Anti-gay marriage rant from jilted wife

[2xx1xy1JD]

Libby Anne had a great post about a rant written by a wife whose husband left her when he came out:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... qus_thread

I've seen several similar situations, both professionally and with a couple we know personally.

1. I have to agree with Libby Anne that the wife's target is all wrong. OF COURSE it's devastating when your spouse says that they aren't attracted to you and your marriage ends and you need to deal with the fallout, including figuring out custody and finances. That is exactly why I think that persuading or pressuring gays to enter heterosexual marriages is a totally anti-family idea. I had cases where this happened prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage. I'd hope that greater acceptance of same-sex marriage would mean that fewer gays would ever need to go in the closet in the first place.

2. I think it's horrible that anyone or any organization claiming to care about families would exploit someone's personal pain by publishing this rant. Real names were used. This couple has children, and those children can google and see this article and read one parent saying horrible things about the other. That's not putting kids first. It's also not helpful to the wife if this organization is keeping her stuck in anger mode, and actively taking advantage of someone who is hurt by encouraging then to put the blame where it doesn't belong.

3. The rant was awful - but I do feel bad for the heterosexual spouses who are in these situations. Some of the comments were really harsh. Again, THIS woman wrote something awful, but there are many devastated spouses who are hurt but don't lash out that way. It totally normal for a spouse in this situation to be hurt and angry. I don't think that the anger is being directed in a logical and helpful way, but I wouldn't deny that she has a right to feel anger. If you make a commitment through marriage, you assume that your spouse is attracted to you. People make big decisions about their career and finances and having children, based on this commitment being in place. The gay spouse might have had time to agonize over their decision, but the straight spouse may be blindsided. In that way, it is similar to heterosexual infidelity or other divorce situations where the decision to split was not mutual and wasn't the result of obvious conflict in the marriage. Legally, I don't think that conduct unrelated to parenting, finances or domestic violence should play a role in court cases, and it shouldn't matter who initiated the divorce. On a practical, emotional level though, it's just not realistic to expect that a jilted spouse will be able to quickly get over it, wish their ex the best, and quickly reorganize their lives, while always being strong and positive around the children.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I really don't get this.

Why is it only their sexual orientation that ruins their marriage if the person leaves you for someone who has the same genitalia as themselves?

I know a guy whose girlfriend left him for another man. Did heterosexual marriage ruin their relationship? No, their partner did.

[Firiel]

Not entirely on-topic, but it's situations like this that make it difficult for me to snark on anti-gay politicians who hire gay escorts or solicit gay sex.

When something like this happens, it makes me think that their anti-gay stance is at least partly informed by a desire to abject a part of themselves that scares them-- their sexuality. Then they make their career on it. In denial, of their sexuality, they marry a woman that they probably care a lot about. All while spouting anti-gay rhetoric, partly to dissuade themselves and push away their own sexual desires.

Of course, they can't deny their sexuality forever, but they have to seek out opportunities to express it on the down low. And then when they get discovered, they are shunned by conservatives and (rightly) called hypocrites by liberals.

I just feel bad for them because what is hatred for other people is also a deep self-loathing for themselves.

[ThisOlGirl]

Not that I think this should all play out in public, because there are children involved, but I'd be very interested in reading/hearing his side of the story. Her whole article seems excessively one-sided and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she isn't being completely truthful about some things.

[BrownieMomma]

What the ex-wife is experiencing is no different than if her husband had left her for another woman. Like many left-behind partners, she blames the other person rather than her partner. in this case, she's blaming "being gay" instead of the new partner who happens to be male.

No doubt this was very painful for her. Apparently she had no idea and he did not share his struggles with her. Maybe he felt he couldn't. Maybe he is one of those people who can't leave a relationship until the next relationship is in place. It seems he just dropped a bomb on her, and then he asked for primary custody.

I think it is true that a lot of fathers who ask for primary custody are awarded it. I think many do not ask for it. It is possible that the ex-wife is correct that the judge was more concerned with social engineering than her or the two children. Of course that happens.

