6 responses to “”
-
That happened here in Canada too, when the laws changed. Same-sex couples could get married, but not divorced. Nobody seems to have thought of it — a decent indicator, it seems to me, of how little actual thought went into the implications of the original legal change.
Anyway, in Canada it was a federal matter and the powers-that-be quickly fixed the problem. Down there, where things happen on a state-by-state basis, it is bound to be messier. -
I should have said “was given to” instead of “went into”.
-
Actually I was a bit surprised by this, because I remember reading something a while back, probably at least five years, about lawyers looking forward to the spoils to be had from gay divorce. Didn’t think about state laws getting in the way.
-
But different from the ‘obvious but strangeness’ of knowing the babies one once knew are soldiers in Afghanistan, or graduating from University.
-
I think you meant that to be in the Bradbury et.al thread. Sort of a funny juxtaposition. But anyway, yeah, it’s sort of an inverse.
-
This is grimly funny, and reminds me of a fellow who opined that gays only wanted to marry so they can divorce like all their straight friends.
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a reply to grumpy Cancel reply