First Comes Marriage…Then Divorce
Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the pioneering lesbian activists whose legal campaign prompted the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to recognize gay marriage in 2004, have found themselves in all too familiar territory: The couple has filed for divorce in county probate court after amicably living apart for two years.
Four years ago, Hillary, Julie and Annie, the couple’s 12 year old daughter, became the reluctant, but perfect poster family for gay marriage in Massachusetts. After nearly two decades of monogamous commitment, the couple filed as the lead plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The resulting 50 page, 4-3 ruling held that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”
The case reinvigorated the debate over the legality–and unfortunately as important, Christian approval–of same-sex marriages in the United States from state houses to the US House of Representatives. But now for the fickle law of unintended consequences, the Goodridge’s intensely personal decision to end their constitutionally-recognized union stands to land a blow to gay rights movement.
The social conservative community, of course, wasted no time in offering gratuitous, crass responses, heavy with doses of I-told-you-so when news broke of the Goodridges impending divorce. Anti-gay marriage crusader Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, sought to capitalize raw emotions of the moment. “Obviously, they don’t hold the institution [of marriage] in very high esteem,” he told the Boston Herald.
Given the staggering heterosexual divorce rate and contemporary Americans’ pathetic social construct of life partnerships, gay divorce, if anything, legitimizes gay marriage as normal. Divorce is, for better or worse, as American as apple pie and baseball. Why? Americans cherish their freedoms, including the freedom to marry and the freedom to divorce without intrusive speculation.
But with the rights of marriage come the rights of divorce; a notion that at least half of heterosexuals understand, appreciate, and full make use of. The Goodridges were a normal couple–loving, financially and emotionally stable–and as such, they faced the same tribulations as their heterosexual counterparts. Divorce, like death, is a sad reality of life (and marriage). It is not indicative of mental or emotional instability; it’s a reminder that ordinary situations often devour extraordinary individuals without remorse. Gay marriage opponents are keen to argue that gay divorce, particularly by such high-profile couples, suggest gays are not emotionally equipped for marriage. They overlook, of course, the fact that the national divorce rate hovers near 50%.
The institution of marriage is not one of fixed social constructs frozen in the white picket fences of yesteryear. The social conservative notion of the “traditional marriage,” the intellectually bankrupt brainchild of Anita Bryant, purposefully ignores marriage’s tumultuous history of change. From its inception, marriage was a loveless institution, focused solely on increasing financial stability and the family work-force, and a means to enforce obedience in a fiercely patriarchal society.
Regardless of gender, marrying for mutual love is a fundamentally radical, contemporary concept. Ironically, it was this concept of the “traditional family,” oft-cited by social conservatives, that paved the way for alternative lifestyles: Divorce, gay marriage, single parenting, or even the choice to remain single.
The decision for the Goodridges to end their marriage was a delicate, personal one, and is certainly of no business to social conservatives looking for fodder in the “culture war.” If Mineau and co. were truly interested in salvaging the institution of marriage – purportedly teetering on the brink of destruction – they would exhibit more than feigned outrage at the unacceptably high heterosexual divorce rates, not hone in on one lesbian couple who hit a rough patch.
(H/T Japhy Grant)
UPDATE: The Human Rights Campaign took note of my analysis, saying that I was “dead-on.” “LGBT people are just like everyone else,” said HRC Director of Interactive Communications Chris Johnson.
As an aside, I seriously doubt the HRC has ever positively quoted any former RNC staffer…
UPDATE II: GayPatriot’s Daniel Blatt chimes in. Dan, not surprisingly, takes a more positive tone in defense of marriage as an ancient institution and argues the Goodridge’s, like any couple with children, should reconsider their intentions for separation.
If [the Goodridge's] really value marriage, they should reconsider their choice, bearing in mind the welfare of their daughter.
As should any heterosexual parents with children who seek divorce as a means to deal with the difficulties of their relationship. If heterosexual parents weren’t seeking divorce, this might be a commentary on the fragility of same-sex relationships.
[...]
We need repair that “pathetic social social construct of life partnerships.” If we were to enter into a serious debate on gay marriage, as some have, we could do just that. Such a debate would allow us to better understand why marriage is a good thing, an institution to be embraced, and divorce not so good, something to be avoided.
