Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 02/08/2012 4:54:59 PM PST by GR_Jr.
When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.
It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.
Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits.
Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on January 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.
In an exclusive interview with our NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, Tyler spoke about her decision. Photos and Videos Prop 8 Ruling Prop 8 Ruling Raw Video: San Francisco Officials Respond to Ruling Raw Video: San Francisco Officials Respond to... More Photos and Videos
"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.
Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.
When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.
The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere.
"I don't know how to describe it - I wanted this all my life," Olson told the Jewish Journal that day. "Every time I went to a girlfriend's wedding, and when my brother got married, it was something I always wanted for myself. It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcbayarea.com ...
They knew each other 40 years, were a “couple” for 18 years, and their “marriage” lasted less than 3 years. Guess that makes them useful idiots.
“It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too”
Yes, but only with a man.
I was thinking useless idiots.
Hahahahaha
“Well, my thing back there got bigger and his thing up there got smaller, so we weren’t compatible.”
Ewwww!
You two are cracking me up.
Which one gets custody of the Snap-on tools?
The “marraige” was a scam from the start. I doubt that it was intended to last, instead, it was to be a mockery of marraige.
Seems to me that God would have preferred you stayed in the closet.
I really hope the US Supreme Court takes into consideration that this overturn of Prop 8 is, in fact, an attempt to legalize through judicial fiat something that has never been legal. Since Prop 8 did not make gay "marriage" illegal, overturning it cannot make gay "marriage" legal.
The court granted them the right to marry, not to get a divorce. AFAIC they are stuck with each other for life. After all didn’t they tell us that heterosexual marriage was flawed because of divorce.
Same thing happened in MA with the lesbian ‘couple’ pushing for homosexual ‘marriage’. They were all over the news before the Supreme Judicial Court made its decision, with the daughter of one of the women, claiming that the state was denying them the ‘right’ to be a ‘family’. It was only about four years later that they decided they wanted a ‘divorce’, but at that point, they wanted the media to leave the daughter out of coverage of their break-up. They were willing to use the child to further their agenda, but got real huffy when their use of her was thrown back in their faces.
TRANSYLVANIA_TRANSVESTITE_PING!
Who gets the Steely Dan, and I don’t mean the record.
No reason now that brothers and sisters can’t get married....is there??? Why can’t you marry your PET?? Just wait.....ALL of these things will happen.
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.