Men's RightsThe US normalizing of marriage rights, is going to flip the apple cart for women and they don't see it coming. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1Claude_Reborn

Edit for formatting

Summary - The Normalization of marriage rights for gay people is going to completely undo a lot of feminist bullshit.

In Before "don't get married"

For those that are, or want to be you should be cheering the hell out of the normalization of marriage rights for gay people because it is going to (in time) completely cut the legs off of women's ability to fuck men over in divorce and custody battles.

In the western world for the last couple of thousand years, marriage has been strictly between men and women, and was a means of ensuring that women could obtain resources from men, in return for comfort, security, safety and the continuation of the male bloodline. If women broke the contract by fucking around, or being an awful wife then she was punished in the courts by having all the contractually obligated goodies taken away in divorce. Thanks to feminism, people often forget that men were also punished for being "bad husbands" by the community if they neglected the health and well being of their wife and kids by failing to look after them.

Cuckolding aside, this bargain held pretty much true until feminism came along and completely fucked things up by implementing horrible things like "no fault divorce", which took all the punishments for breaking the divorce contract for women but not for men, and "the tender years doctrine" which gave automatic child custody to the women, regardless of her ability to look after the children, and then made men pay for it.

That has been the reality for the last 100 years or so but now with the normalization of marriage rights for gay people in the US, it means that the Man / Woman dynamic of marriage, divorce and custody battles has been blown completely out of the water.

Now it's going to be two PEOPLE, in a dispute which means things like "The tender years doctrine" will be rendered completely moot within 10-20 years. After all, you can't automatically award the kid to the mother, if there is no legal mother, or there is two of them. I also predict we'll start seeing "Fault" creeping back into divorce law, now that you won't be able to automatically "Blame the man" for the marriage falling apart.

You are going to see radical changes to divorce and marriage laws because all the sexist feminist bullshit that has been written into the mountains of law, will suddenly come back to bite a lot of (especially lesbian ) couples in the arse.

Not only that, now it means that gay men will no longer require "beards" AKA women they marry for legal and tax reasons. It'll be hilarious to see Chairmain Pao getting divorced now that her gay husband doesn't need her as a beard anymore. I am sure there are going to be more than a few men gaming the system and getting "married" as a form of tax / legal protection.

So as a RP guy, I am cheering on normalization of legal rights, because the more it happens, the shittier life will get for feminists and SJW's and the crazier people will realize they are. We get to sit back with a big bucket of popcorn and watch the SJW's eat each other like rats, as the blame game begins.

RP lessons - Any argument predicated on "the suffering of men" will always fail, because society doesn't give a fuck. Arguments based on logic and law will eventually win out against feelings. Also SJW's and feminists are incredibly short sighted, and even when they think they have won they have fucked themselves.

[–]BeautyQuark 201 points202 points  (48 children)

Judges determine cases on precedent. Same sex marriage is equal in the eyes of the law straight from SCOTUS. Heterosexual men just need to wait for large amounts of Same sex marriages especially lesbian marriages to end in divorce.

I honestly feel bad for the judges that have to deal with the initial influx of lesbian divorces. They will actually have to work hard and decide a case on actual jurisprudence as opposed to the current fucked up laws. They will also be aware that these cases will be used for a new model for heterosexual divorce. I can only imagine some of them feeling like their heads are imploding when they can no longer blame the man. They literally will know that their decision may impact millions of CC riders, and the government will be picking up the tab.

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 155 points156 points  (24 children)

Someone gets it!

Lesbian marriage / divorces will ALSO blow away the narrative about domestic violence now that lesbian marriages / domestic violence will show up in the stats properly now.

Suddenly they are going to have to ditch the Duluth model, where it's always the man arrested.

Normalization of marriage is going to pretty going to blow the lid of 40 years of feminist bullshit "social science"

[–]newls 60 points61 points  (5 children)

Largely because there'll be no men for them to blame.

...except the judge maybe.

[–]weirdnamedindian 49 points50 points  (4 children)

Oh they'll find a way to blame men. They have to. They can't function otherwise.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

These people are naive. The constitution allows for what we call 'reasonable classification' between two groups of people. In other words, the LGBT marriages will be classified different to same sex marriages and will thus legally be treated differently to heterosexual marriages. There will be no change in any of the feminist BS in regular man-woman marriages.

Please read the constitutional bits that deal with 'equality'. It clearly states that no two men or groups are equal and thus can be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for classification.

[–]Sea_of_Fish 11 points11 points [recovered]

On the other hand, this could all just be wishful thinking. I can already see hamsters going full throttle, writing off the occurrences of lesbian domestic violence as 1. discussions that got out of hand, 2. side effects of menstruation, 3. the pressure of coping with a nontraditional family, 4. not enough laws protecting women, and reasons ad nausea

[–]sorryimachampion 15 points15 points [recovered]

You are a delusional idiot. Woman are protected by men because of innate human psychology. Look at Canada we've had same sex marriage for over 10 years and this country is the heavyweight champ of divorce rape for men.

You are blatantly projecting. Expect things to get worst not better...

[–]regal1989 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You may be correct, but we can't know for some large amount of time. It takes roughly 50 years, not 10, for any societal change to fully take root, and is incremental. A good example is the American south where blacks started as slaves and then adjusted to the Jim crow era, Now after full civil rights from the 60s are blacks starting to get much closer to full socio-economic parity.

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's because you're missing a 0. It takes a lot more than 10 years for legal systems to change. It's more like planting a tree.

[–]reddumpling 8 points9 points  (5 children)

After that, whatever they teach for 'gender studies' will be moot. The degree won't need to exist anymore!

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Anymore? That degree doesnt need to exist now! hahahahaha otherwise solid point

[–]notseriouslyserious 12 points13 points  (3 children)

The degree prints money (for the college), it'll always exist

[–]reddumpling 5 points6 points  (2 children)

That is the sad truth man. I cant believe how expensive college tuition is nowadays

[–]charlesbukowksi 4 points5 points  (1 child)

it's also less essential than it's ever been

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, are we talking about college or women? I forgot.

[–]emotionalpainkiller 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I'm curious because I don't understand you. What will the nationwide legalization of lesbian marriage reveal about domestic violence?

