Skip

The Lawless Netherworlds of Gay Relationships
January 9, 2010 4:03 PM   Subscribe

Queer female webzine Autostraddle, who interviewed media celebrity Tila Tequila shortly before the death of her fiancée, socialite Casey Johnson, uses the aftermath to discuss the complications of not having legal rights as a gay couple when the relationship becomes dysfunctional:
We don’t look at those crazy-ass toxic relationships that were so intense they carved a hole in your heart and you knew, no matter how deep the emotional connection, that at any minute your loved one could get up, walk out the door, and never speak to you again, and that it wouldn’t matter if you’d paid their bills or built a life around their demands. There is nothing tying you together besides your feelings. And that’s really frightening.
posted by divabat (51 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Why would you want to be tied into a 'toxic' relationship?
posted by delmoi at 4:15 PM on January 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


There is nothing tying you together besides your feelings. And that’s really frightening.

It is never otherwise.
posted by orange swan at 4:20 PM on January 9, 2010 [9 favorites]


I've never understood why couples who choose not to get married would have legal expectations of each other after the relationship ends. I thought that this was the whole point of the movement to legalize gay marriage; so that homosexual couples could enjoy and suffer the same legal protections and repercussions that apply heterosexual couples.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 4:39 PM on January 9, 2010


PareidoliaticBoy: That's pretty much Autostraddle's argument - that if the relationship goes pear-shaped, and they were legally married, they'd have legal recourse to recover damages. Without it, the victim won't be able to do much.
posted by divabat at 4:42 PM on January 9, 2010


Tila Tequila. That is all.
posted by fixedgear at 4:46 PM on January 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Why is anyone drawing any conclusions from something the Tila T. does?
posted by dibblda at 4:49 PM on January 9, 2010


in the random statements i've seen about this, casey's family and friends keep refering to tila tequila as casey's "alleged fiancee". i can't help but think that if one of them had been male, that wouldn't be the case. they exchanged a ring, went to big events together, and announced themselves as engaged. i agree that the two probably did it for fame under the haze of drugs, but it just seems disrespectful to not refer to the relationship the same way casey did.
posted by nadawi at 4:49 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why is anyone drawing any conclusions from something the Tila T. does?


because she is a human being, deserving of all the rights her american citizenship (should) offer her. it doesn't matter what an awful person she is.

it is the same reason people support free speech for the kkk.
posted by nadawi at 4:56 PM on January 9, 2010 [14 favorites]


in the random statements i've seen about this, casey's family and friends keep refering to tila tequila as casey's "alleged fiancee". i can't help but think that if one of them had been male, that wouldn't be the case. they exchanged a ring, went to big events together, and announced themselves as engaged. i agree that the two probably did it for fame under the haze of drugs, but it just seems disrespectful to not refer to the relationship the same way casey did.

Actually, I suspect if your heiress (or heir) takes up with a reality TV star, a lot of wealthy families would use the "alleged fiancee" language, if only to protect their good name from being tarred by the association with Tila Tequila. There might well be something about her sexuality involved, but it could also have to do with the fact that the people doing the referring resent Tila's involvement in Casey's life, regardless of sexuality.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:00 PM on January 9, 2010


There is nothing tying you together besides your feelings. And that’s really frightening.

It is never otherwise.


That's a poetic sentiment, but it misses the point: it is otherwise for those whose consensual adult partnerships are legally recognized.
posted by hermitosis at 5:01 PM on January 9, 2010 [23 favorites]


but it just seems disrespectful to not refer to the relationship the same way casey did.

I think it's likely that they blame her for their daughter's destructive behavior and ultimate demise.
posted by mpbx at 5:04 PM on January 9, 2010


nadawi, I had the idea it was not because of homophobia, but because Tila appears to be a shameless gold-digger who's just using modern mining equipment.

I wish I didn't know anything about these people but I do and I've been watching between my fingers. Poor unloved Casey; bathetic in life, carrion in death.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:06 PM on January 9, 2010 [7 favorites]


Nadawi: It has nothing to do with them being lesbians. Casey's family cut her off because she was heavily into drugs and needed help. In order to do that, she needed to hit rock bottom. Casey had zero access to her trust fund, and her house was a fucking wreck. Tila took advantage of this. Casey was not in her right mind, and Tila preyed on her.
posted by autoclavicle at 5:13 PM on January 9, 2010


I've said it before, I'll say it again: the primary benefit of marriage is divorce. Without having a state forum available to sort out end of relationship issues, unmarried couples face inevitably inequitable breakups. When this happens to gay couples, who are deprived of this benefit by the discriminatory policy decisions of lawmakers, voters, and/or judges, it can really be seen as nothing less than bigotry.
posted by norm at 5:19 PM on January 9, 2010 [9 favorites]


in the random statements i've seen about this, casey's family and friends keep refering to tila tequila as casey's "alleged fiancee".

