Cristy Chung and Lancy Woo celebrate the holidays at their San Francisco home in 2004
Posted on 11/13/2006 7:29:58 AM PST by SmithL
The couple whose names top all the arguments in California's same-sex marriage court case -- expected to head back to court today -- have separated.
Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung, who have been together 18 years and have a young daughter, announced that they are no longer part of the lawsuit challenging California's marriage statutes.
Attorneys arguing for same-sex marriage are expected to file a request today asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case. They said the breakup should not affect the case.
Woo and Chung's breakup comes just months after two other high-profile same-sex couples -- the lead plaintiffs in the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and a Vermont couple who were the first in the nation to enter a civil union -- also ended their relationships.
The couple are not talking publicly about their breakup, but they released a statement. "Our separation is amicable, and our first priority will continue to be protecting the best interests of our daughter," Woo and Chung said. "We remain fully committed to the principle that couples should be able to marry without regard to their sexual orientation, and we have been honored to be a part of this historic litigation."
Registered domestic partners, the couple were waiting to marry at San Francisco City Hall when the state Supreme Court ordered city officials to stop marrying same-sex couples.
An attorney representing some of the couples in the case, who is a personal friend of Chung and Woo, said their removal from the suit will not hurt its prospects.
"It doesn't have any legal effect on the case at all, because the case was brought on behalf of a number of couples as well as two organizations that represent people with the same interests,"...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
San Francisco Values?
Who's surprised? Stability and mental illness are incompatible by definition.
Huh. Eighteen years sounds a bit like stability to me.
Most homosexuals are not able to have long-term relationships, because they are psychologically unprepared for the commitment. They lack the maturity to make it work.
Those homosexuals who have been together for a long time (perhaps, say, 18 years) have made progress, but many of them take comfort in knowing that "It's not permanent. I'm not trapped. I can run away if I want to."
Homosexual marriage really stomps on that. I've seen a lot of stories about homosexuals who were together for many years, got "married", and split up a year later. Psychologically, they can't handle it. The lack of maturity which is the cause of their sexual identity works against a stable marriage.
Marriage is only as permanent as the nearest "no fault" divorce these days. How do you account for a 40% heterosexual divorce rate?
Where's the harm in allowing homosexuals to attempt "permanent" relationships under law?
Eighteen years is six years better then I managed. And 17 years, eleven months, three weeks, and five days longer then Britany Spears' first marriage.
And what holidays would those be? Heathene'en? Paganmas?
There is nothing stable about separation or divorce whenever it occurs. This is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, different from something like employment or residency where 18 years would be considered stable.
A lifelong commitment is difficult under the most normal of conditions, as we are all aware. When one of the parties has psychiatric issues, it's even more difficult. When both parties are suffering from a behavioral disorder, instability is guaranteed.
Homosexuals want to upset that tradition and redefine marriage. Some reasons why this bothers me:
1) I recognize that homosexuality is a mental illness. These people need help. They do not benefit from society pretending that their lives are normal.
2) The current definition of marriage exists through long-standing tradition. If we throw tradition out the window, then upon what do we base the new definition? Where is the line drawn? Perhaps you think people are whacky to worry about it, but I can pretty much guarantee that we will see Polygamy, Incest, and Child Marriages within a decade or two of a redefinition. Perhaps even bestiality.
Society would not benefit from this.
I think homosexuals should be able to go down to their local Unitarian church and get married. Under no circumstances should society be forced to recognize that marriage as equal to traditional marriage under the law. It's a matter of definitions, which every society has a right to make.
I find it interesting that the two 'test' cases for same sex marriage, have parted their ways.
What are the odds?
Probably more common than anyone might think.
"and have a young daughter"
no they do not.
ONE of the women has a daughter with an unknown father.
The other woman is just a recreational sex partner.
Not "woman and man", but definitely "feminine and masculine"...I always find that interesting.
The homosexual bishops closseted in the catholic church are trying to push for a religious edict stating homosexuality is not a reason to seek treatment.
per FR thread today.
Check out those "man-hands"...........
Guess somebody got tired of pitching woo and pitched Woo.
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.