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 45 points46 points  (4 children)

Lesbian relationships have higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual or gay relationships.

It blows the theory that only men abuse women away, and will now start showing up in official stats

[–]emotionalpainkiller 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Ok, I think I understand you now, thanks.

[–]Dravous 4 points5 points  (1 child)

although I can no longer find it(surprise....) I saw data from the DHHS that showed when they occurred, physical child abuse was around 60% done by women, and sexual child abuse was 70% done by women, in two parent households. they keep trying to conceal it but the truth is women are just as violent as men.

I suspect that in a vacuum there is no difference in violent tendencies between the sexes, but one sex can get away with it more they're taking full advantage of that.

[–]TRPsn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They tend to use the "but he is strooooooonger than her" argument pretty often as well. Which means, I should be able to fuck with a 6'7 300lb Defensive Lineman and he cant do shit to me because he is strooooooonger.

[–]H42 35 points35 points [recovered]

I can only imagine some of them feeling like their heads are imploding when they can no longer blame the man. 

This is especially true for female judges.

Pass the popcorn, lets enjoy the show.

[–]1rporion 22 points23 points  (10 children)

In the case of a divorce I would take a hardass female judge over a man any day.

[–]NightGod 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Dream team for a divorce is a female lawyer with a female judge. while your wife has a male lawyer.

[–]long-lostfriend 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yep. It's a female judge who sentenced my ex to 180 days in jail for keeping my kids from me.

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Successful females are usually the worst misogynists in my experience. I had this colleague, brilliant trader, she was by FAR the toughest on our Turkish intern (HB9 of 19 years). No man would ever yell at her (when we fucking yell at each other all day long) but she did all the time.

[–]Crushinated 7 points8 points  (1 child)

They'll just favor the bio mom

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Who do you fuck over financially when they're the same sex? Well if you look at Ellen Degeneres the wealthier one gets fucked over in the current system. It will be some time before states stop blaming men for female mistakes and hypergamous behavior.

[–]Johnny10toes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You mean, they'll have to do their job? The horror!

This was one of the first things I thought of when I heard the news.

[–]DawnoftheShred 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Didn't no fault divorces also come about from the fact that divorce courts were so bogged down in trying to decide who held what % of fault in each divorce, that they just said...screw it...and made it pretty much default in the woman's favor? I'm wondering if our current system even has the manpower or means to deal with this potential complexity of, as mentioned, woman/woman divorce?

[–]1iluminatiNYC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know I'm late, but I happen to be acquainted with one of the first women to get divorced from a woman in NY State. She decided to leave her wife and go marry a dude...and got taken to the cleaners in the process. Lost the house, the car and all of her savings. I'm surprised she didn't try to kill the ex. Hopefully, things will change though.

[–]long-lostfriend 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will never "feel bad" for a family court judge.

[–]Late30sMasculist 46 points47 points  (25 children)

I read your post and the top few replies.

The gay marriage thing is a manufactured controversy. If I believed in conspiracies, I would say that "they" want to get the regular people wasting their energy fighting each other over trivialities than paying attention to more complicated issues.

The reason I think you are wrong is that gays make up...what? 2% of the population? I am friends or acquainted with quite a few gays and very few of them want to be "married." So if 10% of gay couples do get "married," then you're talking about 2% x 10% = 0.2% of the population effected by this decision. Or 1 out of 500 people.

The hulaboo over gay marriage is more about a bunch of liberals all showing off to each other how progressive they are than anything that will have a real impact on society. Sort of like driving a Prius...they spend way more money on a shitty hybrid car than they will ever save in gasoline, not to mention the manufacturing process of the batteries is an environmental shit show, but they do it so everyone else can see how hip they are.

Same thing with gay marriage. The people that make the most noise about it are doing so to score points with their liberal buddies. 5 years from now, gays getting married will be at the level of the Mormons marrying multiple women....a weird curiosity that happens occasionally and fun to read about, but so insignificant that they won't really influence anything.

That's why I think you are wrong.

Also, you expect too much behavioral consistency from judges and legislators.

[–]drallcom3 20 points20 points [recovered]

My Facebook is full of rainbows and no one pays attention to the Greece crisis, which could very well define the future of our EU.

[–]Late30sMasculist 14 points15 points  (1 child)

You're European and your Facebook friends are all celebrating a USA court decision? That seems funny to me, and even proves my point. Why the hell show support for a court decision that will affect 1/500 people in a far off country when as you say, the Greece currency crisis will have an effect on every single person living in the EU -- the people you look in the eye as soon as you step out of the house? It blows my mind.

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Greece won't sink the Euro, it's a shitty little place no one cares about. But if Italy or Spain gets to the same point it could.

[–]drallcom3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The dangerous part is when Greece gets away with his asshole behavior and then countries like Spain join in.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]GovernorKevin 8 points8 points [recovered]

Sanders and Ron Paul have extremely different views.

[–]Recheater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder what they are going to go after next because this one WAS a big distraction for them.

Maybe they can devote their energy to ending the war on drugs and taking back all the power (and insane weaponry) the government's given to police in order to enforce all these ridiculous drug laws. Police bust in your door, shoot your dog, maybe shoot you, and they got the wrong address? Sorry, pal, war on drugs means they can do it!

But that's an actual problem, with actual consequences for millions of innocent Americans. It's also a problem that can actually be legislated fairly easily. So they'll probably focus on something like forcing people to use a gender-neutral pronoun. There's a battle they can fight for decades.

[–]redzorp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The whole gay thing is a complete distraction. Just more divide and conquer strategies for the Elite.

Chris Greene at AMTV nailed it on the head in his latest video. Starts talking about Dylan Roof but gets onto the gay marriage distraction and dissects it wonderfully:


[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yep, it's divide and conquer, same old same old. The bankers have been playing this game since they figured it out with Catholics vs. Protestants. It's easy too, find some moron who already thinks the way you want to promote (I guarantee you there is at least one SOMEWHERE) and fund him. Money is speech, the supreme court agrees.

It's both a power play and a source of profit, in short it's pure gold. In keeping with the need to divide, expect Pedophiles to be next in the LGBTQ - P chain.