I also think that was very selfish of him, and reflects more of his concern for himself than concern for the children. That's quite a lot to rip the children living in a conservative Christian lifestyle with a pastor for a father to living with open homosexuality. Guess MRA isn't limited to being gay but seriously, I don't see how he thought turning their world completely upside down because he wants his 'rights' is in the kids best interests.

He does comment, or someone proclaiming to be him, that he doesn't have full custody. He also says this was seven years ago. So he very well could have been awarded primary custody at the time but the situation be different now. Kinda disingenuous on his part. Or perhaps the mother did not understand 50/50 or some other variation. He didn't say what the custody situation is, or was, so hard to know.

I can hear the fantasy in the ex-wife's thoughts, that her husband could have stayed and they could have worked it out somehow. Sometimes it is very hard to accept reality - he did not want to do that, and it matters not that he left for a man or another woman or butterflies.

Hope the ex-wife wrote that under a pseudonym.

[polecat]

What the ex-wife is experiencing is no different than if her husband had left her for another woman. Like many left-behind partners, she blames the other person rather than her partner. in this case, she's blaming "being gay" instead of the new partner who happens to be male.

That's really what I got from it. It seemed like a lot of misdirected anger.

Someone close to me married the "man of her dreams" (her words) during the DADT era. Between his participation in our fundy church and his military career, there was no way he was going to be coming out any time soon. She had no idea and was completely blindsided just weeks after their marriage when it all came crashing down. She was heartbroken and eventually enraged. The bottom line was that this guy had married her under false pretenses and basically used her. Sure, societal forces came together to make it difficult for him to come out in those days (20 some-odd years ago), but that really didn't make his actions and choices ok, and it left her devastated. In the end, they both moved on and found healthier relationships, but I don't think it's at all unusual for people to lash out blindly at anyone/anything they deem a threat when they've been so badly hurt.

It's a crappy situation all around. Hopefully it opens some people's eyes about why it's damaging to everyone to force people into such narrowly defined roles.

[mommadog]

Not that I think this should all play out in public, because there are children involved, but I'd be very interested in reading/hearing his side of the story. Her whole article seems excessively one-sided and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she isn't being completely truthful about some things.

Read the posts below the story and you will see where he tells his side of the story. You're right, she left out a lot of stuff!!

[BrownieMomma]

He created a lifestyle, built a world, and then decided to leave it. In his wake he destroyed his spouse's life in that world. Nothing will ever be the same for her, and what wrong did she do?

He does not blame her. He does not say she strong-armed him into marriage and children and family. He says the culture was strong and one of fear. He chose it.

I hope he is not deluding himself when he says that his kids are fine. I know he must want oh so badly for that be true, for his decisions that were the best thing for himself to also be the best thing for his children. Rarely is that true though.

He chose to leave. That is his adult decision. Was it truly the best thing to pull his children between two worlds? To put them where they actually belong nowhere? Fully accepted in neither world.

You can see here on FJ that hatred and judgment and bigotry toward someone different is alive and well. That other person's lifestyle is "harmful" and while they are bad for saying yours is "harmful" somehow you are not bad for casting back the exact same stone. So I do not believe the father's new compadres in his homosexual lifestyle, that he chose to live in an openly homosexual community... again... the best thing for himself.. but let's not kid ourselves. The others that live there will not be tolerant of the Christian fundie background of those children.

We all realize that the people at church are aghast at the turn of events. That they pray for the father and pity the mother. She's now someone to feel sorry for and take care of.

Leave. Fine. But don't take the kids. :(

[DGayle]

I'm not going to read the article, too much to do tonight, but if he knew he's gay before marrying her, then, regardless of why he did it, he did deceive her. He used her to put on a front of heterosexuality. So he deceived her and used her. If my husband did that, you may have to hold me back from not trying to beat him to a pulp in a blind rage. It's not even about the husband being gay. It's the deceit and the usury. I had an ex who I found out, after four years, was with someone else, and he entered a relationship with me knowing he didn't really want to be with me forever, just until he got what he needed from me. He didn't have the cajones to tell me in person. He left me financially ruined.

