AUSTRALIA: Lawyer Offers To Help Couple Fulfill Their Vow To Divorce If Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Law

Australia’s News Corp outlet reports:

A Sydney lawyer has offered his pro-bono support to a straight couple who said they would divorce if Australia legislated for same-sex marriage. Michael Tiyce, from Sydney family law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, told he wanted to help Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jensen keep their promise to Australia, “because, quite simply, they are going to need it”.

On Wednesday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced 62 per cent of Australians had voted Yes in the same-sex marriage postal survey. The state with the highest Yes vote was the Australian Capital Territory where three out of four of the Jensen’s neighbours voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

The Jensen’s made a nationwide stir when, in 2015, they pledged to dissolve their marriage, despite being very much in love, if gay couples were also allowed to wed. “My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.”

  • Beto

    They’re dumb as a post, aren’t they?

    • Snarkaholic

      Judging by the expression on her face in that pic, she’s incredibly hateful/evil as well.

    • Gustav2

      Maybe they thought saying “I divorce you” three times in front of witnesses would take care of it like it says in some bronze age religious texts.

      • 2guysnamedjoe

        Gotta simultaneously swing a chicken around your head three times, too.

        • iambu

          “They might make you eat a live chicken!”
          “Not on yer first visit!”

          (Sorry if I butchered that, I was trying to do it from memory ‘n it’s been a sec.)

    • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

      JC won’t like your divorce now, will he? Of course, on the other hand, he had nothing to say about homesexuality–oh, those pesky gospels!

      • wait…what about Jenny Craig?

        • Nic Peterson

          What’s wrong with Muriel Puce for that matter…

      • Pluto Animus

        In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law (“Torah” in Hebrew), but to fulfill it. “Not one jot or tittle,” of it can change, remember?

        So, yeah, Jesus clearly said, Go ahead and enforce that law about killing gays.

        Funny how no one wants to admit that.

        • (((GC)))

          The Bible clearly says that all of the older law applies to Christians. AND that none of it does. Some guidebook written by a “perfect” being, who can’t even settle on a single consistent creation story “in the beginning”!

          I do like the suggestion for a simple and effective edit: strike those three opening words, and replace them with “Once upon a time.”

          • jerry

            And maybe have Revelations end with “…and they all lived happily ever after.” Of course, that would be very extreme revisionist history.

        • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

          There goes the bacon-wrapped shrimp 🙁

        • He goes on to say there will be no change “until all has been fulfilled.” Many Chrtstians read that as meaning “not until the Last Judgment”, but a closer reading of the Gospels suggests otherwise..

          What were the last words JC uttered on the cross, immediately before He died? “All has been fulfilled”. At that moment the old law, yea, every jot and tittle thereof, passed away and became no more… And in Matthew’s gospel (chapter 25) he lays out in detail what the new law is, on what basis He judges the living and the dead.. I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat, and so on. Christians know the rest, but THOSE are the words they choose to ignore.

        • JohnInCA

          (1) Once Christians, as a group, can agree on whether or not Christ “fulfilled” the old laws, then I think it’s reasonable for non-Christians to consider Christianity to have a definitive answer on whether or not the old laws apply. But that’s still a serious debate in Christian theological circles and has been for, well, two thousand years.

          (2) In what world is it reasonable for Christians to expect me, an atheist/agnostic†, to live by a Jewish law that only applied to Jewish people? Leviticus was rules/laws for Jews. There was no expectation that non-Jews would follow ’em.

          Now sure, (2) throws Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Mormon gays under the bus, but that takes us back to (1) in which even y’all that believe can’t agree on what does and doesn’t apply, and yet expect me to care.
          †Depending on operating definition and my mood.

    • /

      LOL one has to wonder if they seriously thought that this threat would convince either the Australian government or their imaginary sky friend to withhold rights and protections from gay people.

    • PeterC

      I support their plan to divorce. We certainly do want them to have children that would be indoctrinated with their insane thinking..

      • (((GC)))

        Too late… they mentioned wanting to have “more” children.

  • Adam Stevens

    Both will burn in hell for all eternity for their divorce just like their savior tells them they will.

    It is important for we who are righteous to judge the wicked.

  • RustynAtlanta

    Not these shitheads again.

    • Calamity_Jean

      If it wasn’t them it would be others. There’s an infinite supply.

  • Paula

    Fuck these drama queens!