While people are busy being outraged, start a war, vote an unfunded tax cut (instant profit in loans to Gov) and inject toxic smudge into the water via high pressure fracking (while making sure people worry about Carbon in the air, of which they are made of) and sell the drugs for those cancers (but ban the cure) if we calculate everything right people will die at 50 right when they stop being usefull.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 142 points143 points  (28 children)

You are going to see radical changes to divorce and marriage laws because all the sexist feminist bullshit that has been written into the mountains of law, will suddenly come back to bite a lot of (especially lesbian ) couples in the arse.

Sorry, no. You are mistaken. You are applying logic to the situation and predicting that the elites in charge will apply logic and seek the greater good. But the elites are not interested in the greater good, or logic--they are ideological. They are self interested insofar as divorce is an economic institution which benefits the lawyers and courts and they will keep that cash cow going as long as possible.

Your post reads as if the institution of marriage was destroyed by historical accident or by a policy misstep. As if they really want civilization to survive and thrive but they just made a few errors in calculation and now they will re-calibrate and get this ship smooth sailing.

In fact (Western) civilization is being deliberately deconstructed piece by piece. The future is one of corporate slave masters and a global plantation of slaves who must internalize and mimic "correct thinking." When the government/media complex tells you this flag or symbol is evil, then you get angry and make social media posts calling for its end. When the government/media tells you this flag is good and wholesome and righteous, you change your facebook profile picture and signal that you agree with the correct thinking. When the president tells you this group of men with guns are freedom fighters and need arms, you nod your head in agreement--we should send them arms! When the president tells you that you don't need a gun to protect yourself, you surrender your weapons to the nearest police station--or more likely, you heard the message so many times in your life that you never bothered to buy one or learn how to shoot in the first place.

[–][deleted] 31 points31 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

What I want to know is how bad is it really right now? This was their news blackout trump card. When shit hits the fan you legalize gay marriage or make abortion illegal and suddenly no one is paying attention to what's really about to happen. Are we finally going to war with Russia? Is Greece taking down the EU? Something real big may have just gone down.

[–]12_f_taiwan 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Our jewlizard overlords are distracting public attention from the TPP.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

TPP seems too small of a thing to play such a big card. Not that TPP is small, but gay marriage is just huge. You save that one for the day it Snowden leaks that the US is actually run by 3 Jews who hang out in the back of Katz deli and put a black man in a president on a drunken dare.

[–]zer0nix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the democrats need a victory. what can they run on really? the tpp? a mandate to purchase profit driven health insurance without price controls? the failure to control and regulate the banks? the failure to create effective safeguards against pollution? the failure to protect whistleblowers? the failure to end the drug war? most recently, a trifecta of failures from spacex?

we got bin laden and we did it without using a drone. that's impressive but opponents can say that american lives were endangered by using a seal team instead of a missile (although a seal team can ensure that the right people get killed and no one else). also, i'm almost positive that wikileaks is the cia's BRILLIANT new method of undermining foreign govts to further american interests, but that's not something that the democrats can publicly admit to.

we banned transfats. that's a great thing, i guess, but it's not something to celebrate.

the dems need a win.

[–]slimcoat 31 points32 points  (2 children)

I couldn't agree more.

This ruling changes nothing for heterosexual men.

[–]grewapair 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Exactly. The court will just figure out who is the "man" in the relationship and then rape him.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But men can't be raped! /s

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Thank you for posting this. Corporate slavery is the end goal. Corporate ownership of government is fascism, and we are headed there, one degree at a time.

[–]KHJohan 11 points12 points  (9 children)

The government is acting like a woman.

It does 10 bad things and 1 good thing, and claims to be good.

What good has Obama done in 8 years? He didn't really help getting marriage equality, the supreme court did that. Getting trops out of Afghanistan? Bitch shouldn't be praised for doing what should have been done a lot quicker. He hasn't even closed qantanamo bay.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

my cousin gets deployed to Afghanistan this December lol he hasn't done shit.

[–]link5057 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Look into Bernie Sanders if you haven't. Watch any of his youtube videos (especially this one) and you might like what you see. He is an unlikely candidate, but honestly is the best one out there right now with a long history of speaking and voting for what he feels is right. Don't mean to turn TRP into my Bernie plug, but if you thought obama was shit its because he was lying to us while campaigning.

[–]Helmut_Newton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree for the most part. How many people who have changed their Facebook pics into rainbows have even heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, much less understand the repercussions for all of us if it passes.

[–]Wtfiwwpt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sure you did it on purpose, but for those who read it, pay close attention to the "government/media" part. The G/M combo want nothing more than to completely own you and control you. And they want all your money too. No, wait. They want to give you less and less of their money (because all your money belongs to them in the first place). We need the FairTax badly.

[–]Stephen_Reeves 1 point2 points  (1 child)

they are ideological. They are self interested insofar as divorce is an economic institution which benefits the lawyers and courts and they will keep that cash cow going as long as possible.

Yup. and THEY have a name.

[–]saibot83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cut out tv and obvious propaganda media for this exact reason. We're still bombarded daily from all angles but it helps somewhat to tune out so to speak. It's a shame people are still asleep.

[–][deleted] 89 points90 points  (46 children)

Yup, I for one welcome gay marriage, it's stupid as it stems from their neediness and the fact the majority of the GLBT community 'needs' to be accepted, but at the same time it should force courts to rethink marriage laws in the US.

That being said it hasn't done much here in the UK, but we have something called a civil partnership, naturally gays here are constantly up in arms about because they need to emulate heterosexual couples. Just for clarification I don't dislike homosexuality, I just dislike the GLBT community, because I find them to be just like the bigots who don't want them around.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (9 children)

Never understood why "L" was first. Gay men have suffered thousands of times more abuse and discrimination. Many of the "lesbians" aren't even real ones. They have no right to be first.

[–]Rougepellet 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Many lesbians are so simply because they hate men so they switched teams. I know of no guy who is gay simply to get back at women

[–][deleted] 14 points14 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]MicroMinion 11 points12 points  (1 child)

If being gay was an option women would cease to exist very soon.

[–]pantsoffire 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Originally G was first. They got it changed, really.

[–]Elesh 6 points7 points  (1 child)


I saw something longer at the Toronto Pride last night. When we are living in times where everyone and their pony fetish needs to be accepted, being the first ingredient does not amount to much.

