This story is priceless! Yet another red-faced Prop. 8 supporter has dumped his wife. In this case a rich developer tossed his wife of 43 years. So much for the sanctity of marriage argument!
Here are a few excerpts from an online article about this fiasco:
In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.
On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions. CityBeat contacted attorneys for both parties, but neither returned calls by press time.
When will these Talibani Republicans learn to stay out of our bedrooms? They keep blowing smoke about the sanctity of marriage but it seems every last one of them either cheats on their wives or dumps them! What a joke…
If he wants to betray his vow of marriage that’s his deal. Million of people have not!
And yes half do get divorced, but they may marry again to be with their life long partner.
The deal is if the state makes it a law for gays to marry, then you are going to get alot of churches being sued for discrimation. So the problem is,”do we trumb on the beliefs of a majority for the minority?”.
tramp! sorry.
The point is, these donors preach about the sanctity of marriage while they dissolve their own. It smacks of hypocrisy. If they want to oppose gay marriage, they shouldn’t use “protecting marriage” as their reason when they obviously have no interest in protecting their own.
A more logical explanation for their belief would be the one you just stated regarding church and discrimination.
Regardless, I believe the state should allow gays to marry. It’s worse to deny a minority of the population certain rights that the majority are entitled to. THAT’S true discrimination.
Churches shouldn’t have anything to fear. A legal marriage does not require a church. Hell, I’m getting married in Las Vegas. I have zero interest in marrying in a church, and that’s my right; a right that should be extended to gays/lesbians.
EXCELLENT POST ART!
I heard of this earlier today and thought how hypocritcal of the right wing conservatives to oppose this while they betray the definition of marriage all the time.
I want to say “what a waste of money” but the truth is: It was money well spent for thier cause, supporters of Prop 8 are typically not very deep thinkers, easily swayed by the debris spread by the “machine”.
I am reminded of my friend Emily Prager who once wrote a great article outling George H. Bush’s hypocrisy whih famously stated “DODO, Those rules are’nt for us, those are for the blackies and brownies” in response to her husbands Marijuana arrest.
ABSOLUTE HYPOCRITES. Stay out of the 24 Hr. gym. you might see the husband of a Prop 8 official.
Michelle, I totally agree with you that churches should be immune from lawsuits based on their views of gay marriage. Churches should be doubly protected – on religious grounds and on grounds of freedom of speech and expression. In our nation, it is legal to be religious, pious, mystic, on one extreme all the way to racist, sexist, or homophobic on the other. Our Constitution protects individuals thoughts and beliefs no matter how distasteful or offensive they may be.
I am a Roman Catholic who attends mass weekly.
I look at gay marriage from a Biblical perspective.
Christ said NOTHING about it. Don’t tell me that is because homosexuality didn’t exist.
Of course, the “condition” was well known, among the religious with respect to the Old Testament account of Sodom and Gomorrah. God disapproved of the lustfulness of the men.
The passage from the book of Leviticus seems very vague. You would think that if God really hated it, he would he put in the “stone to death” clause.
The words from Jesus should be enough. Do not judge. God the Father loves all of His children equally. We are all His dear, cherished creations.
By listening to the testimonies of people who are homosexual, it should be clear to any compassionate person that God made some of us heterosexual and some homosexual. It seems to me that the greater sin is deception – for someone to be in an intimate relationship that is based on a lie.
Gay marriage should be right that is recognized nationally. (We don’t need a Constitutional amendment.) Churches should still be free to decide if their beliefs allow for gay marriage for their congregations.
There was a time, not too long ago, in our nation when it would not have been unusual to hear that interracial marriage was also an abomination. We as a nation got over that. We can get over gay marriage. What is taught in our schools is another matter – and should always be age-appropriate.
Michelle, you’re not serious?! Churches already pick and choose who they will and won’t marry and no one is suing now. Trust me, gays & lesbians don’t want to be married in a church that doesn’t want them. They just want the same rights as that lovely man Mr. Manchester.
Thanks to almost all who posted here, you give me hope that we might be making some changes for the good in the near future.
“do we trumb on the beliefs of a majority for the minority”
Yes, dear sweet Michelle we do. See, our Founding Fathers in the good ol’ US of A believed in this principle and these Fatheres were not sanctimonious Jesuits.
So, because another married couple gets a divorce (not that I am excusing it), that justifies SS couples “marrying?” I will agree, it does not help the cause, but, does one action (divorce) make SSM (a concommitant action) all the more beneficial to society? Also, have we gotten to the point that we are celebrating divorce so as to strengthen SSM? In other words, can SSM stand on its own, or does it need help (apparently) from so many bad examples of OSM? If this is so, then the future of SSM doesn’t look so bright either.
I want to say “what a waste of money” but the truth is: It was money well spent for thier cause, supporters of Prop 8 are typically not very deep thinkers, easily swayed by the debris spread by the “machine”.