    • Gustav2

      In order to divorce they have to live apart for a year…
      and other requirements in Australian law.

      • 2guysnamedjoe

        They thought of that, too.
        “If Australian law won’t recognize our Biblical divorce, we’ll, we’ll, . . . we’ll get married all over again! That’ll teach ’em a lesson.”

  • CraigNJ

    Might I suggest they move to Iran?

    • Jeffg166

      Or Alabama.

      • Bambino

        The sacred land of Christians where you serve up your underage daughters to be molested by the would be senator.

    • Bambino

      Iran is too progressive of a state for them. I’m sure there is a few caves in Afghanistan available.

  • Tatonka

    Yep. That’s the problem with allowing the government to determine what is or isn’t a religious sacrament. It only works when you’re forcing your views on someone else, and not the other way around.

    Good luck with your divorce, nut-jobs.

  • Macbill

    Who will help this couple remove the stick from their butts? “Not I”, said the Rooster.

  • bkmn

    That will teach us. Morans.

  • Stogiebear

    Fish gotta swim,
    Birds gotta fly,
    Assholes gotta asshole.

    Congratulations on your thoroughly unnecessary upcoming divorce.

  • Tawreos

    Have we had any word on if they put the marriage bill in front of Parliament. I seem to remember they were supposed to do that today

    • (((GC)))

      Yeah, why did Turnbull promise equal marriage “by Christmas”? Couldn’t they pass it in a day (like certain super-urgent emergency anti-LGBTQ* legislation here in the good ol’ U. S. of A.) if they wanted?

      • Tawreos

        They did put the bill forward and will begin debating it 11/27 with hopes to have it passed before 12/7

    • Hue-Man

      Senate bill introduced – Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Second reading debate on Nov 16th (it’s now Friday morning in Australia).;fileType=application%2Fpdf

  • Treant

    They’re not actually going to divorce in real life, just legally.

    So I guess they’re planning on divorcing in the courts (Jesus didn’t like that and said many bad things about it) and then living together without a formal bond (ditto) as well as possibly having children (illegal bastards) together.

    They seem nice. And so not total hypocrites.

    • Gustav2

      “As I understand the position taken by Nick and Sarah, they intend to divorce, but still remain together and have more children. That makes things a bit tricky as they will be unable to establish the consortium vitae has ended.

      “Continuing to present as husband and wife to the world would, in my opinion, make it impossible for them to establish that their relationship was at an end.

      “This is a situation known as ‘wedlock’ which is mostly experienced currently by gay couples who married overseas but cannot always divorce upon separation in Australia because their marriage post 2004 is not recognised here.

      • Treant

        So they’re fucked. Literally and figuratively, apparently.

        • Bluto

          Don’t make it sound like a bad thing. They should receive all the fucking over they so richly deserve.

        • Good!!

      • kareemachan

        And the “whoosh” you hear is reality totally going over their head….

    • AmeriCanadian

      If they continue to have “relations” with each other after their divorce, won’t they be considered adulterers in the eyes of their lord? Or is there another word used for that particular type of sin?

      • (((GC)))

        They intend to keep their religious marriage.

        Though establishing the civil divorce will be difficult if they have to live apart and not have sex for a year. (I know nothing about Australian marriage & divorce law; corrections welcome!)

      • Treant

        Can I fit that under “coveting thy neighbor’s ass?” Probably. 🙂

  • Tatonka

    If they really wanted to stick it to the queers, he’d delete his Grinder account.

    • Randy503

      I think that would be doing us a favor, actually.

  • Bambino

    Attention whores are attention whores! Apparently, the announcement of engagement, engagement party, having bridal shower and stag party, wedding rehearsal, wedding reception, announcement of their pregnancy and child birth, baptism are just not enough. Let’s hitch on the gay marriage headline to make it about us! Us! Us!

  • Boreal

    Cool. I bet they thought people had forgotten their hollow threat.

  • AtticusP

    Go ahead. Get divorced.

    And while you’re at it, go fuck yourselves.

    • Bambino

      All the projection they are doing, despite they claimed to be so in love, I doubt they enjoy fucking each other that much.

      • /

        If you’re a Christian and you’re enjoying sex, you’re doing it wrong!

        • Boreal
          • TrueWords

            A CLASSIC

        • (((GC)))

          Open and evangelizing Christian swingers are a (rare) thing.