The deceit and the usury.

[lawlifelgbt]

BrownieMomma: Did you mean that the judge gave the kids to prove a point? Because I can tell you that letting a gay person have their family, whether that's through custody, assisted reproduction, or adoption, is NOT social engineering. It's just family, just lives. He deserves his family too, and IMO, will be a better parent to the kids because if he is gay, he likely turns more liberal, which means he'll support college and critical thinking; better for the kids' futures. Not to mention he would probably public school, so the kids can learn real science and history.

I'll only say this once, as a gay-and-married-legally-to-my-same-sex-partner person.

WE ARE NOT AN EXPERIMENT. OUR LIVES AREN'T "ENGINEERING."

We are just, finally, now getting the same rights and options as you have. Judges ruling in our favor is not "activism" or "experimentation," it's BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING and reflecting the changing values of our time and the increased knowledge about sexuality now (e.g. that one can't change it, that marriages and lives of same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex ones, other than the actual sex acts and how chores are divided). Also, the judge may have just given the father the kids because public vs. fundie homeschooling offers better options for the kids, and because he was more financially stable, since the wife may not have skills to fall back on.

The father may have made, "I deserve my rights," as the focus of his argument, but you know what? He does! And the kids are better off with him, unless there's abuse worse than the kids would get in a fundie family, or he has AIDS or something and can't take care of them.

The kids will be uncomfortable for a while, and may be between two worlds, I'll give you that. But, in the long run, it's better for them to be out of the fundie bubble. They will be better-educated and financially provided for, and not get stuck in the cycle of having large, poor families.

[BrownieMomma]

You would like me to believe that no social engineering or activism occurs from the judicial bench?

[DGayle]

BrownieMomma: Did you mean that the judge gave the kids to prove a point? Because I can tell you that letting a gay person have their family, whether that's through custody, assisted reproduction, or adoption, is NOT social engineering. It's just family, just lives. He deserves his family too, and IMO, will be a better parent to the kids because if he is gay, he likely turns more liberal, which means he'll support college and critical thinking; better for the kids' futures. Not to mention he would probably public school, so the kids can learn real science and history.

I'll only say this once, as a gay-and-married-legally-to-my-same-sex-partner person.

WE ARE NOT AN EXPERIMENT. OUR LIVES AREN'T "ENGINEERING."

We are just, finally, now getting the same rights and options as you have. Judges ruling in our favor is not "activism" or "experimentation," it's BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING and reflecting the changing values of our time and the increased knowledge about sexuality now (e.g. that one can't change it, that marriages and lives of same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex ones, other than the actual sex acts and how chores are divided). Also, the judge may have just given the father the kids because public vs. fundie homeschooling offers better options for the kids, and because he was more financially stable, since the wife may not have skills to fall back on.

The father may have made, "I deserve my rights," as the focus of his argument, but you know what? He does! And the kids are better off with him, unless there's abuse worse than the kids would get in a fundie family, or he has AIDS or something and can't take care of them.

The kids will be uncomfortable for a while, and may be between two worlds, I'll give you that. But, in the long run, it's better for them to be out of the fundie bubble. They will be better-educated and financially provided for, and not get stuck in the cycle of having large, poor families.

Yep. He did wring lying about his sexuality from the start, but severing him from the kids would be wrong and harmful.

And the idea that equal rights is just social engineering is appalling.

[Mama Mia]

BrownieMomma: Did you mean that the judge gave the kids to prove a point? Because I can tell you that letting a gay person have their family, whether that's through custody, assisted reproduction, or adoption, is NOT social engineering. It's just family, just lives. He deserves his family too, and IMO, will be a better parent to the kids because if he is gay, he likely turns more liberal, which means he'll support college and critical thinking; better for the kids' futures. Not to mention he would probably public school, so the kids can learn real science and history.

I'll only say this once, as a gay-and-married-legally-to-my-same-sex-partner person.

