Skip to comments.Massachusetts same-sex marriage pioneers split up (no surprise alert!)
Posted on 07/21/2006 12:46:14 PM PDT by NYer
BOSTON (Reuters) - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said on Friday.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state's highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.
Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.
The women "are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. "As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage. But they are no longer in the public eye, and request that their privacy be respected."
They have not filed for divorce.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge married on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex couples were allowed to wed, in a festive ceremony attended by dozens of journalists.
Their daughter, Annie, accompanied the women down the aisle serving as ring bearer and flower girl while guests hummed "Here Come the Brides."
News of their split upset many who had supported their quest for same-sex marriage. "We are very sad for them," said Carisa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Two states -- Connecticut and Vermont -- have legalized same-sex civil unions. California, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., offer gay and lesbian couples some legal rights as partners.
The debate over gay marriage recently has heated up again in Massachusetts after the state's Supreme Judicial Court last week ruled that voters can decide whether to ban same-sex unions.
If enough lawmakers in the state's legislature approve the measure, it will be put on the 2008 ballot for a popular vote.
I hope She take Her to the cleaners!
This is all show. Probably planned from the start to show how there is no difference in a normal marriage. They were wrong when they started this and they are still wrong.
How does that work?
Gay "marriage" - Supported and encouraged by other gays and divorce lawyers.
When you call it "same-sex marriage" rather than a sodomite relationship, you play into the hands of the queers.
Typical liberal mindset. Throw a tantrum - get their way - loose interest and move on. A true sign of a mature outlook.
A lovely dinner.Some Chablis.A light-in-the-loafers X chromosome friend...
A turkey baster...
After they put their sex life on display for all the world, they now request privacy?
There they go......Lickety-Split!
"Your Honor, I request a divorce from my husband/wife because I discovered that he/she is a Lesbian."
Judge: "Oh yeah? What part of Lesbia is she from?"
rimshot . . .
C'mon...please don't use 'rimshot' and 'lesbian' in the same post. My fragile imagination can't deal with that combo.
Bang goes another mouthful of coffee!
If I keep dealing with you guys I'm going to have to keep a bathtowel and a bottle of windex on my desk.
(For more yucks check out the Australian Drinking Study below.)
It was always more about tearing down laws, barriers, and morals.
The gay couple (triangle actually) in Lawrence v. Texas split up too. And the jealous (and abuse lover) who placed the call that day was murdered (while an assault charge against his lover was about to go to trial).
It is the sordid love that won't shut up (but that is very very fickle).
Re "Their daughter, Annie,"
THEY don't disclose which woman is the mother...
or if EITHER is the birth mother. But they used
the kid as part of their lawsuit. So WHAT is supposed
to happen to the girl's psyche now that these two
idiots have screwed up on their very CHERISHED
vows to each other? I doubt she has many friends
who can boast of two mothers but no Dad!
"The Goodridges, lead plaintiffs in the landmark case Goodridge v. the Massachusetts Dept. of Health which gained same sex couples the freedom to legally marry in Massachusetts, were united in a ceremony officiated by the Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and Deborah Kay, an attorney and close friend of the Goodridges. Annie Goodridge, Julie and Hillary's eight-year-old daughter whose questions about why her mothers couldn't be married sparked a three-year legal battle, acted as jubilant ring bearer and flower girl, and beamed during the entire ceremony from the front row."
For the full article, check out:
Now they're both out looking for some new carpet.
I put it more in the column under landmark legal decisions that were pushed by people who did not have their best interests at stake.
"Jane Roe" regrets her abortion.
Atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare's son became a Christian anyway.
Speaking of idiots, wonder how this one
feels about the rationality of HIS participation
"In celebrating the marriage of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the Rev. Sinkford also performed his first legal wedding since making the decision to not sign marriage licenses as long as legal marriage was denied to same-sex couples. Sinkford said, "It was great privilege to participate in the marriage of this loving and committed couple. It is a great and happy day for Unitarian Universalism and for all of the citizens of the Commonwealth." "
Anyone know what in hell "Unitarian Universalism" is?
Sounds like he has one of those 90 day diplomas granting
him a Reverend title!
Rush had some insight on this today. These same two pro-oligarchs are now attempting to create gay-divorce jurisprudence (going through the legislature is just too much trouble).
In a survey  not sponsored by the UUA, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their belief. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe their beliefs. The top choices were:
Humanist - 54%
Agnostic - 33%
Earth-centered - 31%
Atheist - 18%
Buddhist - 16.5%
Christian - 13.1%
Pagan - 13.1%
The religion of Agnostics and Atheists (which are likely NOT respondents to both)
Having read THAT, I now believe
them a Congregation of Looney Tunes!
Oh yes ... a commitment of 2 years.
You mean there's no lasting value in a marriage with no spiritual basis? You could have knocked me over with a feather.
And homosexuals who have no plans to ever get married also benefit because of the "normalizing" of their chosen lifestyle.
They are the church of the holy humping hedonist.
If its all about feeeeeeeling good that that is ONLY what it is about.
They are homosexuals and their sole existence is based on a sexual act. Their marriage is based ONLY upon a sexual gratification.
No gratification the hedonistic marriage ends.
IOW this is jut proof that homosexual acts contribute nothing positive to society.
The children in some of these relationships are window dressing too.
Cute when they are small but a burden when both adults have to raise the child.
Despite the fact there are people who don't regret having an abortion, these kind of legal decisions diminish us all.
If every heterosexual couple, with or without children, divorced it would still not lend one iota of legitimacy to homosexual 'unions'.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
do I really have to say it???
Aren't they on a missing persons list?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.