Can I add some BBQ to your pride? Would make me so savory.

[–]PapaFedorasSnowden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand why it's even an issue whether a G, L, B, Y, M, C, A, whatever comes first.

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 28 points29 points  (7 children)

Yeah but the UK never got rid of "Fault" in divorce, so there is that. The elites in the UK realized what a fucking nightmare that'd be, and never took the feminist bait, unlike the US.

[–]newls 13 points14 points  (6 children)

We don't have common law marriage either. The state is perfectly happy to let you kick your girlfriend out on a moment's notice.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 16 points17 points  (4 children)

kick your girlfriend out

So long as you own the house, or it's your name only on the lease.

[–]newls 13 points14 points  (2 children)

And a lot of girls do try to get their names on those, even if they've never paid a penny for rent or the mortgage.

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean in the UK? I thought I had read of a few instances where men had been forced to compensate their live-in girlfriends after a breakup.

[–]CptDefB 18 points19 points  (22 children)

I just dislike the GLBT community, because I find them to be just like the bigots who don't want them around.

Seconded. I've spoken with trans people who've communicated to me the beef between the LGB (orientation) and T (gender) communities. For a community that wants (needs?) to be as inclusive as possible, their in fighting amuses me greatly. Human nature that they can't even see, because it's human nature.

[–]ObservantOmega 15 points16 points  (21 children)

You can safely remove the B from the LG. Many people in the LG community still can't wrap their heads around the fact that bisexuals aren't just "in the closet". In fact bisexuals are geting almost no support whatsoever.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (20 children)

fact that bisexuals aren't just "in the closet". In fact bisexuals are geting almost no support whatsoever.

Sorry, could just elaborate on this for me please? As in public opinion of bisexuals still isn't benign or?

[–]ObservantOmega 12 points13 points  (19 children)

There still exists a denial that bisexuality exists, not only from heterosexuals but also from LG people. I've been faced with psychologists telling me I'm gay because bisexuality does not exist and gays telling me they'll "fix me". So the prevalent opinion of the society I have experienced was to deny that I existed. I admit that this is a biased opinion of one guy, but look around you and tell me, have you seen a support group for bisexuals?

[–]bluedrygrass 2 points3 points  (0 children)

and gays telling me they'll "fix me".

Which is pure gold, coming from a gay. You should have sued his ass for discrimination. Or just told them you were "born that way" and that "it's ok to be bi" and watch their heads explode.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (16 children)

Oh yes this is very true, it's because they can't accept sexuality as a spectrum, because it implies choice and their motto is that they didn't choose to be gay.

Personally I think it is a spectrum, and depending on your environment you lean hard one way or the other, and with men we often haze each other, pushing men in the middle of the spectrum one way or the other.

Even if it wasn't a spectrum, it would still be a choice, because you have a choice to not sleep with the opposite gender, but it is a choice everyone should be entitled to make. The 'GLBT community' can't accept this because like feminism, it's not an inherently egalitarian movement, so the better they can argue one thing for themselves, the more they will do so, especially with a certain man-hating hydra leading it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's likely an innate psychological dichotomy of us vs. Them. Humans don't deal well with spectrums. You are either part of my tribe or part of theirs. You don't just like football, you root for a team. You are either liberal or conservative, or you are weird.

[–]KHJohan 6 points7 points  (7 children)

I would say that a lot of SJWs are trying to take the term GLBT for themselves by adding a bunch of extra letters.

I would argue that GLBT's goal shouldn't have been marriage equality, but chamges in the legal system so all the advantages of being in a marriage could be achieved by people within LTR, stuff like visitation rights and so on, and to only have tax exemptions given if a LTR filled a certain criteria, like if they have children together.

Then the religious side of marriage would not be touched, and a religious ceremony would be completely optional, people could then easily just find some pastor that isn't antigay and hire him if they wanted to have a religious marriage, from there on the free market would solve the problem.

[–]IceDagger316 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I love how the gay agenda activists bring up societal constructs that have only existed for maybe a hundred or so years (visitation rights, tax breaks, etc) as a demand for why marriage needed to be changed, when all that really needed to be changed were those constructs created by governments. I doubt any religious people would be hurt or offended by a change in hospital policies or the tax code.

But if you bring this up to them their response is "Fuck those Christians, they are hateful bigots" or something of the sort. I just shake my head at the hypocrisy and walk away.

[–]99919 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The right move is civil unions for everyone: enforceable (and negotiable) legal contracts to let couples plan for and deal with finances, custody issues, and the possibility of divorce.

As far as the morality of various types of marriage, that's up the the individual couples. People who are super-Christian or whatever can say that only certain types of marriage are valid in their belief system, and others can disagree.

The morality part isn't the proper role of government anyway.

[–]IceDagger316 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the homosexual agenda pushers outright rejected the concept of civil unions with equal standing as marriage for homosexuals. In fact I would venture to say that "civil union" is probably a term that atheists and other anti-religion folks would like to have for their marriage as well, being that marriage and church/deities often go hand in hand (wether rightfully so or not).

Friday's decree from the ascended masters of the Supreme Court was a vast overstepping of government bounds. Being that marriage is an abstract institution not created by government, the government has no place in attempting to define it. The legal, civil contract that the government does control is their place to define, but that legal, civil contract is not marriage. It is a contract.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Totally. There is absolutely no reason that sexual partners should need to be registered with the state at all and receive tax benefits for doing so. Marriage is a social and religious institution and there really isn't any need for state governance outside of contract law.

To give a real world scenario, I have two acquaintances that are sisters. These women (who are thoroughly unattractive BTW) own a house together and live a life not unlike any married couple, sans sez, but I guess that makes them even more like any married couple. Even though they are financially tied similar to an LTR, they don't get the benefits of a state granted marriage contract because they are relatives. This same sex marriage ruling does nothing to help them. It would be better to just offer the partnership contract to any partnership and forego enforcing any traditional marriage arrangement on a state level. Leave the relationship and the sex up to the partners.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

From what I've read, it is a spectrum, and the social constructs around behavior limit understanding of it to an insane degree.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, before the hazing begins you see people explore sexuality a bit more, we see this in children the most, before the conditioning they are more likely to explore sexuality with both genders, playing doctor, play kissing and looking at and touching each other's genitalia. When they grow up they'll find themselves closer to one side or the other, most people finding themselves heterosexual.