          “Bodybuilding Christian Swingers From Florida Start Spouse-Swapping Website” (HuffPost)

          “Christian swingers network is only for the super-fit”

          (mentions that one of the founders is a bi woman)

          • Todd Allis

            They all have quite a… look about them, don’t they?

          • (((GC)))


            I’ve heard that some/many swingers’ clubs have an unfortunate double standard about men with men, as opposed to women with women.

          • Puck

            It’s called manly!

          • Paula

            Somehow, I believe those vaginas have a lot of miles on them.
            Straight girls, sheesh 🙄🙄🙄

          • Benjamin Eugene NElson

            Somehow I doubt those vaginas are less than 80% plastic…

            And anyone else getting a “Mannish” vibe from them to boot? NOt that there’s anything wrong with that to me.. 😛

          • Steve Heath

            How many is one mile ÷ 6inches? ……brb

          • Steve Heath

            oh wow…..punchline certainly weaker if we resubmit as “I bet those vaginas have a lot of inches on them”……carry on

          • Todd20036

            Most straight men don’t have pink hair, or at least aren’t conservative. Just saying.
            BTW, the only people I see at the gym who are THAT muscular, are ‘roid users.

          • Nic Peterson

            Dudes look like they got raisins in their sacks, if you know what I mean.

          • Bluto

            I bet they smell like Brut, Ben Gay, Crisco & crab shampoo.

          • Nowhereman

            Crab shampoo made me laugh. Is that packed in a garlic & butter sauce?

          • JackFknTwist

            I love the three Crosses in the background…..looks like they are Swingers for Jesus.

          • (((GC)))

            “Swingers for Jesus” describes them perfectly!

            Christy Parave, quoted in Christian Today:

            “Dean and I are both in agreement with this lifestyle, so we’re not committing adultery. God put people on the earth to breed and enjoy each other – I feel God is always with me and he has put us here for a reason.”


            “God has put me here to spread his word and our lifestyle community is a great place to do it. You can’t get closer to someone than having sex with them.”

            “I’m getting to people that will probably never even visit a church.”

            “If I can go to the next swinger’s event and get 10 people to believe in Christ…my job is done.”

          • jerry

            LOL “…getting to people that will probably never even visit a church…” Maybe he should really evangelize and go to a gay bar.

          • JackFknTwist

            Thanks for your quotes; as I read them I heard the voice of Jimmy Jones of Jonestown speaking !

          • (((GC)))

            Or maybe the Paraves are really good at compartmentalizing. (They wouldn’t be alone there!!)

            [ Jesus and heaven are the ultimate goals! ]

            [ The world and its pleasures really do matter! ]

          • Nowhereman

            If I was at an event like that and someone started telling me about Jesus, I would be outta there.

          • Calamity_Jean

            “If I was at an event like that and someone started telling me about Jesus….”


          • Nowhereman

            Looks like a fun bunch…

        • Benjamin Eugene NElson

          I laughed harder than I perhaps should have at this one.

    • Andymac3

      You know he wants out of this stale marriage.

    • Todd20036

      Right? Because the whole purpose of marriage is property rights. If one of them dies after divorcing, the other gets nothing.
      Of course, they could just be hypocrites who renege on their promise. But what are the odds of that??

    • Guest

      Don’t forget to smash your Keurig too.

      • LeeCMH

        Aside from sex politics and hateful Hannity, using Kuerig is very environmentally polluting and has a very high cost — between five to seven times the cost to brew the traditional way.

        And if you are a tax payer, you will end-up subsiding Kuerig in your city’s landfill costs.

        • pluky

          and has no one noticed they make crappy coffee?

          • Zeldacat

            Why would I want somebody else to determine the strength of my coffee in my own home anywy? I’ve had coffee from other people’s and it was always way too weak and awful. I’ll stick with my French press.

          • LeeCMH

            So true. We grind beans when we brew. It is so much fresher.

          • Zeldacat

            I’m usually too lazy (or too broke to buy whole beans) to grind my own. But that’s definitely the best!

        • (((GC)))

          First there was the original Keurig series with their disposable K-Cups. Then came reusable filters that fit the machines. Then came Keurig 2.0 machines that don’t take those reusable filters. Then came new reusable filters….

          Will Keurig eventually follow the example of printer makers, and put chips into their K-Cups, so you have to buy official, licensed, single-use pods again? (At least until someone starts making knockoff chips. Or they’ll gladly sell you 100-use reusable filters for $100, or 500-use filters for $299.) (Shouldn’t give them ideas!)

