Lesbian “Divorce” = A New Tactic To Get Courts To Force States To Pretend There Is Same-Sex Marriage

From NBC News:

A lesbian couple was denied a divorce Wednesday in Alabama because the state doesn’t recognize their legal Iowa marriage.

In a one-sentence ruling issued in Huntsville, Circuit Judge Karen Hall said Michelle Richmond and Kirsten Allysse Richmond can’t get a divorce in Alabama — even the uncontested one they were seeking — because they had no way to ask for one “pursuant to the laws of this State.”

The Richmonds were legally married in Dubuque, Iowa, in 2012 but later moved to Alabama — which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

Of course, the NBC story is false. Michelle and Kirsten were never married. That is the whole point of the dispute. It is not a question of whether homosexuals are “born that way” or not. It is not a question of what the laws should be regarding homosexual behavior. The point in dispute is whether or not there is any such thing as homosexual marriage. Related to this would be the question of whether or not marriage is a creation of the civil government or an independently-existing relationship that the state should recognize, but that it has no part in making.

Iowa may claim that the two women are married but that is because governments often put out false information.  No surprise there.

Thus, AL.com quotes the couple’s attorney and shows how the grounds of his planned appeal are delusional.

Hill said he will file a motion asking Judge Hall to reconsider her order. If that is unsuccessful, Hill said he will file an appeal with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

“I anticipate I may have to file lawsuit in U.S. District Court under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause,” Hill said. “Under most circumstances if there was a problem with what I filed I would have opportunity to correct it. However this ruling is based simply on the gender of these two women.”

No, it is based on the fact that they are not married. Duh.

Aside from that, what if one of the partners was five years old? Then “this ruling is based simply on the age of one of these two women.” How is that an objection? Or this could be a pet and owner: “This ruling is based simply on the species of one of these two females.” Again, so what? The equal protection clause has nothing to do with it. The fact that there are pedophiles and zoophiles in the world does not obligate the civil government to recognize their relationships as marriage. Or this could be two sisters: “This ruling is based simply on the shared parentage of these two women.”

And if homosexuals don’t like my analogies, that just proves they are bigots. I’m not the one who came up with them.