WE ARE NOT AN EXPERIMENT. OUR LIVES AREN'T "ENGINEERING."

We are just, finally, now getting the same rights and options as you have. Judges ruling in our favor is not "activism" or "experimentation," it's BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING and reflecting the changing values of our time and the increased knowledge about sexuality now (e.g. that one can't change it, that marriages and lives of same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex ones, other than the actual sex acts and how chores are divided). Also, the judge may have just given the father the kids because public vs. fundie homeschooling offers better options for the kids, and because he was more financially stable, since the wife may not have skills to fall back on.

The father may have made, "I deserve my rights," as the focus of his argument, but you know what? He does! And the kids are better off with him, unless there's abuse worse than the kids would get in a fundie family, or he has AIDS or something and can't take care of them.

The kids will be uncomfortable for a while, and may be between two worlds, I'll give you that. But, in the long run, it's better for them to be out of the fundie bubble. They will be better-educated and financially provided for, and not get stuck in the cycle of having large, poor families.

First off, I completely understand the wife's anger and rage - but do think she is directing it to the wrong place. It isn't same sex marriage that caused her problems. It's that her husband lied to her and betrayed her. It doesn't really matter, to her, if it's due to societal pressure to hide his sexuality, or because he's just a run of the mill selfish jerk - the impact is the same.

Obviously I have no idea what the actual court decision is, or what it was based on. I read the main article, but couldn't get the comments to load with the fathers side, so forgive me if I have something wrong. But I think your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If ( and, granted, it's a big if) as the mother says, the judge awarded custody to the father solely, or even primarily, due to wanting to promote custody arrangements for same sex couples -- that's just wrong. You don't use kids as political brownie points. They are actual individual living human beings. If you think it's wrong for a judge to deny custody based on a parent being homosexual, you have to think its wrong to award custody based on a parent being homosexual. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter, to these kids, if the judge thinks he's righting past societal wrongs and injustices-- an individual custody case, involving real live children, is not the place for that action.

Similarly to the political or religious or philosophical leanings of either parent. If one parent can prove the other is so extreme in their beliefs that they are hindering the children's lives and futures - or can prove abuse or neglect -- of course that should be considered. But if it's just genuine differences of opinion -- the judge should not just pick the parent he agrees with. That sets up so many problems for custody cases in general. What if the judge is a staunch conservative -- should he base custody on the parent who votes republican? No.

The whole income based argument makes me ragey. Presumably they agreed, together, that she would stay home and care for and educate the kids. He would make the income. So he decides to leave her and then he gets the kids because he has more money? And on top of that, he has such a great income because it's combined with the new spouse he left her for? Fuck no. It doesn't matter if he left her for a man or woman, that is just beyond messed up.

[SoSoNosy]

I have just skimmed this thread, will go back and read more thoroughly after I post. This type of situation isn't brand new.

I am a grandmother; if my daughter had started having children as young as I did, I could be a great-grandmother. I'm very much a senior citizen.

When I was a young teenager, an adored cousin (who was several years older than I was, obviously) got married and had two little girls. She was a highly educated head nurse, musically talented, but now I realize that she was probably fragile emotionally. Anyway, she came home one day and her husband was in bed with another man. She had a complete breakdown, and was never the same. She was able to continue working, but was very childlike in other ways.

[Soulhuntress]

My thing is fidelity. I get dating or marrying for all the wrong reasons. But be a grown ass person and end the relationship before even thinking about fucking someone else. It is called respect for self for the partner and for any family members impacted. Gay, straight or bisexual. Just don't be a complete fucking tool (DPIAR).

[2xx1xy1JD]

First off, I completely understand the wife's anger and rage - but do think she is directing it to the wrong place. It isn't same sex marriage that caused her problems. It's that her husband lied to her and betrayed her. It doesn't really matter, to her, if it's due to societal pressure to hide his sexuality, or because he's just a run of the mill selfish jerk - the impact is the same.