    • Nic Peterson

      But do not, under any circumstances, fuck each other after your divorce. That would be adultery and make NEG cry.

      • (((GC)))

        They want to have it both ways. Not participate in the institution of civil marriage, if it’ll be open to Teh Gheyz, yet stay together, be married in the eyes of their religion, and continue being fruitful and multiplying.

    • JohnInCA

      Amusingly enough, Australia’s divorce laws aren’t as liberal as most US states. If they want a divorce they have to be separated for over a year and affirm that there is “no reasonable likelihood of resuming married life”.

      Seeing as they publicly announced their intention to stay together and act as married in all ways but the legal one, that second condition would be difficult even if they lived separately for a year.

      So to put it simply? If they’re serious about getting a legal divorce while still acting as though they’re married, they either need to commit perjury or get a good lawyer that argues they should be able to divorce anyway.

  • architect_tim
  • liondon#iamnotatraitor

    Is there a go fuck you ..I mean go fund me page?

  • LeeCMH

    Hey, fine with me. Get a divorce.

    • another_steve


      Personally, I’d feel better if these two obviously deranged individuals weren’t living together. The synergy of two such people living together could be dangerous.

      • LeeCMH

        Maybe, but I really do not care. They can stay married, get divorced, whatever.

        It is their choice, just as Australian law may soon allow same-sex marriage, gay people will actually be able to choose marriage.

      • Gregory B

        Hopefully they have not reproduced…

        • LeeCMH

          I understand the couple have spawned and intend to continue spawning.

  • SFBruce

    What matter or conscience? The “I’ll take my toys and go home if you don’t play my way” matter of conscience?? Don’t these two have something better to do?

  • Rocco

    Why not just go into the backyard and eat worms?

  • Tatonka

    It’s times like these when I most regret not becoming a Constitutional law professor, so I could ask an exam question about whether it violates a Christian baker’s civil rights to force them to bake a cake celebrating two evangelicals’ divorce in protest of gay marriages.

    • Andymac3

      Sweet! (cakes by that bitch melissa)

  • TheManicMechanic

    Why don’t you two burn your house down too? That would really show us!

  • Leo

    OT Breaking. The second jury with the one new member in the Menendez trail has also deadlocked.

  • Glenn E Ross

    If you don’t do what I want i’ll keep slapping myself in the face.

  • Andymac3

    “My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.”

    LOLOLOL, OMG, I needed that laugh today.

    • Bambino

      The sanctity of their butt sex has been rob by the geys!!!

    • They have no choice. The Australian Constitution specifically empowers the government — more specifically the Commonwealth Parliament — to regulate marriage. And the High Court has upheld that power.

  • Boreal
  • Rebecca Gardner

    Imagine being so full of hate you chose to make your own life miserable.
    Religion is clearly a mental disease.

  • Natty Enquirer

    And they say lawyers are heartless.

  • Andymac3

    Can I have the Keurig machine back that I gave you as a wedding present then?
    You smashed it? awwhhhhh.

  • Mike C

    Do it, please, by all means do it. Then have fun at the hospital, at the school, or spending thousands to protect your family if you die and maybe you’ll learn a little bit about what people were fighting for, ya selfish pricks.

  • Paula

    OTOH, maybe he is looking for an excuse to divorce so he can marry his buddy, Malcolm.

    • KevInPDX

      my thoughts exactly

    • CanuckDon

      Looks pretty suspicious and asinine doesn’t it? How else can one look at their hard notion that if gays can marry then we’re getting a divorce!

  • VodkaAndPolitics

    Betcha a dollar one of them has been looking for ANY excuse to get out of this marriage for years, but couldn’t.

    • Rebecca Gardner

      Her girlfriend has been waiting long enough.

    • AmeriCanadian

      That seems to be the most sensible reason I’ve heard so far.

  • Bambino

    Another day another couple of idiots performing an adjacent Keurig smashing skit.

  • Mike

    Solemnisation? Solemnity has nothing to do with it. This isn’t about church, churchy, it’s about civil rights and equality under the law. Go pray on that.

    • William

      Are Australia’s marriage laws the same or similar to Britain? In the UK, there is the registry office ceremony, which makes the marriage legal. A church wedding is only necessary if the party involved wants to have it.