They knew each other for a total of three weeks, and announced their engagement a day or two into the relationship. I'd be just as skeptical no matter what the sex of the couple involved; even more so when one had a long and very public track record of intense fame-whoring, and the other was tied to large amounts of money.
posted by jokeefe at 5:20 PM on January 9, 2010 [5 favorites]


9/11 brought this issue to the forefront...with regards to hetero fiancees. I don't know that a month's (tempestuous) engagement would have protected Tia if she had been affianced to a wealthy male scion who suddenly passed, so this isn't the greatest example of a very real problem for same-sex couples who lack marriage rights.
posted by availablelight at 5:21 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


The fascinating aspect of all this, really, has been watching it play out in real time via Twitter and various parasitical news sites. There's something in there to be said about new media and celebrity and the modern notions of fame, but I can't bring myself to look any closer. It's like a hideous high-school drama with real death and real fortunes involved. Fights over stolen clothes and who likes who and who is and isn't friends with this one or that one; everyone involved seems to have an emotional age that's stuck in adolescence.
posted by jokeefe at 5:37 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


The paragraph preceding the quoted one in the FPP gives it context- it's talking about the ways in which the marriage equality movement focuses on the positive without the negative aspects of the ways in which marriage is structured:

We don’t like to talk about that side of it because that’s where straight people mess marriage up, and we focus on what looks good for our movement: loving dedicated couples who are denied hospital visits, child custody, or the pension of their deceased partners.
posted by yeloson at 5:46 PM on January 9, 2010


The article is written as though some sort of legal protection/inheritance rights exist for engaged couples. Which, is far as I know, isn't true to any substantial degree anywhere in the U.S. Is this that some sort of unique wrinkle in California family law? Because if it isn't, the article is utter nonsense.

It's good-hearted nonsense, and I agree 1000% with the things it has to say about equality, and about how heartbreaking the Tila-Casey story is-- but it's nonsense nonetheless.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:51 PM on January 9, 2010


I stood in line with Tila once. I was in LA and my friend worked in the show car industry. We were picking up our tickets for Hot Import Nights (a car show) in the will call line. This is back in 2002, before she was on reality tv. I knew who she was from Import Tuner, and so did my friends. We didn't say anything to her-- wanted to respect her privacy. She didn't give off any crazy diva air either-- when she went to the window, she just picked up her tickets like the rest of us.

She's certainly been very successful at working her way up the celebrity ladder, much more so than most of the models in that (now pretty dead) industry. To hear my more-involved friends tell it, it was pretty much sex/drugs/rock n' roll, so the current drama is not a big surprise to me.

Despite the fact that the sport compact car scene is pretty passe, I still smile every time I see an electric blue EK Si.
posted by wuwei at 5:53 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


On preview, just to clarify:

It goes without saying that same-sex couples in cruddy marriages need the same rights and remedies that hetro couples have. It's just that, you know, Casey and Tila wouldn't have qualified for any of that regardless. Because engagement >< marriage.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:54 PM on January 9, 2010


nadawi,

I'm all for her having her rights and what not, I don't care what she does. She strikes me as off the deep end and I give her actions about as much thought as I would someone walking down the street talking to themselves.
posted by dibblda at 5:59 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


There is nothing tying you together besides your feelings. And that’s really frightening.

I think one of the profound sadnesses of growing up into a gay adult is coming to terms with this fact.

I have been in a relationship for nearly seven years. We became domestic partners nearly a year ago. This piece of paper means that we live together; that is all. If one of us moves out, we aren't anything anymore. If we move together to another state, we aren't anything anymore. Getting partnered is basically the most significant badge that we can legally obtain, and it can vanish with one packed bag.

I am a little ashamed to say this, but I will go ahead and state publicly that I am bitter about the way in which my supportive, loving family takes my relationship for granted. We are somehow regarded as a unit, my partner and I. We are seen as united. There was never any official moment when it happened, no toasts, no presents, no dances, no introductions between obscure relations, none of the rites that inspire a communion between families. In their eyes, at some point he just sort of morphed from my boyfriend into my husband. When either of my sisters becomes engaged someday, I predict that the resulting hullabaloo will hurt me more than any of them can understand -- it may even hurt them, when they suddenly find themselves giving Sis what no one ever thought to give me, if only because no one knew when to give it.

We're just spanning time together, legally recognized as roommates, floating on promises that no one but us has ever heard out loud, functioning legally as individuals with no obligation to each other beyond civility.

Hauling all this out in a Tila Tequila thread might seem like a waste of breath, but hell. I don't care who you are, this is a shit thing to have happen, made all the more confusing by the strange blur of expectations that a gay union confers upon people.
posted by hermitosis at 6:01 PM on January 9, 2010 [109 favorites]


dibblda

i guess i don't understand rushing into a thread to say just how little you care (twice).
posted by nadawi at 6:24 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I never heard of Autostraddle before today, and reading it I just learned that Mary Daly died! Woah! I didn't realize she was in her 80s!
posted by serazin at 6:28 PM on January 9, 2010


That's a poetic sentiment, but it misses the point: it is otherwise for those whose consensual adult partnerships are legally recognized.