However a good deal of social construct does exist that pushes people in the middle closer to one side, men hazing weakness is one of these, the GLBT community does it in the other direction. Ideally we would have none of this social construct, but that's impossible, so the best way would be to allow both to go ahead, to allow the individual to decide.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Gay marriage was legalised last year in the UK

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Gay marriage was legalized a bit more than 10 years ago and it hasn't done much to change the nature of British divorce.

Gays finally got the right to have the government and people who dislike homosexuality recognize gay marriage last year, it stems from their need for acceptance.

That being said you might be right in inferring that now government has to accept it as marriage then the courts and Judges will have to as well, and thus it may now have a bigger effect on divorce in the UK.

[–]KHJohan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Gays finally got the right to have the government and people who dislike homosexuality recognize gay marriage last year, it stems from their need for acceptance.

in the UK the church is a part of the goverment, Im not sure if it receives financiel backing from the goverment, but if it does, gays were probably also annoyed that they payed the wage of someone who refused to serve them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, they are linked, but not so much, it's to the point they can be considered separated, the church is run independently of the government, it's only that it's the established church of England and Scotland, the church has a very small say in politics, as they have a few hereditary seats in the house of lords, the idea is that religion will temper the government and bit and because they are subject to the law they can help stop the government acting specifically against them.

The only way Churches in England can get money from the government is that they are eligible for restoration lotteries, to keep very old churches with historical benefit open, or to stop them from falling apart, but castles and things are eligible for this sort of thing regardless of who owns them, if you buy an old church from the Church of England you can be eligible for the lottery if they approve of your plans for restoration, even to live in them as long as you keep it looking good on the outside.

The thing with GLBT community, is they can't accept civil partnership, even if it's the exact same thing legally as marriage in every single respect, they have the need for everyone to accept them for who they are.

The thing is forcing churches to marry gay people is religious intolerance, yes gays should be allowed to marry in churches, but that is down to the church itself as an independent institution, based on the views of the worshipers there, because a church isn't for the pastor.

The bible is pretty clear about what it thinks of gay people, yet because of their need for acceptance, they need to force the religious to accept them. Also because it's the white man's religion it's viewed as fair game, whereas they aren't trying to get married in mosques.

If you're arguing that churches should be forced to serve gay people, that's like saying you should be allowed to bury pigs in a mosque.

[–]Mister_Shitlord_2U 31 points31 points [recovered]

I can see them adding amendments to the current law to handle same sex couples. I don't think it will change what is already there concerning heterosexual couples. I think this will help less than you think.

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 17 points18 points  (23 children)

I can see them adding amendments to the current law to handle same sex couples.

Which will then be challenged by those with resources on both sides, because unequal treatment under the law.

[–]Rathadin 42 points43 points  (12 children)

I find your abundance of faith in the law... disturbing...

This "unequal treatment under the law" won't change things for hetero males... we'll still be in last place, picking up the tab for most everyone else.

I would like to be proven wrong, but I don't think this will work out quite the way you expect it will.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

As fast as that hamster wheel is already spinning, I can't imagine that a few inconvenient truths about same-sex relationships are going to stop it

[–]Rathadin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We've reached peak hamstering.

[–]cunt_stench69 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Either that or OP is trying to convince himself that "marriage is getting better for men!"

[–]Rathadin 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Ironically, I do think marriage will become better for men, but I don't think this is the catalyst. It might be though... I'd like for it to be.

[–]cunt_stench69 0 points1 point  (3 children)

really? how do you think it will be better?

[–]Rathadin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I suspect it'll happen rather naturally, in one of two ways. Right now, women are experiencing a pretty rough go of it once they hit a certain age. This age shifts a bit depending on where you live... apparently in New York City its around the late 20s (27-29), but in more rural areas it tends to stretch out a little longer. Because of this, women are starting to lower their expectations and they're becoming more realistic about what marriage is going to be like (which is to say, not a Disney movie).

Alternatively, at some point, men are going to band together and form PACs that will back candidates that are willing to change laws to be more equitable between men and women during marriage and divorce.

I can't really say which scenario is more likely to take place sooner than the other, but I suspect we'll see them both occurring at the same time, with varying degrees of success.

[–]cunt_stench69 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Interesting thoughts. I completely disagree but still interesting, lol. Cheers

[–]wanderer779 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah I hope this guy is right but I doubt it.

Whatever happens I'm middle aged and never getting married so it's too late for me. Maybe it will improve things for the next generation. I haven't seen a lot on this front to make me optimistic but I really do hope it works out for them.

[–]FreeRadical5 16 points16 points [recovered]

If the law cared about unequal treatment, it wouldn't become so fucked up to begin with. You have way too much faith in the system.

[–]_newbeginnings_ 5 points6 points  (6 children)

This article has some amazing insight but I as well fear the wave of feminism and societal catering to women's empowerment is too big to stop at this point.

Our society just has an incessant need to placate women because somehow we are responsible for all women's suffrage in history.

[–]NightGod 8 points9 points  (3 children)

esponsible for all women's suffrage in history


Suffrage is the right to vote.

[–]BruhBrehBro 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That's how they get you, they can talk about suffrage but it sounds like "Wymens suffer oh how awful pls halp"

Edit: I also assumed suffrage was the same as suffering.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

somehow we are responsible for all women's suffrage in history.

Yes we are. But men's contribution is ignored. Because patriarchy.

We're also responsible for all future women as well. Because vagina.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The suffrage such as being kept out of war and staying safe for most of human history. Those monsters.

[–]juliusstreicher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sadly, it won't help. If it would, there would be very little alimony awarded, ever.

[–]juliusstreicher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This. There is no end to the evil which stupidity can craft.

[–]kjuca 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Plot twist: what if gay marriages do not suffer the same divorce rate as hetero marriages?

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the gay marriage divorce rates in western countries that have it is <=14% for male-male marriages and <=23% for female female marriages. First of all, let me say that I am shocked - shocked - that the lesbian divorce rate in many countries is double that of gay male marriages, but nevertheless we are talking about a much smaller rate of divorce among a very tiny minority of the population anyway. According to NHS data 1.8% of men and 1.5% of women in the US identify as gay. So in the case of lesbians no more than 25% of marriages among 1.5% of the population will end in divorce... this is a very small number.