      • clay

        It’s that way in a LOT of nations, just not the US, but that’s because of the way our frontier was settled. Though Australia had/has frontier, it wasn’t as humid and didn’t attract many settlers away from where government services were available– the justices got there as soon as the preachers did.

        • thatotherjean

          That’s not exactly true. In the US, you can be married by a member of the clergy, a judge, a Justice of the Peace, or even a court clerk. Church weddings are optional. None of the above weddings are legal, though, unless the proper paperwork is filed.

          • clay

            There are US states (formerly on the frontier) that still recognize common law marriage, and the licenses are more recent than state recognition of church weddings.

          • thatotherjean

            True. Common-law marriage–living together as man and wife for a period of time specified by the state, after which you are considered legally married–is still legal in some places. Licenses may be more recent than recognition of church weddings, but modern marriages are required to have them to be legal.

          • doninkansas

            Kansas does!

      • You’re thinking of what happens in France, where church weddings are illegal and a by law a couple can only be married at a ceremony (whose form and wording are prescribed by law) conducted by the mayor at his office, the mairie. Not by just by any mayor, either, but the mayor of the place where both members of the couple reside. If the couple want the blessing of their Church, they may then, and only then, have a completely separate religious ceremony.

        The situation in Oz differs from the British and the French in that for a marriage to be valid the wedding must be performed by a State-licensed Marriage Celebrant with neither the venue nor the form of the ceremony (apart from certain legally-prescribed words) being specified. So a couple may get married in church if they wish — most don’t nowadays — but their chosen clergyperson must be a licensed marriage celebrant. And clergypersons don’t get that status ex officio — they have to apply for it individually.

        But as anyone who has attended a church wedding here will know, the officiating clergy person pronounces the new couple man and wife not “by the power of Almighty God” but “by the power vested in me by the State of ….” When ME becomes law, the usual”man and wife” obviously won’t always be appropriate, and it remains to be seen what formula will be used for us — “joined in wedlock” or simply “married”? — but that is a fairly trivial matter. Still, you can bet that the anti-gay brigade will squeal loudly about it.

  • William

    With Nicks looks, he won’t have any trouble finding a husband.

    • Blueflash

      Lucky he got out alive to judge by her looks.

  • /

    “If we have to share our toys with the yucky gay people, we’d rather light them on fire and burn them!” (The toys and us yucky gay people.)

    They’ll never get divorced. They’ll say something utterly lame like they prayerfully contemplated it and Jesus lovingly told them to stay together.

  • Tomcat

    Hell get divorced, who the fuck cares.

  • Christopher Street
  • Ray Page

    In the article they say that after their divorce “God willing, we’ll live together for another 50 years and have many more children.”

    So, shacking up and making babies out of wedlock is no longer a sin because they want to be professional martyrs. Now there’s some monumental scripture twisting.

    • Reality.Bites

      They would consider themselves married in the eyes of god.

      • If that’s the case, then their entire argument is false. To be married in the eyes of god, doesn’t require a government license. But to partake in all the lovely government gifts one receives, does require the government to sign off on the marriage.

        • Reality.Bites

          No, not really. That’s pretty much an American thing. Canada and lots of other countries couldn’t really care less if you’re married or not when it comes to benefits.

  • shellback
    • clay

      “I think you’ve got a wire crossed.”

    • AmeriCanadian

      And so eagerly self-identified.

  • Jonathan Smith

    put up or fuck off.

  • thatotherjean

    WTF? What is a straight couple, who say they love each other, getting a divorce going to prove? That straight marriage is such a trivial rite that it can be dissolved at a whim? Then why fight so hard to prevent gay and lesbian couples from sharing in it?

    • Jonathan Smith

      because it’s icky!!!!!!
      besides, he WANTS it.

    • Not only that, if they are truly as xtian as they claim to be, they can’t ever get remarried, because then they would be guilty of adultery

    • Cackalaquiano

      They’re proving a point. What, you’re not convinced?

    • Stev84

      It proves that Christians are assholes. Not that any more proof was needed

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Ha Ha Ha. Extreme hate = Extreme Stooopid.

  • Al Prazolam

    I’ll bet these people engage in torrid anal sex. Of course, she uses a large strap-on.

    • Treant

      He has to use a large strap-on as well.

      • Reality.Bites

        Stop it you two!

      • LeeCMH

        Yes, the strap-on is owned by the wife’s girfriend.

  • Wow!!! What a delicate spun sugar couple, with hearts 20 times to small. They truly need to get a grip on reality.