Obviously I have no idea what the actual court decision is, or what it was based on. I read the main article, but couldn't get the comments to load with the fathers side, so forgive me if I have something wrong. But I think your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If ( and, granted, it's a big if) as the mother says, the judge awarded custody to the father solely, or even primarily, due to wanting to promote custody arrangements for same sex couples -- that's just wrong. You don't use kids as political brownie points. They are actual individual living human beings. If you think it's wrong for a judge to deny custody based on a parent being homosexual, you have to think its wrong to award custody based on a parent being homosexual. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter, to these kids, if the judge thinks he's righting past societal wrongs and injustices-- an individual custody case, involving real live children, is not the place for that action.

Similarly to the political or religious or philosophical leanings of either parent. If one parent can prove the other is so extreme in their beliefs that they are hindering the children's lives and futures - or can prove abuse or neglect -- of course that should be considered. But if it's just genuine differences of opinion -- the judge should not just pick the parent he agrees with. That sets up so many problems for custody cases in general. What if the judge is a staunch conservative -- should he base custody on the parent who votes republican? No.

The whole income based argument makes me ragey. Presumably they agreed, together, that she would stay home and care for and educate the kids. He would make the income. So he decides to leave her and then he gets the kids because he has more money? And on top of that, he has such a great income because it's combined with the new spouse he left her for? Fuck no. It doesn't matter if he left her for a man or woman, that is just beyond messed up.

Re custody issues: [Disclaimer]

1. My #1 rule when initially getting the story from a potential client is that I never believe anything that I'm told without seeing the documents for myself. Custody cases are extremely stressful and emotional, most people aren't legal experts and don't fully understand legal technicalities, and people are not neutral about their own cases.

2. I'm 99.99% sure that no family court judge would have said "I'm giving your ex custody because I want to experiment with some social engineering". That is just her filling in the blanks in her own mind, to try to explain to herself how she could have "lost" a court battle.

3. Generally speaking, when a married couple splits and they don't agree on custody, the court needs to figure out the "best interests of the child". The list of criteria vary from place to place.

4. Income and step-parents: where I live, simply claiming that you should have custody because you have more money doesn't work, because child support, spousal support (alimony) and property division would help to even things up. In some cases, though, if someone really couldn't manage the basics and support wouldn't make up the difference, it could be a factor. I've seen this, for example, with young parents where one lives at home.

I've also seen cases where the step-parent was a positive factor. Sometimes, the step-parent is available to help with child care, appointments, etc. which can be a source of stress for a single parent. I've even had a few cases where the step-parent was more capable than either of the biological parents.

5. In many cases, courts will look at how likely a parent is to encourage the children to have a good relationship with the other parent.

6. Many of the things mentioned by this woman wouldn't be factors in a custody case in my jurisdiction. Who cares what other people in the building do in their bedrooms? Who cares about Halloween costumes? If the step-parent relationship is stable and the children aren't aware of the bedroom details, who cares if the relationship is "open"? It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a lot of sympathy for these arguments of hers, and if these arguments worked against her.

7. Re "the fundie bubble": a judge wouldn't be able to draw conclusions that anyone who was really religious was a fundie who must have certain problems. Each concern would need to be proven in court. So, you can't say "they are fundies and therefore the education will be bad." You'd need to bring evidence about exactly what the education plans were, the planned curriculum, the skills of a parent who plans to homeschool, etc.

8. It's not always easy to separate out feelings about same-sex relationships from all of the other parenting issues. One lesbian mom was convinced that homophobia was behind her loss of custody of her daughter. Yes, her ex was homophobic and so was an adult child, and the ex was far from a perfect parent. OTOH, there were also some serious mental health issues, some scary episodes of abuse, and a new partner who was hostile to the child.

9. Sometimes, custody cases settle faster when it becomes clear that nobody is going to support a fight. Picture this: mom was a BDSM prostitute who gave up the business when she came out as a lesbian. Dad, OTOH, has turned total fundie and spends hours at church with the kids. All this lands in front of the judge - and we convince him that none of it is relevant to ability to parent. (This was back in the 1990s.) Neither side has money, and both rely on Legal Aid. Legal Aid wants to mediate a settlement meeting. What started off as a potentially explosive case ended up with joint parenting, right down to sharing a chocolate chip cookie recipe, and everyone was joking around at the end. With nothing to fuel the fight, the parents realized that the kids loved both of them.

