So now "gay marriage" isn't enough...they want "gay divorce" too!

One of the arguments we constantly hear in support of gay marriage is that those who enter homosexual relationships usually do so for the "long-term"...umm...so what is this all about? By the way...one of the couples that brought forth the CA Supreme Court case that was just decided is also, no longer "together"...hmm....so much for that whole "long-term" thing I guess huh?

This is an interesting observation, providing evidence that one of the main objectives of this whole "movement" is to make a MOCKERY of Marriage and further disrupt society by enforcing acceptance of their way of life upon all of us!

“A lot of people wanted to make a statement, and others got married for no other reason other than suddenly they could,” says Jo Ann Citron, a divorce lawyer in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004.

“It's very easy to get caught up in the moment, in an exciting historical time, and this newfound freedom and opportunity of the revolutionary moment often overrides the personal issues that marriage usually involves,” Ms. Citron says.

Judge Raises Constitutional Issue in R.I. Gay Divorce

Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:00 AM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Superior Court judge has refused to hear the divorce case of a lesbian couple, but questioned whether the law that barred the women from ending their marriage unconstitutionally denied them a right enjoyed by heterosexual Rhode Islanders.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year ruled that the state's family court could not grant a divorce to Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, who wed in 2004 in Massachusetts soon after sex-sex marriage became legal in that state.

The justices said the state statute that created the family court recognized marriage as between only a man and a woman and the court, therefore, could not divorce a same-sex couple.

Chambers then sought a divorce in Superior Court. Judge Patricia Hurst denied the request on Wednesday, saying her court does not have jurisdiction to handle divorce.

But she also questioned the constitutionality of the statute relied on last year by the Supreme Court.

"It seems to me that this is a matter needing immediate attention and one that very plainly belongs in the hands of the legislature and the executive branch," Hurst said.

She said the law could be challenged in family court and ultimately ruled on by the Supreme Court.

The couple, both from Rhode Island, filed for divorce in Rhode Island in 2006, citing irreconcilable differences. Ormiston has been renting a room in Massachusetts, where she must live for a year for the couple to get divorced there.

Read further here