header image

Be careful what you wish for

Meet Julie and Hilary Goodridge.

They were part of the seven gay couples to sue the State of Massachusetts over gay marriage which led to the Massachusetts Supreme Court creating a right that did not exist in the MA Constitution and imposing it against the will of the people.

So guess what happened?  Yup, they are getting divorced.  They didn’t even make it to the 7 year itch.  How’s that trailblazing working out for you now?  You could have just stayed unmarried and parted ways amicably but now you have a legal nightmare which will scar you and your bank account for years to come.   You just know that divorce lawyers were behind pushing this entire scheme from the get-go.  I think you were sold a bill of goods.

Let’s continue on with unpopular social experimentation and see how it goes. Next up, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Scott Allan and posted on February 4, 2009 and filed under news. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post Be careful what you wish for to digg. Post Be careful what you wish for to Reddit add to stumbleupon Google Bookmark myweb bookmark on del.cio.us newsvine Tailrank magnolia Furl co.mments shadows simpy blinklist

3 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. I don’t understand your reasoning - that because some gay couples end up getting divorced we shouldn’t allow any gay couples to marry ever?  If it’s true that 50% of all marriages end in divorce perhaps we shouldn’t allow anyone to marry.
    I’m sure those gay couples who are still married and will be married for the rest of their lives are grateful they could finally marry the person they love.
    I do hope Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is next.

    1. Silke on February 4th, 2009 at 6:22 am

  2. I think you might be on to something, Silke.   Probably nobody should get married. Perhaps Brad and Angelina have it right. Nowhere in the post did I say it shouldn’t be allowed in some form or another such as civil union.  I just find it incredibly ironic and even humorous.

    I disagree with the decision the MA Supreme Court made.  It angers me every time the court abuses their power.  If a right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it should be left up to the people to pass a law or amend the Constitution.  Instead the court is imposing an unpopular law knowing full well that the procedures to override a bad decision are incredibly difficult.  This is tyranny by a self-proclaimed enlightened elite who will make social engineering decisions for us because apparently we are too ignorant or backward to make them for ourselves.  This trend is becoming more common and frightening.  Even in liberal Massachusetts where I grew up, a majority of people do not agree with this decision.

    2. Scott Allan on February 4th, 2009 at 6:38 am

  3. Allowing a civil union but not a marriage is a matter of semantics.  Why do we have to call it something else?
     
    I understand your frustration with the courts but there are times when the courts should intervene - especially in matters of equality.  I think in time, though, what the courts decide will be irrelevant.  I think eventually states will vote for gay marriage.

    3. Silke on February 4th, 2009 at 7:28 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image