Thursday, August 7, 2008

Well, This Is A First

A "married" gay man has fled the country illegally with "his" son, although it was his "husband" who had custody:

Hyett, 37, bolted with the child on Sunday after a year of ugly sparring with his estranged spouse over custody. According to Hyett, the two men last spoke nearly a year ago, and his ex-partner Joshua Glazer ignored 200 messages about the deteriorating situation since then.

Glazer, left behind with boxes of toys and an empty bed in the Manhattan apartment he shared with the boy, called Hyett a "highly manipulative person" and "a pathological liar."

Police sources said it was the first New York abduction case involving a married gay couple in memory.
If you read the article, it says that the boy's mother was a "surrogate." But other accounts say the mother was a friend of the men who let them adopt her son. One can't help but wonder, because if the mom really was a "surrogate" then one of these two men may be the biological father--but which?

And, of course, nobody who's covering this story is referring to this embarrassing Boston Globe puff piece about the men, who were "married" the first day Massachusetts allowed gay marriage:

Now, it was 9 a.m. and Eric and Josh, the 41st couple in line that morning, were waiting their turn at the town clerk's counter. They wore dark suits with new blue ties, a gift from Brian. Their lapels carried red boutonnieres selected by Barbara.

At 9:15, as they stepped up to the clerk's counter, Joan Glazer wiped away tears. "I guess I think it's real now," she said.

Eric and Josh carried a doctor's note that pronounced them syphilis free, a state requirement for all marriages. For identification, they had passports and the lease for the apartment in Norman and Maxine's Winthrop home. They swore they knew of no legal impediment to their marriage.

And, after handing over $35, they walked out to cheers, carrying a certificate stating their intent to wed and listing the residence in Winthrop.

Under a warm morning sun, the couple and their extended family marched 150 yards across the street to municipal court, where they asked a judge to waive the state's three-day waiting period.

"I grew up here," Eric told the judge. "I went to Brookline High. My mom resides here."

After a two-minute hearing, they had their waiver.

And after a speedy return trip to Brookline clerk's counter, they walked away with their license to marry as their families cheered.

As they left for the synagogue, they passed a poster board in the town hall lobby labeled "An Historic Day of Inclusion."

On it, other couples had scrawled: "It's About Time!" or "May Love Prevail!"

In careful script, Eric left a message of his own:

"Two families -- coming together. One new family begins. Eric Hyett & Josh Glazer. Married. May 17, 2004."

And now, just four years later, one of them has fled the country with an innocent child the two men adopted to raise together.

Tell me again how gay marriage is going to be so much better than straight marriage. Tell me again how the gays are going to prove to us all that they're practically perfect compared to the rest of us, who've been slowly destroying marriage since around the time of Henry VIII.

Tell me. I'm listening.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tell me again how one story about the breakup of a same-sex marriage means that ALL same-sex marriages are doomed to failure.

See, gays are just like straights -- sometimes things go wrong for them too!

Scott said...

Tell me again how one story about the breakup of a same-sex marriage means that ALL same-sex marriages are doomed to failure.

I don't know...perhaps common sense? Since it's not a real marriage any more than a dog's tail is a 5th leg just by saying it is, one may very well find the odd two-dudes-shacking-up-and-calling-it-marriage that manage to stick together, but what of it? Simple apprehension says stories like these will be the rule, not the exception.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem with people arguing against same-sex marriage because of their religion, but at least be logical about it.

"Tell me again how gay marriage is going to be so much better than straight marriage. Tell me again how the gays are going to prove to us all that they're practically perfect compared to the rest of us, who've been slowly destroying marriage since around the time of Henry VIII."

As I said, be logical. First off, I don't know of anyone who's seriously argued that gay marriage is going to be better than straight marriage, or that gays are practically perfect. Second, one bad example doesn't mean ALL gay marriages are bad. Notice, I'm not arguing that they're good; I'm just saying that generalization weakens an argument by giving random anonymous blog-responders something to roll our eyes about. You might as logically say that all Catholics are child molesters because of the small percentage that have received so much media attention.

Scott said...

Second, one bad example doesn't mean ALL gay marriages are bad.

I'm just challenging the premise that it's marriage in the first place. Logic says when truth is denied, bad things follow. While it may be that a few people can play with matches while standing in a puddle of gasoline and not go up in a ball of flame, one needs only common sense to recognize the coming disaster.

simplycatholic said...

I think it is somehow strange, maybe even ironic, that Massachusetts made them show proof that they were free of syphilis. One little clinging thread of what marriage used to mean. Very strange.

Daddio said...

"random anonymous blog-responders"

That's quite a fancy way of saying "troll".

Correct me if I'm wrong, Red, but I believe you are holding up this example as the prototype of what all fake marriages (whether gay or straight) are doomed to result in. When "love", sex, and intimacy are separated from God and nature, the inevitable results are distrust, lies, brokenness, and the harming of children.

This is how you choose a nickname... said...

For Pete's sake... if you don't have the courage to put your name to your comments then at least choose a nickname other than "Anonymous". It's easy. Click "Name/URL" and type in a name. The URL part is optional. It can be any name you choose like "Troll" or "No backbone"...whatever. It's easy and way less confusing for those of us trying to keep you people straight. I just did it to show you how. The lady has already asked nicely.

Anonymous said...

I don't care about the red herrings. I am anonymous (not the same anonymous as previous posters..but..)

My opinion is that the kid is the real 'victim' in the story, and no one has mentioned him directly. It's sick, sick, sick and more sick i.e. 'highly manipulative'
'pathological liar'. For what reason in this world do innocent kids have to be subjected to socially unacceptable mores by primary caregivers, as if to be considered ordinary dependents of 'normal parents'? Is this reeason enought to believe that is why religions hang on to a concept of 'heaven'?

Anonymous said...

Personally you should be ashamed at yourself for presenting this story in such a repulsive manner. Josh and his family are in the process of trying to get Josh's kidnapped son back and here you are bickering about gay marriage. Gay marriage and straight marriage are the same thing. Two people, who enter into union, to love and to cherish each other till death do them part. Unfortunately for Josh, Eric (being a deceptive scumbag) manipulated Josh and fooled him into marriage then ran off and kidnapped Josh's son.

Red Cardigan said...

Well, most recent anonymous, I don't shame easily, especially when called to do so by people too cowardly to leave a name.

And for background: I'm opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds, it's not the same as straight marriage and never will be, this little boy has become a pawn in a power struggle between two adults and these situations are going to be the rule, rather than the exception, among gay couples, should gay marriage become more widely available, and as far as the facts of the case, how do I, or anyone else, know which "father" is the good guy and which is not? Either one could be the villain (or the "scumbag" as you colorfully phrase it).

If you want to know my opinions on gay marriage the search bar at the top of the blog will help you. But I wrote about this situation because I've had lots and lots of interaction with gays on the Internet who tell me that gays will never, ever, ever do this sort of thing, because they've worked so hard to get "marriage rights" and they'll just show all us straights how perfect they can be. So the story was a bit of a reality check for them, IMO.