TL;DR: My opinion, gay marriage and gay divorce will have little or no effect (my money's on no effect whatsoever) on hetero divorce norms. Marriage will remain a dead institution for straight working class males.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Those stats are like 2 years old.

You need to wait a little longer for divorce numbers ...

[–]ObservantOmega 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At least seven to eight years, and this assuming they all marry ASAP. I think we will have reliable numbers in ten years.

[–]hebola4lyfe 27 points28 points  (9 children)

This is way too unrealistic . You think gay marriage is going to change heterosexual marriage laws ? That's very naive and immature . The government will always support and favor women because it's in the government's interest and benefit. The marriage business/industry brings tons of money and profit. They will not change a goddamn thing about their business model aka marriage laws.

Why do you think laws give "candies and treats" to married couple ? They want to award men for stepping in their business model ( marriage ) and encourage men to raise families ( tax payers ) .

The government will soon impose special taxes for single men only and reward single mothers; just like they did to black people all these years. Look at what is happening to the black communities . Black single mothers are the biggest puppets of the American government .

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Cultural marxism just loves useful idiots and 'separate and unequal' treatment of normal hetero men. OP is either naive or a shill. The system isn't broken. It is working just perfectly for the social engineers that conceived it and the activists that propagate it. Masculinity is a threat to the establishment, not gays -- married (a horrible idea even for systemic, cum-guzzling, toadies) or not.

[–][deleted] 10 points10 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everything is so messed up no one really knows what they should do anymore

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Don't cut your dick off or get fucked in the a$$ just yet mate...

There is a life out there to be lived; all these madisonaved fwits be damned.

[–]fuck_da_haes[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

48 Laws of Power, read it, you will know what to do ...

[–]trphardmode 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The government will always support and favor women because it's in the government's interest and benefit

I'm not sure about this actually. I think that as men become less economically productive they may turn back on some of the feminist bullshit. They want a society of equal wage slaves - young single women are making more than men right now, so I think they will want to try to maintain a rough equilibrium until everyone in the US is an equal androgynous mixed-race worker drone.

[–]99919 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those single women (rich and poor) overwhelmingly vote for big government, though. It takes a village to raise a child, free birth control, paid time off from work, subsidized day care and health insurance, all that.

Married women and (most) men are more likely to be self-reliant and prefer the government to stay out of their way.

[–]Wtfiwwpt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As usual it all comes down to money. Our government hates that it has to let us keep as much as we do, and will support anything that lets them take a little bit more. We need to repeal the income-based tax and put in place a consumption tax.

[–]JackMcJackson 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The Netherlands and Belgium have gay marriage for 15 and 12 years now, but as far as I know, no changes like you describe have happened.

[–]weirdnamedindian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do hetero men usually get divorce raped with life time alimony and child support in Belgium and the Netherlands? Any Belgians and Dutch here?

[–][deleted] 17 points17 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Wtfiwwpt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Preach it! I had to resit the impulse to post what you already did.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Calm your butthole! Gay pun intended. Unfortunately courts don't work anything like this. There is an amazing book called: Judges on Judging, which makes the wonderful argument that judges do whatever the fuck they want and then get the Law Clerk to dig for some precedent to justify their bullshit.

Also Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the book : A Matter of Interpretation. In it he basically says Fuck You. I am the law. Ima do whatever the fuck I wanna do bitch. If I want to slide my hairy Italian sausage out from under my robes and bang it on the bench like a gavel, im going to do just that. I am the motherfucking Leviathan, look upon me and despair.

The best example of this phenomenon is Bush V Gore. Almost always the conservatives argue for a limited government and the liberals argue for an expansive view.

Plot twists. The conservative justices adopted liberal jurisprudence, backtracked on everything they usually said to get George Bush in power. Then they said fuck democracy whipped out their old man cocks from their robes and bukaked Sandra Day O'Connor.

Family Law Courts are going to dig up the most obscure bullshit to fuck over men. Why? Because family law judges are bitter cunts. They are the fat law school girls that GayLubeOil manipulated for outlines and study materials.

Red Pill, I rest my case.

[–]CptDefB 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of things women don't see coming. Solipsism doesn't allow for foresight. Normalization of marriage is one thing, but the effect of transgender women on every aspect of what is normally "female territory", is the one I look forward to the most.

Women's sports? Nope. Women-Who-Used-To-Be-Men's sports because a couple decades of testosterone is a big deal. Post-op vaginas become more aesthetic than normal ones? Too bad that natural beauty has been surpassed. Men learn how to cook and clean and take care of themselves? Hmm, them auxiliary benefits are getting fewer and fewer. Wait, artificial womb? So much for marriage as the road to a family. Artificial vaginas (and male sex toys in general) losing their social stigma over time as technology and exposure improve?

Hmm... what are women for again?

Equality dissolving sexes.... corporations dissolving borders... while first world countries continue to think they're at peace and things are better than ever. Calhoun's mouse experiment writ large.

Should be fun.

[–]Statecensor 2 points3 points  (3 children)

You are forgetting that the legal system is capable of isolating homosexual unions in legal judgement, opinions and articles from heterosexual ones and still give both types of couples full rights during marriage and divorce. Tender years for example can apply to the man or woman in a homosexual marriage that quits their job or works from home while taking care of the child or the partner who only works to pay for daycare and spending money for themselves.

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

but then those precedents can be used by canny divorce lawyers of heterosexual couples. Suddenly stay at home husbands will have legs to stand on, backed by legal precedents.

Suddenly more and more women will be forced to pay larger, and larger alimony.

Suddenly you'll see NOW stop fighting alimony reforms, and you may see it being limited / removed in some places.

As soon as that shit starts affecting women in serious numbers, things will change.

[–]Rathadin 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do we do do do do. Yeah right.

I get the feeling the misandrists have only gotten started.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Nothing is just going to automatically happen.

While I can see a few lesbian couples bitching about alimony and child support and how custody is awarded to the primary caregiver, the fact is that the law is not explicitly pro-female.

The law awards custody to the primary caregiver. If that primary caregiver is a male then he's got the advantage. His wife can destroy that advantage by making a false claim but that's another issue.

