What does it impose? No one is required to get divorced. There's no imposition where there is no requirement. People are free to remain married, and they are even free to personally disapprove of divorce.

The most important culture your children grow up in is the culture AT HOME. This country is religiously pluralistic, so it would be illegal to require that everyone has to follow the rules of a particular religion. You are free to teach your kids anything you want at home, but you aren't free to impose your religious restrictions on people who aren't members of your faith. I really don't understand why so many Americans have difficulty grasping that.

Think of what it would be like if America were populated primarily by fundamentalist Muslims. Would you say it was okay to have sharia law imposed on you because they wanted to raise their children in a uniform culture?




No, they're not. It would only be an imposition if they were REQUIRED to divorce.

See, here's the thing: "Imposition" doesn't mean what you seem to want it to mean. Putting up with the fact that not everyone sees things the same way you do isn't being "imposed upon". Requiring everyone around you to live the way you choose to live so that YOU can be comfortable... now THAT would be an imposition, because you would be imposing your lifestyle on others. No one is imposing same-sex marriage on you.

I don't mean to sound flip, but when the police bust down your door and force you to marry a woman, call me.

And as for villages and children, these days YOUR village is made up of the people you CHOOSE to help you raise your children. Strangers aren't raising them, and if they are, then look to that rather than arguing about imposition.

I wish more people in the US realized that freedom of religion does not include the freedom of one religion to impose its rules upon those who are members of other faiths or of none.

One more thing:

I'm probably a bit off the mark in saying that this has NO implications for religion, because it does have ONE:

Religions (such as mine) which do perform, bless and recognize same-sex marriages will now be able to have those marriages be legally recognized across all 50 states provided the marriages were performed in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. There are actually quite a few religions and even Christian denominations in which same-sex marriage is blessed and recognized, including:

Reform Judaism
Some Conservative Jewish synagogues will also perform same-sex marriages, as will some Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues.
United Church of Christ
Metropolitan Community Church
Some Anglican and Episcopalian churches (it varies from diocese to diocese)
Quakers (The Religious Society of Friends) - Some fellowships/meetinghouses do and some don't, as the Friends do not have one monolithic governing body.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA)
The Unitarian Universalist Church
Unity Church

There are others; this list is not exhaustive.

In what possible way??? Nothing in that law affects anyone in a religious sense. It just says that same-sex couples who are legally married have the same rights to LEGAL recognition of their marriages as hetero couples.

Doesn't say anything about religion at all, and churches who condemn homosexuality are not going to be suddenly required to perform same-sex marriages.

A good analogy would be the issue of divorce and the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC forbids divorce, and will not perform a marriage for a couple when one or both of the partners is divorced. The workaround, of course, is for a divorced Catholic to seek an annulment from the church, which is a matter of canon law rather than church law, after which remarriage in the church becomes possible.

But US law permits divorce and remarriage. This imposes nothing upon Catholicism (note that the procedures for annulment were already in existence long before the US was) and has not in any way infringed upon the RCC's right to say, "Sorry, but we don't recognize civil divorce -- ONLY annulments."


Now that equality is the law, no one is being imposed on. This is a step FORWARD.

It's as natural as anything else. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Animals live pretty natural lives in the wild.

In any case, civil law is a wholly different subject.

I thought those were to hold it in place?

Well, that's what I use mine for. Can't have that halo falling off and getting lost... those things are freakin' EXPENSIVE on the black market, y'know?

I think you definitely have grounds with abandonment. And it really shouldn't be that much more difficult with two countries involved.

Check with an attorney who knows how to handle international divorce cases (some Googling should help). You can probably get an initial consultation for free. No one should be permitted to manipulate someone else emotionally or otherwise, and based on what you've said here, it sounds like you'll be much better off being able to just wash your hands of him.

Best of luck to you!

I've fallen for guys on dating sites a few times... ...developed a crush, if nothing else... of course, when they're far away, I usually don't pursue anything because most guys aren't looking for a LDR, and I'm not so sure I am either.

So thus far, the only time it's ever gone anywhere was last year with a guy who turned out to live only a few miles from me. We dated for a while, and when that kind of fizzled we built a close, affectionate friendship instead. We still see each other frequently and hang out together.

I've dated older men, and I've dated younger men. I wouldn't want to date someone young enough to be my son or old enough to be my father, and in fact I probably wouldn't go more than 7 years or so in either direction these days (in the past I dated a guy 9 years older... but I was only 19 myself then).

But within reason, age takes a back seat to all the other things that make a person attractive as a dating partner or a mate.

Have you spoken with an attorney? It may be easier or cheaper than you think... and I don't see how his liking to "move around" should make him not want to cooperate with a divorce. Seriously, if he doesn't want to be with you and he doesn't want to divorce you, it sounds like on some level he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He needs to grow up... and please don't let HIM run this show. You deserve your freedom.

Update: As of 2AM EST, and still this morning, m.mingle2.com now crashes BOTH the stock Android browser and Boat Browser, as well as Dax Social. I no longer have ANY access to this site without using an actual computer.