After years of catering to the religious faction of the GOP, I left the Republican Party in 2004. I am now a registered Independent, but people like you give me hope that I may one day be able to change that damn registration card.
Half of the country gets divorced and you don’t hear a peep from Mineau on the societal implications (Oh, think of the poor child, blah, blah, blah). That prick needs to take a walk and get out of the Goodridge’s business.
A few points:
@Alan – you have to at least be 60 or 70 years old. The Religious Right has been a strong faction of the Republican Party for many years – and a winning strategy up until now.
On the actual substance – It’s tough to admit, but doesn’t this prove the “natural” argument to be false? We live in a post modern society where divorce on demand is the ‘norm.’ Sad, but I’d have to agree with James on this one.
I don’t know about this “culture war,” however when it’s all said and done – let’s get the Government out of the supposed “sacred” institution of marriage. Ha.
[...] that the Goodridges’ divorce is a setback for gay marriage, Richardson contends it helps make the case for expanding the defintion of that ancient institution: Given the staggering heterosexual divorce rate and contemporary American’s pathetic social [...]
I couldn’t possibly agree with you more… which really leaves me at a loss for words.
After four attempts to craft some sort of response to your assertions in this article… I find myself with only one thing to say — Kudos.
There may be hope for you, after-all, Mr. James Richardson.
Your statistics on marriage are simply incorrect. Only about 33% of first marriages end in divorce which means approximately 67% of straight couples who get married, stay married.
Also, you are confusing the reasons individual couples get married (love, financial stability, etc) with the reason society subsidizes marriage through the government. Two very different things. You ought to read up on some of the statutes and court decisions spelling out those reasons.
Marriage provides great benefits to society, which is the real reason we encourage it through our government. Any talk of changing the institution needs to focus on the stated purpose of the institution, and whether changing it will serve to better fulfill that purpose or not.
Oh, I meant to include a link on those divorce statistics. Here it is.
I appreciate your insights.
I have to agree with you.
I am not pro-gay marriage at all, but I don’t believe you can use this gay divorce as a reason not to support gay marriage as so many heterosexuals get divorced too – which is also damaging for children.
There are other reasons why I don’t support gay marriage (but I won’t go into it here)…
Well, that figures, doesn’t it.
They provide the impetus for the Court’s highly inventive reading of the State’s equal rights amendment which forced same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, yet they can’t really take advantage of the legal right their activism won.
Seems like poetic justice to me.
This paragraph is pure bullshit.
James, as a liberal Republican you have a poor grasp of social conservativism. The social conservative position was nicely stated by American Elephant in his comment above. Anita Bryant’s views on homosexuality were driven by her reactionary religious attitude. Social conservatism and religious attitudes are not the same.
As for marriage itself, it predates civilization, and has been practiced in matriarchal and patriarchal cultures alike.
Furthermore, I think it can be stated with confidence that your secular view of marriage’s origins is all wrong. Marriage certainly began with mythic thinking: the male and female together as the image of the divine. And it is this very concern that drives opposition to same-sex “marriage” today.
“Furthermore, I think it can be stated with confidence that your secular view of marriage’s origins is all wrong. Marriage certainly began with mythic thinking: the male and female together as the image of the divine. And it is this very concern that drives opposition to same-sex “marriage” today.”
David, where exactly did you find this research?
“Regardless of gender, marrying for mutual love is a fundamentally radical, contemporary concept. ”
You seem to be making some ‘radical’ and opinionated claims, yet you have no citations or hard evidence to back any of it up. Marrying for mutual love is not contemporary, check out some of the stories in the bible such as Ruth, or perhaps ‘Women’s lives in Medieval Europe’ ; “Not all young people, however, had marriages arranged for them. Some were from poor families who had nothing to negotiate and hence would either not marry or marry whom they pleased.” Women’s Lives In Medieval Europe. Routledge, Chapman, and Hall Inc.: New York, 1993.
It is defiantly a rough world we live in. Marriage and divorce go hand in hand as some experts would say, but of course no one really thinks about the other, close to half of America’s population that some how keeps their life commitment.