    Presumably, we’ll be blamed for this.

    • Tawreos

      It just shows that true equality keeps getting closer. we used to get blamed for hurricanes and terrorist attacks. Now we are down to messing up this one couples marriage. Ain’t progress grand?

    • Treant

      Yes. The powerful G-Rays generated by my energetic gay sex radiate planet-wide, shattering the bonds of heterosexual marriage by ionizing the link between the two and freeing the parties to interact with other particles.

    • Friday

      That’s supposed to be the idea, regarding other Christianists, anyway.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Hope they get thousands of cakes from gay bakers who buck up and do their jobs.

  • Ninja0980

    I had actually forgotten about these two stupid people.

    • Jonathan Smith

      you lucky, lucky guy.

    • (((GC)))

      Me too.

    • LeeCMH

      I bet they did too, until the lawyer made his offer.

  • Cuberly Deux

    So they divorce, split their belongings and go their separate ways never to marry again.

    Um, ok.

    • Jonathan Smith

      works for me

    • Treant

      Also, no more dumb, indoctrinated children produced. It’s a win-win-win.

    • gaycuckhubby

      They’re not seperating tho

  • gaycuckhubby

    I hope they follow through. Then are denied hospital visitations and health benefits and custody rights and inheritance rights etc etc

  • alc2018
  • JaniceInToronto

    Enjoy your new found freedom…

    • Jonathan Smith

      but your new husband wont own a strap-on

  • Hank

    Get divorced, and then “Live in Sin”!!! /s

  • Ben in Oakland

    Your bible says no divorce except for adultery. Obviously, you don’t take that– or your marriage– all that seriously.

    • gaycuckhubby

      They’re staying married in the church. FWIW

      • Ben in Oakland

        Isn’t that convenient. As soon as it starts to cost them financially, they will probably reconsider.

        • gaycuckhubby

          I don’t understand why straight people have such a problem with the separation of church and state

          • Ben in Oakland

            straight people who are fundamentalists and dominionists./

          • gaycuckhubby

            Fundamentalists like my parents dont understand.
            But my straight brother is a much better liberal than I am. 🙂

  • Jay Silversmith

    Perhaps they could move to an Arab country? I hear divorce is REAL popular there. OR they could just shoot themselves in their other face.

  • doninkansas

    Do the have same sex partners waiting in the wings?

  • Harveyrabbit

    – Ok, now we’re divorced.

    – Sooo, whatta ya wanna do now?

    – I dunno.

    – I’m going home.

    – OK, me too.

    – But we’ll be living in sin if we go home together.

    – Oh…….. Sooo, what’s for dinner?

    • Tor

      If they were married in a church, maybe they would still be “married” in the eyes of “god.” Rules are meant to be bent.

      • motordog

        And no one can bend rules quite like a religious fanatic.

  • boobert

    I feel they were headed for a divorce anyway, but now they get free legal services. It pays to hate.

  • LeeCMH

    I remember many, many years ago, folks would say, “That couple in 3B — they are not married. I think they are shacking-up in sin together.

  • specialcircumstances

    Every time I hear claims like this I imagine there’s either narcissists or money-grubbers (probably both) behind it.

    • Dubito et cogitare


    • motordog

      Expect a go-fund-me page soon… Because, uh, ‘reasons’…

  • Halou

    Why would they need legal support in getting divorced? It isn’t like gay marriage laws are going to compel heterosexuals to get married to each other and stay married forever.

    • Friday

      I don’t know much about Australian marriage law, but apparently they must at least live apart for a year. They may have to show some cause as well, for all I know.

  • Lars Littlefield

    They need to throw their Keurig Coffee maker under a steam roller while they are at it.

  • Stephen Elliot Phillips

    Isnt this akin to boycotting starbucks by purchasing a drink at starbucks and then pouring it out??

    • motordog

      Or buying on of those expensive coffee machines and smashing it… What morons!

  • They must not have had much of a marriage to begin with.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada


  • Gregory B

    If they divorce, I’m going to say “yes” to my guy the next time he asks me to marry him. Boy, is he going to be in for a surprise!

  • Dan Ryan

    So fuck off who cares? Attention whore Christians. Nothing new to see here.

  • JWC

    This act of divorce wll really show them b( they were probably planning it before, just decided to get extra mileage

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Hahahaha, kudos to the lawyer for this bit of trolling. Well done.

