Slashdot Mirror
Protecting Traditional Divorce
lee1 writes "The Texas Attorney General is determined to help protect the traditional definition of divorce, which is the dissolution of the union between a man and a woman. Therefore any gay married couples who find their way into his state had better stay married. From the article: 'Gay and lesbian couples who turn to the courts when they break up are getting mixed results across the nation. A Pennsylvania judge last month refused to divorce two women who married in Massachusetts, while New York grants such divorces even though the state doesn't allow same-sex marriage.'"
No need to construct a new legal framework; we already have the concepts of partnerships among multiple people, and corporations that include yet live beyond the lives of individuals. The discussions aren't new; Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" included such discussions (as a side note) all the way back in 1966, and he wasn't inventing the discussions from scratch then.
The biggest problem (that I don't see talked about) is financial. So many projections for insurance, benefits, retirement benefits, civil planning, etc. were based on existing percentages of people married, lifespans, and so forth. If you suddenly allow marriage contracts between any two people, can a young employee contract with their widowed grandparent and get them on the company health insurance at the discounted "married" rate? (Defer debate on health coverage!) All of the historical information would lose predictive power with such a massive shift in rules.