when his partner dumped him for another man. Older, educated, and successful, Marco, the ex, owned a house, investments, and a pension. Eddie had none of those. He was a high school graduate who essentially hadn’t worked since he moved in with Marco at the age of twenty-one. He dabbled in various artistic pursuits, none of them profitable. But that was okay, because Marco supported him and, according to Eddie, specifically, explicitly, told him that he always would. So Eddie enjoyed their comfortable, middle-class life together, and never took any measures to ensure his own financial security. When Marco ended the relationship, Eddie was faced with the hard reality that here he was, forty-three years old, with no money in the bank and no ability to earn much more than minimum wage. He came to me to find out if the promises Marco made could be enforced.

Since Marriage Equality has not been legalized in Pennsylvania, Eddie was unsuccessful in his bid to enforce Marco to pay him alimony to maintain the lifestyle he had become accustomed to.

I made our pitch during closing arguments, asking her to award Eddie $300,000, which was the amount Marco received from the sale of the house where he and Eddie had lived for twenty-two years and Eddie had come to think of as his own. We argued that this was a reasonable amount to fulfill the promise of lifetime support, as it would enable Eddie to buy his own house. The judge nodded as she listened. My associate and I packed up our files and went back to the office, chewed our nails, and waited for her decision.It came two weeks later. We lost. We never got out of the starting gate. The judge ruled that she could not find there was a contract.

We as a society cannot abide such glaring examples of gross injustice and oppression!

Now that Marriage Equality is spreading to all 50 States in USA Inc., these sorts of problems will no longer trouble our formerly oppressed, second-class citizenry. They too will soon enjoy the benefits of court ordered indentured servitude to upkeep an ex-domestic partner in the lifestyle they had become accustomed to.

We should all consider ourselves blessed to be living witnesses to such an era of Progressive  advancement.

Free at last, free at last.... oh Glee!

Jane Lynch has proclaimed that her divorce from estranged wife Lara Embry is "not dramatic," and we're hoping it stays that way after the "Glee" star gets wind of her ex's recent request.

According to legal documents obtained by TMZ, Embry is asking Lynch to pay her $93,809 a month in spousal support.

Embry stated that Lynch's "income, investments and assets increased dramatically with her newfound acting success," and TMZ reports that Embry wants to be able to sustain the lifestyle she was used to during the couple's three-year marriage.

This is the perfect example of Marriage Equality all those backwards, intolerant and bigoted Christian fundamentalist homophobes have been denying our second-class gay citizenry for too long!


John said...

The only silver lining, if any, is that people might start realizing the alimony situation for men in heterosexual marriages is horrendous. But I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Good as always Keoni, but please don't use the phrase 'cis-gendered', even ironically. The word is normal. By using words invented by the enemy you legitimize him. Sure you may hurt someones feelings implying that they are not normal, but for the word normal to have any meaning some things must be unnormal. Words matter and our language is more important than feelings.

Here in Sweden the newly invented word 'hen' (meaning him or her) is spreading like wildfire and all it took was one small article in the biggest most PC newspaper to set it off. These PC words are like culture-viruses, first infecting the minds of those most anxious to display their own goodness and then as the word becomes more common by making everyone else first look old-fashioned and then racist/homofobic/or simply a bad person. My point here is that by not using the word 'normal' you are changing normality.

Anonymous said...

I for one can't wait! Confuses progressives when i argue so hard for gay marriage, but why shouldnt they have the same level of state enforced slavery as the rest of us? Gay marraige leads to gay divorce and loads of lulz. I can't wait till women are forced to pay child support to their partner who happens to be the birth mother. I know it wont bring any justice for men, but there is a dark pleasure in their suffering.

Glen Filthie said...

"You see, prior to the passage of Marriage Equality in 15 States here in USA Inc., the State had a hard time finding profits in the dissolution of gay relationships..."

I don't care how many stupid people line up in a row to claim homosexuality is beautiful and normal. My daughter is gay and I know those people have some serious screws loose. I ain't drinkin' the koolaid. As far as gay marriage rights are not violated one iota if a couple butt blasters can't get married.

If the liberal scum in the courts want to rape the queers financially I have no problems with it. The queers will whine and sob that the state has no place in their bedrooms - but they will fully expect the State to get into the hospital bed with them when they come down with AIDS.

Anonymous said...

i can't believe you used the term cis-gendered.

