Posted on 03/09/2004 4:53:01 PM PST by GrandMoM
NEW YORK -- They weren't exactly playing dice at the foot of the cross. But here in the media epicenter of the Jesus question over the "greatest movie controversy ever manipulated" there were these lawyers, equally divided between Jewish and Christian, looking at San Francisco as their new cash cow.
On the tellys high above the smoke-varnished back bar of the tavern in which they were drinking, the news screens were divided between cable talking heads discussing topic A: Mel Gibson's Jesus movie; and topic B: San Francisco's gay-marriage parade and George Bush blowing the battle trumpet against it.
The New York lawyers' talk at this table was of the lucrative potentials of gay marriage, George Bush picking a fight with Gavin Newsom or not.
"What do you get when you got gay marriage? You get, inevitably, gay divorce," the lead lawyer said.
The profit potential from San Francisco gay marriage licenses, the way they saw it, was a veritable Golconda; something for lawyers like the California Gold Rush of 1849.
The prevailing view was that the boundaries of existing divorce law could be stretched, and in the stretching there is nothing but profit.
"Can you imagine, you could legally out some guy by an order to show cause in a gay divorce action. Say the boyfriend on the side is married to a woman, a pillar of the straight community. You could settle these cases with big bucks up front, without even going to trial," one lawyer said.
This is an aspect of the national gay-marriage flap that to my knowledge has not been previously discussed.
Sidney Zion, of the Daily News and a former federal prosecutor, laid out the legal complications:
"Before the prospect of gay marriage, one guy couldn't legally say yes to the other guy because he couldn't. How many straight guys have been asked by a woman, 'Why don't you marry me?' With gay marriage, you're no longer spared from saying yes. The question becomes that you can't say no. 'Why can't we go to San Francisco or Massachusetts to get married?'"
The lawyers at the table included some retired judges. To a man, they thought Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera's constitutional argument -- that to not issue licenses to same-sex couples was discriminatory -- would prevail in the higher courts. Perhaps not this Supreme Court, but courts change.
Even if gay marriage remains in dispute, it is an idea whose time has come, from the peculiar thinking of divorce lawyers.
"Imagine the constitutional-commerce-clause disputes between state laws when there is a dispute over adoption rights, of property rights among gay couples in different states," one lawyer said. He was licking his chops like a dog.
San Francisco is the first city to give the nation gay marriage. If the greedheads looking on prevail, it will also give the nation gay divorce.
Apparently a lot of gay older men who are wealthy prefer other men who are much younger and less established than themselves.
So bully for them lawyers, to capitalize on this! But there is more to come...
There's been talk that allowing gay marriages will open a Pandoras' box of problems within our society. Gay divorce is one of them. But I offer the following observation.
Gays want to knock down the traditional definition of marriage - that being an act between a man and a woman. If that is done, then why not a marriage between a brother and sister?
Gays want their domestic partners to have access to the benefits currently enjoyed by heterosexual marriage partners. Well, what about an adult brother and sister pair, living together and taking care of each other in their later years? No sex is taking place (well, one would hope not). But they are domestic partners. Why shouldn't a sister of a working man enjoy the benefits accorded to a spouse in other households? If gays get their way on this issue, then a brother-sister pair is being discriminated against!
Then there are sister-sister pairs, brother-brother pairs, man-dog arrangements. Why can't they also get married? Like I stated previously, a Pandoras' box of problems within our society. Sickening.
Iowa Judge Approves Gay Divorce
Friday, December 12, 2003
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — A county judge approved a divorce for a lesbian couple who obtained a civil union in Vermont, saying he didn't realize he was signing a settlement for a same-sex couple, but ultimately decided to let his decision stand.
Iowa is one of 37 states whose law bans same-sex marriage (search).
State Sen. Neal Schuerer accused Judge Jeffrey Neary on Thursday of "judicial activism at its worst."
"The judge was wrong. He should have backed away and sent them back to Vermont," said Schuerer, a Republican. "If judges want to flaunt the law like this, I can guarantee you we will move to recall them."
Neary, a district judge for Woodbury County, said he routinely signs divorces and doesn't check the participants' gender. When he discovered what had happened last month, said he confronted Dennis Ringgenberg, attorney for one of the women.
"I said this is probably going to be a controversial matter at some point in time," Neary said, "and he smiled and said, 'You're right."'
Neary, who was appointed in January by Gov. Tom Vilsack (search), said he had the opportunity to change his mind but decided against it — the divorce was permissible, he said, under a constitutional clause that requires states to recognize laws of other states.
"If I'm presented with a dispute that has to be resolved in my courtroom, or is before me that affects the rights of Iowans, I feel an obligation to solve that problem," Neary said. "I don't believe I'm recognizing same-sex marriage."
The women, Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer S. Perez, 26, who have Sioux City (search) addresses, were joined in a civil union March 25, 2002, in Bolton, Vt.
Judges in Texas and Connecticut have rejected requests for civil union divorces, said University of Iowa law professor Ann Estin.
"You can go to Vermont and have a civil union, but you can't, until now, go to another state and have a civil union divorce," she said.
Daniel Bray, an Iowa City lawyer and chairman of the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association, said the law is clear that marriage can only exist between a man and woman in Iowa.
"A divorce can be entered only when there is a valid marriage," he said.
At the same time, Bray said, Neary acted appropriately — in this case, he signed a settled agreement, and it wasn't incumbent upon him to determine the participants' gender.
"There are no floodgates being opened here. The issue here is that our law must constantly adapt to change in the family. Iowa has been a forerunner in making legal adaptations to legal challenges involving the family. "
Better than that I got dibs on a sitcom plot about two stright guys that marry for the benefits. Hijinks ensue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.