  • 2guysnamedjoe

    You go to a church for solemnisation.
    You go to city hall to sign on the dotted line.

  • BillysWilly

    They want a divorce so they can marry their true loves: she’ll marry a woman and he’ll marry a man

  • yes b’y

    Good, now they won’t breed.

    • Canadian Observer

      I wouldn’t count on that, bastards have to come from someplace after all.

    • Calamity_Jean

      Too late, I think they already have.

  • Rex

    They will then be free to live their true authentic lives.
    As assholes and bigots.

  • edrex

    honestly, i think they should be legally barred from ever separating. keep their bullshit contained to their miserable coupledom.

  • Ginger Snap

    They must really hate each other to not want to stay married and get the tax breaks if there are any in Australia?

    • Reality.Bites

      Many countries treat couples living together in a conjugal relationship like married couples in terms of taxes, government and employer benefits, inheritance, immigration, etc.

      Most countries have lower marriage rates than the US, but it’s good fiscal policy to encourage people to be interdependent in family units.

  • Charlie

    What does their marriage have to do with same-sex marriage???? Unbelievable and plain STUPID. That’s just like that old analogy I love….complaining about someone eating a donut because you’re on a diet. The lawyer is an idiot too. Like a couple of 3 year old children throwing a tantrum…no one cares what you do!

  • kevin vincent

    Have you guys seen the whining on Twitter? The bigots cannot handle being mocked for their loss and try to justify their loss

    • KnownDonorDad

      Please post some choice examples!

  • KnownDonorDad

    I had forgotten about these nimnos! It’s as likely as “I’m going to move to X if Y wins” statements.

  • fuzzybits
  • ErikDC

    People are complicated. Back in 2012 an evangelical neighbor went door to door collecting signatures for the ballot measure that would have repealed Maryland’s marriage equality law (voters rejected the repeal attempt that November). It angered me so much at the time. Yet, the same woman is also exceptionally kind. After my dàd died this Sunday, she cooked a huge meal for my family and delivered it for dinner. She cooked it for my mom, brother, his husband, and myself. I was brought to tears by her generosity. No one else did that. It was the first meal I had enjoyed in days. I had barely even been able to eat before that.

    It has opened my eyes. Everything isn’t black and white. People do the best they can and sometimes make mistakes.

    • Gregory B

      It’s hard to lose your father but I’m happy for you all that this woman could set aside her differences to show she cares. “Bon courage”, wishing you strength and peace at this time.

  • iambu

    lolol get a hobby!

  • Silver Badger

    Can we help that minister who was going to set himself on fire?

  • FAEN

    Bigoted hypocrites will get on the martyr tour and make money because at the end of the day money is their real god!

    • (((GC)))

      Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn’t be surprised… it’d fit the pattern of so many other outspoken conservative Christians!

  • Friday’s_cat

    Nick and Sarah, do they have a Fox Terrier named Asta

  • Jefe5084

    They are everywhere. But we do seem to have more that our share in Murikkka.

  • canoebum

    The judge should deny their petition for divorce for lack of a reasonable basis.

  • Pip
  • JCF
  • PhillyProfessor

    Once they divorce, they can live together in sin and have dirty, forbidden sex. I think that’s what they’re after. Dirty, forbidden sex. Dirty. Forbidden. Sex.

  • duncansdad

    Awww. Who gives a shit.

  • Uh, so what you are saying is other people’s marriages affects yours? So if your next door neighbor gets a divorce that diminishes your marriage? This comes under the category of fncking idiots affected by fncking religion.

  • Gianni

    “…as a matter of conscience…” and what does your dumbness accomplish? You’d throw a loving marriage away because……gay people? Jesus? Family values? We all know you’d still be living together and doing the deed just like when you were legal and married. You won’t really be sacrificing anything except, perhaps, the better part of your brains. You’ll be friends with benefits. Do you thing, kids. All for some sort of ridiculous principle and notoriety – silly and useless.

  • NMNative

    Oh straight people.

  • Nowhereman

    What a bunch of snowflakes! How does it affect their lives one goddam bit if their neighbors can get married?

  • Kevin Andrews
  • Ore Carmi

    Idiots! What did they think was going to happen? Did they think their declaration would guarantee that gay marriage wouldn’t be endorsed?

  • Danny De Jayeff

    Butthurt much?

  • josephsinger

    Sounds like they wanted an excuse to divorce.