Alimony is awarded to the spouse who stays at home and takes care of kids. So then, if a lesbian is a primary caregiver then her butch will have to pay her support.

Will the minority of lesbian and gays be able to change the laws in ways that millions of men could not? Do you really think they will be able to overcome all of the interests who benefit from the status quo? Those interests are, Family Courts, millions of hetero women, divorce lawyers, sheriff's office, etc. They all have an interest in keeping things exactly as they are and so long as men are primarily deemed to be the ones on the short end of the stick then the powers that be will want to keep it that way.

And what if they do change it? Do you really think after the last 50 years of feminism that they WON'T find an even more fucked up way to fuck men up?

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

I don't want things to change. I understand how they work and when you understand how things work you can control situations to your benefit. None of us here should ever get divorce raped no matter what the laws say because we know how to avoid that. If they suddenly change everything then what are we going to do?

[–]long-lostfriend 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Biology being what it is, only a relatively small percentage of same-sex divorce cases are going to involve child-custody issues.

What will be fun is seeing women bitch about their ex-wives getting alimony using the same arguments that men have made in those situations.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I'm not sure if it's realistic but I wouldn't be surprised if straight dudes started marrying each other for the practical and legal advantages.

Like if one dude had kickass healthcare but made no money (like a teacher or a garbage man or something) and the other dude was like a pot dealer who made shit tons of money but couldn't report any of his money.

They could have a fat crib and spin hella plates, couldn't be forced to testify against each other, teacher gets the cash, dealer gets the social security points, etc.

Once the stigma of gay marriage disappears completely a "marriage of convenience" between to alphas would be a mighty force indeed.

[–]DoItLive247 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It'll be hilarious to see Chairmain Pao getting divorced now that her gay husband doesn't need her as a beard anymore.

I wonder what is going to happen to their daughter. Who gets to pay who.

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Pao will strip him of what assets he still has, and leave him with all the debts. She'll also throw him under the bus, to get at all the assets they have hidden in tax havens, then testify against him in court about the fraud.

Just watch.

[–]GSstreetfighter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Better start hiring child protection workers now, 'cause the mud-slinging accusations are a-comin'. The accusations will tar all lesbian parents with the same brush.

[–]tones2013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

in socially liberal european countries; this prediction has failed to play out.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think courts will declare someone as "the man" of the marriage and then fuck him / her over as usual. This might be a good watch when they try to determine who has predominantly penetrated the other. The decision will be that the one earnig more is the man, regardless of penetration habits.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us." (Kinky Friedman)

"Those who condemn gay marriage, yet are silent or indifferent to the breakdown of marriage and divorce, are, in my view, missing the real issue." (Malcolm Turnbull)

"I'm for gay marriage, because I'm for gay divorce." (Melissa Etheridge)

"I say no to gay marriage. It'll end up leading to gay divorce, and that'll be bitchy." (Jimmy Carr)

"Marriage is the death of hope." (Woody Allen)

"Marriage is give and take. You'd better give it to her or she'll take it anyway." (Joey Adams)

'Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?" (Groucho Marx)

Marriage is the chief cause of divorce.(Groucho Marx)

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I HATE the gay pride and all that SJW bullshit (relinquish the fucking rainbow you fuckers it belongs to everyone) , I am in favor of equal rights for gays when it comes to getting a marriage license. We've made such a mockery of religious marriage with marriage 2.0 we REALLY don't have a leg to stand on to deny them anyway.

[–]Andress1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Who gives a fuck anyway.If you marry you are very stupid and deserve to get divorce-raped.

[–]norstar1 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I know I'll get downvoted for it since this is reddit, but I oppose gay marriage. I do think that it will being about good changes in marital law though; however, bullshit like tender years will still be tolerated because feminazis will push for "empowering" women in this way.

[–]thegman84 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The Red Pill is one of the last remaining places where you can actually speak freely without needing to be politically correct....

[–]MyRedAccount 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If we're speaking honestly so do I. That doesn't mean I don't have extremely faggy sunglasses. Hell, I'm tempted to get pictures of me getting my cock sucked by a man in case I need to defend myself against any feminist bs.

[–]Shade_Raven 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with anyone's choice to oppose gay marriage as long as they can do it without being a bigot.

[–]mikesteane 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Popcorn is not something I would pollute my body with, but otherwise I agree with you. There are other factors operating towards these changes too; the rise of the manosphere, the number of westernized women getting left on the shelf because they provide no value, the mass rejection of feminism by women...

[–]newls 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Indeed, corn is one of the highest glycemic index foods that humans can stomach. And most people eat it every morning and wonder why they're fat.

[–]Adolf_ghandi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Inb4: the higer testostrone individual pays because it is obviously the agressor.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[–]tomysotomayorfuxboys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

gay men will no longer require "beards" AKA women they marry for legal and tax reasons.

Who gets married for legal and tax reasons? I've always thought gay men married women because of social norms/pressure, for children, and to cover up their homosexuality.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you have too much faith in judges. They really don't mind playing mental gymnastics and ignoring logical consistency to get the decision they want. They're going to claim that the norms dealing with gay marriage don't apply to regular marriage since in regular marriage, there is objectively a man and a woman. They won't abstract that equation to "person plus person" in practice.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Removed. Message me once you follow the format guidelines here:


[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Post has been repaired, and re formatted.

[–]copralalic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am sure there are going to be more than a few men gaming the system and getting "married" as a form of tax / legal protection.

Marrying a buddy: the ultimate protection from common-law marriage.

[–]RedPill115 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So, I think you miss the long game here.

Before it became politicized, there was a lot more discussion (particularly from Kinsey) on how people are not totally gay or totally straight, but how most people have a certain amount of potential for either. There are a few people who can only be gay, or only be straight, but most people it varies a lot more for - things like 90% towards straight partners, 10% towards gay. 75%/25%. Etc.

Now on top of this, you communicate to women that men are - bad. Like that Louis C.K. skit about how women take a huge risk every time they spend time with a man, and it's the most dangerous thing that they do. The constant use of the word "men" to epitomize bad and evil things. Always talking about rape, etc.

That's only maybe 50% of it. For men, you let them know about women trying to trick them into getting them pregnant. False rape acussations. That marriage is a trap they don't want to get into. All of these things are true - they don't work if they're totally false - you just dominate the conversation with them.