[Sundaymorning]

I can understand why this woman is so angry and hurt. It would be bad enough if her husband would have left her for another woman, but realizing that he probably never even truly loved her like spouse should, and never really wanted this marriage in first place is probably worse.

However, she got the principle of cause and effect totally wrong. This desaster could have been avoided if being gay was accepted and gay marriage was legal in first place. Cause then her ex-husband wouldn't have felt pressured to get married to a woman as a gay man.

Sure, the fact that gay marriage is now becoming legal state after state and being gay is becoming more acceptable might have played a factor in her ex-husbands decision. But it surely didn't turn him gay as he was born gay. Even if gay marriage would stay banned, it would be no guarantee that her husband would have stayed with her. I know married people who came out of the closet in their 60s cause they couldn't bear it anymore. Others I know of stay in their marriage but cheat on their partners until one day their partner catches them.

Banning gay marriage and discriminate against gays won't make gay people magically straight. But it will continue to lead to tragic cases like this.

college humour did a video called: gay men will marry your girlfriends (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8). It's meant to be a joke. But in fact, it has some truth in it. If straight people want to avoid getting accidentally married to gay people, and if conservative parents don't want their straight kids marrying a closeted gay person, they better support gay marriage and fight against the discrimination of homosexuality.

[Mama Mia]

To 2xy1.... I don't want to quote the whole stream, cause it's turning into a monster....but agree with most of your reasoning, but I think in the U.S., at least in what I've seen ( 20 years work in social services, often involving nasty custody cases)...Judges often put their personal biases into their decisions-- whatever those biases may be. And relative wealth is a definite bias I've seen play out badly many times. Of course I worked primarily with very, very low-income people, so that was part of it, I'm sure - but some of them were comfortably middle-class stay at home moms ( and an occasional dad) before the split.

[GiGi_41]

I agree that judges in the US can put their personal slant on thing especially if it's an election year. When I adopted my DD as a single parent adoption. The judge said "she's a beautiful child and should be adopted by a couple" (she's blonde haired, blue eyed). "I could see if she was a special needs child.". The two social workers, her CPS worker and the adoption worker, were fit to be tied. The adoption worker told him that if he thought she wouldn't walk out and find a judge that would approve the adoption he was crazy.

In the end there was nothing he could do... He granted the adoption that day.

CPS did bring the case before the board and he was censured. The crazy thing was, two rooms down a gay couple was doing a single parent adoption and that judge said "I wish I could adopt this child too both of you... One day soon I hope this law will change."

[nelliebelle1197]

You would like me to believe that no social engineering or activism occurs from the judicial bench?

Yeah, the Roberts' Court has been especially adept at that. And yeah, you are right, loads of prejudice around here. Everytime I see your name on a post, I pretty much expect it.

[nelliebelle1197]

First off, I completely understand the wife's anger and rage - but do think she is directing it to the wrong place. It isn't same sex marriage that caused her problems. It's that her husband lied to her and betrayed her. It doesn't really matter, to her, if it's due to societal pressure to hide his sexuality, or because he's just a run of the mill selfish jerk - the impact is the same.

Obviously I have no idea what the actual court decision is, or what it was based on. I read the main article, but couldn't get the comments to load with the fathers side, so forgive me if I have something wrong. But I think your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If ( and, granted, it's a big if) as the mother says, the judge awarded custody to the father solely, or even primarily, due to wanting to promote custody arrangements for same sex couples -- that's just wrong. You don't use kids as political brownie points. They are actual individual living human beings. If you think it's wrong for a judge to deny custody based on a parent being homosexual, you have to think its wrong to award custody based on a parent being homosexual. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter, to these kids, if the judge thinks he's righting past societal wrongs and injustices-- an individual custody case, involving real live children, is not the place for that action.