Keoni Galt said...

Good as always Keoni, but please don't use the phrase 'cis-gendered', even ironically.

i can't believe you used the term cis-gendered.

My intent in using the term was definitely done with the intent for facetious irony.

Note the repeated usage of the term "Marriage Equality" in the piece. On my first draft,I had every instance of it in "" as well as the term cis-gendered. It looked ridiculous to have so many sarcasm "" so I removed them all.

Besides, I personally find the term "cis-gendered" hilarious.

Of COURSE the proper term is "normal," but then, these are certainly not "normal" times we live in, no?


Dr. Illusion said...

Nothing like the gays getting a big dose of divorce equality.

Good post, brother.

sunshinemary said...

The purpose of it, of course, isn't to extend marriage to gay couples but rather to eliminate it as an institution altogether. Not than any individual gay couple thinks that way; I'm sure they don't.

But actually, I'm fine with the eventual death of State-based marriages at this point because, since the advent of no-fault divorce, they are just a corrupt mockery of what marriage is supposed to be. I would have no problem with our children opting out of state-based marriage licenses and going with Christian covenant marriages.

Keoni Galt said...

Good post, brother.

Thanks Doc.

The purpose of it, of course, isn't to extend marriage to gay couples but rather to eliminate it as an institution altogether.

While that's a common belief amongst those opposed to Same-Sex Marriage, I actually don't think so, Sunshine. IMO, Marriage 2.0 and the Family Court Industrial Complex profits mightily from the misery it inflicts and the slave conditioning to the State that it engenders.

They don't want to eliminate it...just continue to subvert, invert and corrupt it beyond all recognition from the original Patriarchal tradition.

cdw said...

In Canada gay marriage was lobbied for by old men who wanted survivor benefits from the old age pension. Then it spread around, the supreme court made a ruling, and our current parliament decided to not reopen the subject. Interestingly enough, gay marriage has come to a thundering stop in Ontario because of the family law reform act and legal precedents. My friends from that side of the life, who have money, will NEVER get married. And they make it clear to the boyfriend that he has to get his own lawyer and the civil union contract has to be signed before he can move in and live their longer than 3 days. As for my lesbian friends, none of them are married to women, if they were married to men first and then divorced. One thing I can tell you, your lesbian friend has some very interesting insights into the nature of women, and you should listen to her at all times.

Anonymous said...

Our intelligent local electorate voted in fag-marriage by referendum last year and within a month, divorce attorneys were already meeting to figure out how to cash in.

But the dumbass sheeple crowned that with even one better: last week (amidst much media hoopla) our first gay mayor was elected. Not only that, the first open Communist Party member was elected to the City Council.

I was going to ask you about Hawaii as possible place to relocate, but it doesn't sound like things are faring much better out in the Islands these days...

Will Best said...

I can't wait for two business partners or two mid-level execs working for competing companies to marry in order to avoid having to testify against one another.

Government will come in and say it can nullify the marriages and because EQUALITY it will be able to do it to all marriages.

Take The Red Pill said...

OMG it is just TOO funny for words!
We heterosexual 'red-pill' men are avoiding marriage because we have had our eyes opened and see marriage for the scam and trap that it is.
And gays are not just advocating for marriage, they are lining up to get married!
It's like seeing ducks pounding down the door of the shooting gallery!

Anonymous said...

I used to work with a guy who, in addition to being very homosexual, very out, and very proud, also was in debt up to his eyeballs and seemed unable to make any sound financial decisions.

He had a loving "husband" he lived with. They aren't legally married because his "husband" claims to not want to get married in another state but instead wait until it's legal for "all gay couples, even ones who can't afford an out of state wedding". Riiiiiiiight.

Related: cohabiting same-sex couples where one of the partners suddenly gets cold feet about the marriage altar when same-sex marriage is legalised.

ElectricAngel said...

You missed the biggest profit in the pile, Keoni. It isn't the Divorce-industrial complex; that's one time, and only a few K. It's the marriage penalty. As we wrote here, "Now let’s see what happens to them if they file as married. They’ll pay 92,406.50 in Federal Tax on their $350K joint net income, plus 22,441 in state tax, plus 12,555.80 in city income tax. Their total tax burden as a married couple is thus 127403.30, an annual increase to them of 7609.30, EVERY YEAR, just for tying the knot. They really take it in the rear for that chance they each had to be the wedding planner."