Add in practical realities, like that you can't gender segregate people to keep people from dating and sleeping together if they're gay.

Then add in gay being magical and celebrating it, while being straight is dangerous and bad - well, frankly, everyone is going to lean towards being gay if they have any ability to do so. You remember your high school years and how horny you were? What if now you actually had a choice about which gender you were interested in. And guess what, being gay is more socially acceptable, a lot more available, and a hell of a lot less risky now - the opposite of how things have been.

The thing is - gay women can have kids. They just go to a sperm bank, and one of them gets pregnant. That's it.

Gay men nearly cannot have their own kids. They have to adopt, or find a women willing to be a surrogate, which is very very difficult, even the rich elite have to search around for one.

So you end up with mostly only lesbians having children, because science has let gay women have children but not gay men. Now with 2 mothers and no male role models (and there certainly aren't any in the media), they raise their male and female children with feminism where men are constantly portrayed as inherently flawed and inferior because they're men. It's the next step past having a beta father, into not having a father at all. With absolutely no male figures in their life (they've already kept men out of teaching jobs by portraying them all as pedophiles), a boy can grow up never encountering a man with a backbone who thinks for himself until he's into college. He'll be treated the same way white slave owners treated blacks - he'll be kept around for doing unpleasant tasks (and they need a few men for the sperm banks), but always grow up in an environment where the man is inferior to the women. There will be no male role models in a child's life until it's to late to matter for him, until his sense of identity has been formed feeling he's inferior because of his gender.

Obviously no one knows for sure how things will go, but I'm struck by how the same people who so loudly declare men and straight relationships to be bad, are the same people promoting gay relationships - and then I realized that gay women can have kids fairly easily, while gay men cannot.

[–]AureliusThunderkok 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think it will challenge a lot of antiquated thinking about how to make fair determinations of alimony and custody issues. Removing gender from the equation will be revolutionary. It will take some time though and there may be some judges/courts who try and separate it into heterosexual and homosexual jurisprudence. That could not continue indefinetly as the higher courts would have to apply equality clause and end that.

As an aside, I think you have the wrong perception of no fault divorce. It typically has been opposed by women's groups. For instance, the National Organization of Women went on record against NY adopting no fault. They and other women's organizations have filed intervenor briefs against it in legal challenges. Here is an extract from NOW's brief in one case:

No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-monied spouse has. Currently she can say “If you want a divorce I'll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.” That is not “blackmail” as has been claimed by some no-fault proponents. Negotiating the terms of the break-up of a partnership is the way partnerships are dissolved in the business world. Women should have the same protection.

It is regarded in the legal community as a change that benefitted men.

Source: am lawyer

[–]fittitthroway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was gender ever part of the equation? They make it look fair by saying stuff like "primary breadwinner" (which we all know is the vast majority are men).

[–]aazav 3 points4 points  (0 children)


That's a terrible term to use for giving gays the ability to marry.

It's never been considered anywhere, ever, that marriage was between same sexes. It's completely abnormal to have marriage between two people of same sexes.

Normalization means "to bring back to a normal state". Granting gays the ability to marry is the exact antithesis of the normal state.

In picking the term, normalization, you've used the exactly most incorrect word to describe 'giving gays the ability to marry'.

It's a serious adjustment to 'the normal state', nothing near normal.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (8 children)

The bigger news in my opinion is that now feminists will have less to say about LGBT rights. They'll still pump rhetoric but I doubt they'll get the same kind of support and what not with LGBT having such a victory. Most movements fade out when they get what they want. For instance, the civil rights movement called quits when blacks were made equal under the law. This could be a massive loss in momentum for feminists since gays seeking marriage equality were actually serious about their goals and their problem.

[–]bluedrygrass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately it won't be like you say.

A gay marriage will remain a gay marriage, and there the fault and childrens will be assigned fairly.

But a traditional marriage will always be seen as such. A judge will always see only one man in the couple, the fault will automatically be given to the male part, like it happens now.

Why would that change? No reason to do so. It's not that the two marriages can be confused, mistaken for each other.

To see two men or two women together will trigger a certain reaction.

To see a man in a relation with a woman will trigger another, completely different, one.

[–]dont-YOLO-ragequit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I still see the biological parent being favored by a lot(so step mom or dad being divorce rape.

Only gay couples with adopted kids might get a fair trial.

[–]bakbakgoesherthroat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wonder if butch lesbians will be treated like males in family courts.

[–]billyjoedupree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine. There are always unintended consequences with sweeping legislation (sorry, decrees), this one no different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was fucking worried you were going to say "cuz men can go marry each other and fuck women off".

Glad it was more "radical changes to divorce and marriage laws".

[–]malariasucks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow, this is such a simple yet profound statement. It makes perfect sense and I don't know why I never thought about this before.

[–]akjoltoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is all predicated on lots of divorce between gays and lesbians.

But those types of relationships are so stable and lasting with no abnormal numbers when it comes to infidelity. Oh well. Maybe something else will come along.

Plus there's no evidence that lesbian couple's domestic disputes are anything but harmless with no prevalence of insane physical violence or ridiculous injury and maiming.

These relationship geniuses are going to put all cis/het shitlords to shame. Especially with their awesome statistics on raising children.

[–]crosenblum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This actually made me smile.

Thank you!

Ha ha ha!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminism destroying itself...that makes sense.

[–]watersign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

..so is gay divorce legal now?

[–]ozaq 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The fuck did you remove that wall of text for. It was brilliant. Could you PM it to me?

[–]1Claude_Reborn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's just been reformatted to meet RP forum standards.

It'll be back up soon.

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah, anybody down to marry? Keeps me from being screwed by the system.

[–]Doctor_Mayhem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, I keep saying that when the military recognizes gay marriage, they will be forced to give benefits as well. I can see a fuckton of lower enlisted guys getting married just to avoid barracks life.

[–]carnage_panda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gay people do marriages better. It's scientifically proved. It's unlikely that you'll see gay people in divorce court a lot due to their better companionship and lower % of population.

[–]audscias 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gay marriage has been legal for years in Spain and it didn't change anything you mentioned in your post.

load more comments (54 replies)