What happens is that I can load the main forum page, or any page accessible by a link from, say, Google... so if I search on a topic and Mingle2, then click a link in the search results, it will load that page... but as soon as I try to scroll, or to click a link on the Mingle site (say, to go to a different thread in the forum), the browser closes. This behavior is uniform across both browsers and the Dax application.

If I go directly to http://m.mingle2.com in either browser, the browser usually crashes without ever loading the page.

Zero mobile access. This'll be fun when I travel and don't take my computer.

Oh, no! Sending prayers up for you and healing thoughts your way.

keep stealing their pork rinds

I want to be stuck with whichever smart person planned ahead.

End of human civilization? Wouldn't all the islands be deserted then? In that case, I want to be stuck with the most fun folks on the island that has the biggest, most fully-stocked resort and the fewest rivals to fight us for its resources.

'Cos then we're going to party like it's whatever year it is.

Let's see... I think I'll invite:

Kik (something tells me he'd be good to have on hand in that situation)

Topher (hey, I can't be the life of the party all the time... the position of social director is definitely a job-share)

Hippie (to teach refresher classes on the hokey-pokey)

4evababy (to remind me "You can't do that with one of those!" when I need remindin')

Winlei (because she's cool and human civilization isn't allowed to end unless she can be on our island)

SweetestGirl (because she'll probably turn out to be that person who came prepared)

OldSage is invited too, but he has to bring his pink towel.

You just had to say "up", didn't you?

Why, oh why, do I have this sudden urge to go shopping for towel racks?

Much, but not most, and whether or not they are against it, and whether or not they are bigots has nothing to do with anything in this ruling. The SCOTUS did not rule on a religious issue, nor on a speech issue. They ruled on the legal status of same-sex couples who have been legally married under the laws of their respective states.


The ruling went against the religious beliefs of a certain subgroup of Americans, which is of no consequence as this is a matter of civil law rather than of religion. Plenty of things are legal in the United States that some religion or other would view as running counter to their moral code. It is legal to eat pork in this country, regardless of the religions restrictions against it in Judaism and Islam. It is legal to get divorced and remarried, regardless of the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition against doing so. It is legal to engage in work and commerce on Sundays, despite the fact that a number of fundamentalist Christian sects prohibit their members from doing so as they hold the sabbath to be a day of rest.

And therein lies the key: In the USA, we have freedom of religion and no national religion, which means that the prohibitions of any particular faith apply ONLY to those individuals who are its adherents.

So a matter of civil law in regard to same-sex marriage has no bearing on those whose faith prohibits homosexuality, as it does not affect one way or another what those churches and their faithful do in regard to their own lives.


So? We are a nation ruled by secular laws, not a theocracy.


No "if" involved here; they've been doing it for years.


Under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, religious organizations may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

Doesn't say anything about preaching that homosexuality is wrong or even about saying that the government or SCOTUS are wrong about something. Liberal church members and pastors talk about social issues too, and the government's been known to be mentioned. As long as a religious congregation or organization is not engaging in direct campaign speech, the organization and its leaders/members should be covered by the general free speech clause of the First Amendment.

*orders a gift-pack of Krazy Glue sent to Hippie's address*

Thanks, and I understand. I do think, though, that there are probably many people like me who sometimes only get on the site via their mobile, possibly for days. I had an ongoing conversation in Mingle e-mails with another member yesterday and was away from my computer for some time when I had an alert hit my Gmail box saying he'd sent me another message here on Mingle2, but of course I was unable to reach the site to respond directly until several hours later.

That may be happening to others as well. Fortunately in my case, the user and I do have each other's personal email addresses so I was able to ask him to take the conversation there but that probably isn't the optimal solution from Mingle2's perspective.

Thanks for the response and have a great day.

Hippie, nothing in that ruling had anything to do with hate speech or even with churches.

All that was ruled is that same-sex marriages be recognized on the same civil and legal footing with marriages between a man and a woman. It's got nothing to do with anyone's religion, as we're talking solely about the legal status of couples who have married in states which allow same-sex partners to legally marry one another.

Some groups have been preaching against homosexuality for years, with or without the involvement of marriage in the discussion. And others have been accusing those groups of sowing hatred. Personally, I'd agree that they have, but that isn't the same as suggesting they be charged with hate speech or hate crimes (and US law is a bit fuzzy on both of those concepts right now anyway).

Even churches don't all agree on the subject of same-sex marriage. Some prohibit it, while others (such as mine) happily perform such ceremonies and have done so for years. But the ruling is about CIVIL marriage laws. Religious institutions have always been, and as long as we retain our First Amendment freedom of religion in this country, always will be free to decide who they will or will not allow to marry under their traditions.

They just don't get to dictate civil law in the matter, and that is as it should be.

The ruling wasn't about hate speech. It wasn't about churches. It was about federal recognition of marriages involving same-sex partners on an equal LEGAL and CIVIL footing with those involving a man and a woman.

That's the only thing the SCOTUS ruled on.


Can you try that one again in plainer English? I know what a 501c is, but the rest of it really came across as garbled.


I don't even know what you're trying to ask here in relation to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, so you might want to clarify this question too.
So no, none of those are going to come out of yesterday's ruling.

I don't think anyone here suggested that one gender had a monopoly on cheating. The OP is female and had a bad experience with her husband, so she's approaching it from that POV, that's all.