Really, can you please go to the nearest “black church’, and say they supported prop 8, because they are not, “deep thinkers”, Man would love to see that one:)
There was a time, not too long ago, in our nation when it would not have been unusual to hear that interracial marriage was also an abomination
See this is were the gays lose it! It is not, i repeat the same, interracial marriage is a civil rights issue, because it is denial based on skin colour only! Blacks and latinos as a large majority, voted for prop 8.
The problem is, it would not be the gays sueing, it would be distructive groups like, ACLU.
If gays would have the right to marry, then why not people who love their dogs. It sounds ridiculous,but their are alot of minority groups out there with alternative life styles.
I will state for the record that i am not opposed to gays having a legal union. It just gets into muddy water’s legally if you call it Marriage.
Dont blame the American people, blame the lawyers that use the law to push an agenda!
First, any church should have the right to marry or not marry whom they choose. It is not the governments business to tell a church who they can marry.
2) I have been with my partner for over 12 years and plan to stay around for the rest of my life or his.
3) We took advantage of the opportunity last year to make our committment to each other public by getting married.
I did not choose to be what I am, so why should the state have anything to say about it or who I love.
Under the previous law and the current law because I was born different I am prohibited by the state from enjoying a right afforded to the vast majority. Please explain to me how that is constitutional.
I would not support suing churchs who do not want to have SSM. It would be a good condition to have in the marriage law if it is not there already and to have it applied regardless of Race, sex perferance etc that churchs cannot be sued for refusing to marry a couple.
Don’t you see how OBVIOUS it is – the wicked gay agenda has killed this guy’s marriage off. ./.sarcasm>
Jim, I think the argument that people are sue happy against churches is just an excuse. Equal protections is what it is all about. I know *I* certainly would not want to be married in a church that I felt unwelcome at. Religious ceremonies are not the last word in legal protections that ALL citizens deserve.
Best to you and your partner, btw! ;-)<
The 18,000 that were married while the court ruling was in effect are still legal in the State of California and the several other states that allow SSM.
But how can that be right either? Now if someone else wants to publically declare thier committment they cannot.
Of course there is the option of moving to Canada or a few other countries.
43 years is a long time and it is tragic that they ended up apart after so many years. My parents where together over 50 years, we were not rich or powerful. They believed in working and struggling together to make a home. My sister and I certainly did not make it easy at times and they were not perfect either. But the key was that the love and committment to each other came 1st.
Perhaps, our focus on making money, acheiving a position with a great sounding name or acheiving a position of power are greater threats to marriage than anything else.
Perhaps, our focus on making money, acheiving a position with a great sounding name or acheiving a position of power are greater threats to marriage than anything else.
you are completely right, that is why i stay at home, it is hard for me, because i love to work and use my brain. But it is not about me, its about making a home for my kids and being a wife to my husband. Thats what makes a marriage!
Jim, I think the argument that people are sue happy against churches is just an excuse. Equal protections is what it is all about. I know *I* certainly would not want to be married in a church that I felt unwelcome at. Religious ceremonies are not the last word in legal protections that ALL citizens deserve.
Not people, but left wing groups, that will, with out a doub’t come out like; “flys round shite!”.
The ACLU is the greatest threat, i can just see them drooling at the mouth for a chance to sue churches left and right!
Why not call it a gay union with all the legal rights of marriage, even Obama, has approved this. But the gay activist’s want is all or nothing, but the truth is that Two men or two women are not equal to a man and women creating a normal family structure!
I will be the first one to say, that i have seen great gay parents, but, naturally the best family structure is a father and a mother!
So their is two reason’s i think:
1. legally it will be a disaster
2. it will take a structure that is solid, if done right, and fragment it!. And believe me, we can already see what happens when the family structure is not solid, just have a look at what is happening in Santa Ana!. What is happening within the black community with 80% unwed mother’s and dead beat dads!
And by the way, maybe the gays are dogding at bullet.
Marriage is a pain in the ass:)
I’m not sure how I feel about gay marriage. It is a tough issue and I understand both sides of the argument. I do strongly believe though, that many of the ones opposing gay marriage for religious reasons are simply hypocrites. They thumb through the bible and pick and choose what they think fit their own life style and condemn those they don’t agree with.
Michelle,
Central to your arguement in post # 10 is the decision in Brown v. the Board of education that Seperate is not equal.
Simply put: whats fair for one is fair for all.
Thats hard for some to swallow. I realize and respect that. But there are plenty of rules and laws that I disagree with but need to be respected.
I spent a considerble amount of my life in a place where one could not choose their faith. it was predominately Roman Catholic, those who even lisetened to the LDS missionaries were villified.
But, you were DEAD ON in #15. These guys (and gals) have no idea what their getting into.
At least you can go to bed at night knowing you tried to warn them!