Similarly to the political or religious or philosophical leanings of either parent. If one parent can prove the other is so extreme in their beliefs that they are hindering the children's lives and futures - or can prove abuse or neglect -- of course that should be considered. But if it's just genuine differences of opinion -- the judge should not just pick the parent he agrees with. That sets up so many problems for custody cases in general. What if the judge is a staunch conservative -- should he base custody on the parent who votes republican? No.

The whole income based argument makes me ragey. Presumably they agreed, together, that she would stay home and care for and educate the kids. He would make the income. So he decides to leave her and then he gets the kids because he has more money? And on top of that, he has such a great income because it's combined with the new spouse he left her for? Fuck no. It doesn't matter if he left her for a man or woman, that is just beyond messed up.

[snarkopolis]

You would like me to believe that no social engineering or activism occurs from the judicial bench?

Sure does. I guess you have conveniently forgotten Dred Scott, a laundry list of Jim Crow laws, and the laws that prevented interracial marriage before Loving v Va.

Social engineering is a just a polite way of saying YOU do not like the society values that the Court embraces now. The idea that everybody gets rights, even if you do not like them. SMDH :angry-banghead:

[lawlifelgbt]

Sure does. I guess you have conveniently forgotten Dred Scott, a laundry list of Jim Crow laws, and the laws that prevented interracial marriage before Loving v Va.

Social engineering is a just a polite way of saying YOU do not like the society values that the Court embraces now. The idea that everybody gets rights, even if you do not like them. SMDH :angry-banghead:

Agree! I also think that, even though I realize that, for my family, "the personal is political" and just by living in a same-sex marriage, we make a statement and can potentially change people's views.

However, that's not my intent. I'm just living an honest life with the person I love, and the reason I don't hide, or censor my pronouns, isn't to advance some political idea or engineer an experiment. I just like to be truthful, in my own life, and to not have to expend the mental effort required to constantly make sure I don't say "wife" or not mention huge aspects of my life.

[Mama Mia]

Sure does. I guess you have conveniently forgotten Dred Scott, a laundry list of Jim Crow laws, and the laws that prevented interracial marriage before Loving v Va.

Social engineering is a just a polite way of saying YOU do not like the society values that the Court embraces now. The idea that everybody gets rights, even if you do not like them. SMDH :angry-banghead:

I don't know what Brownie Momma meant, but I always thought the terms " social engineering" and " legislating from the bench" only imply that a judge might be placing too much emphasis on his/her views of what society should be, when making a ruling. Couldn't the particular views be conservative or racist or liberal or religious or humanist or, well, any particular view point? I'm asking, because I had always thought those were generic terms based on imposing social ideals possibly inappropriately, in individual law cases -- not what the views are. If that makes sense.

[Mama Mia]

Nelliebellie, you're right, I took my assumption that she was a stay at home fundamentalist home schooler from lawlifelgbt's post. I hadn't actually read that in the article on patheos and just assumed it was correct. My mistake.

The mother doesn't offer proof, but she does state: "My husband had left us for his gay lover. They make more money than I do. There are two of them and only one of me. Even so, the judge believed that they were the victims. "

I don't see a reason to doubt this statement. And I have seen many custody battles with a judgement that seems to be based primarily on which parent has the most money. And, sadly, that is often going to be the parent who left to be with someone else - and can now count that income as well. I have no idea of the reliability of the statistics, but in the Patheos counter-article, the author states men who ask for primary custody generally get it - and a logical reason for this could be increased financial capability - particularly if the woman was a SAHM. Of course, it often goes the other way as well. And there are certainly plenty of sole custody parents of both sexes who are single parenting it due to abandonment, abuse, addiction, etc.

I just don't understand why people are reluctant to believe a judge couldn't possibly rule inappropriately just because it's on a socially progressive issue. I think people would be wiling to be believe that a judge would award sole custody inappropriately to a straight parent, over a parent in a same sex relationship. People of all belief systems, including, judges, can let their biases take over when they shouldn't.