I do get that in the event of a divorce, the ex-spouses have legal recourse in terms of getting interim support and continued benefits and equitable property division and all that. But those aren't protections that "tie you together" — they just (ideally) keep your partner from leaving you high and dry financially speaking. Nothing ties you together but desire to be together; nothing can prevent a former partner from leaving if he or she wants to.
posted by orange swan at 6:33 PM on January 9, 2010


As everyone's been noting, not only was Casey cut off from her family and finances, but her relationship with Tila was likely fueled by drugs. When she died, she was in someone's guest house, found by people who couldn't even care less if she was dead or not ("she's cold and her hands are turning blue.. we think she's dead,"). The 911 tapes revealed that the owner didn't even know who she was and just wanted her body out of the house because other guests were arriving soon.

The day Casey died, TMZ was the first to report it. Tila went on throughout the day, updating her Twitter account (as always) with entries completely unrelated to Casey. It was hours after TMZ's report that Tila made an entry about it. If I'm correct, she also said that it was a lie and Casey was not dead, only to correct herself a few entries later.

While I only skimmed the article, the argument for it -- while good-intentioned -- has little to nothing to do with this relationship. Casey had only known Tila for so long, and their relationship severed many friendships Casey had, mostly with other heiresses (Nicky Hilton, Bijou Phillips, Courtenay Semel), because they saw exactly what Tila was doing, while Casey was obviously in no state to do so.

Tila was not invited to the memorial Nicky held, and she is also not allowed to go to the funeral or the memorial after that.

So, unfortunately, while this talk needs to be had, this tragic mess is not the platform to use.
posted by june made him a gemini at 6:38 PM on January 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Orange swan, I don't mind if that feels true to you, and I truly get where you're coming from. But having concrete investments in another person's life, such as a home that you jointly own, or benefits that you share together, are ways of reminding your future self that you made a deliberate and conscious commitment to a certain way of living, presumably for some good reason. They are not the kinds of things that will keep us from bolting if we suddenly decide to bolt, but they heap several layers of consideration upon an a decision that otherwise we might, on a whim, take quite lightly.
posted by hermitosis at 6:42 PM on January 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


hermitosis- certainly not a waste of breath. Metafilter is an incredible way for straight people (like me) to hear honest insights into issues like this. I have gay friends, but it's rare that I would be in a situation where we could talk about things like this in great detail. Your comments, and the comments of others, have played a huge part in giving precision and nuance to the general 'yes on gay marriage' opinion that I hold. Thankyou.
posted by twirlypen at 7:19 PM on January 9, 2010 [4 favorites]


I have to believe that no one who wants anything positive to come out of the gay marriage movement wants Tila Tequila to be their poster child.
posted by inturnaround at 7:19 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thanks for posting that hermitosis . I reacted similarly to the parties involved. I'd never been exposed to either of them, prior to this post. Upon delving into this "news", I so appaled by the behaviour of the protaganist that I wanted to turn my eyes away immediately.

Its far too easy to dismiss the vacuous displays of the notorious as irrelevant; and we all need to realize that these issues also impact a significant portion of our fellow persons in a viciously horrible way. If any good can be extracted from this sad event, it rests in the way that it inspires people such as yourself to express themselves publicly.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 7:25 PM on January 9, 2010


I do get that in the event of a divorce, the ex-spouses have legal recourse in terms of getting interim support and continued benefits and equitable property division and all that. But those aren't protections that "tie you together" — they just (ideally) keep your partner from leaving you high and dry financially speaking. Nothing ties you together but desire to be together; nothing can prevent a former partner from leaving if he or she wants to.

when you say, "I get the divorce stuff and legal recourse," etc... that makes it sound like you understand the importance of the gay marriage debate. so what I believe hermitosis was getting at is that choosing to focus on the emotional aspect for whatever reason is dismissive of the practical issue at hand.

again, it's a poetic sentiment, but there's a larger point, here, that maybe shouldn't be dismissed however poetically.
posted by shmegegge at 8:16 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have to believe that no one who wants anything positive to come out of the gay marriage movement wants Tila Tequila to be their poster child.

God, no. But why should we tear her down to make ourselves look good? She might be a crazy, egomaniacal famewhore, but I don't personally know her, so I can't really say. She might be a grieving widow. Who the hell knows besides the people closest to that mess, and Tila herself?

I like that Riese tackled this angle, (I have loved her website since she started snarking on the l word a few years back, thanks for linking to it) because within the lesbian community I'd only heard snide comments about wishing Tila would switch teams, because she was making us look bad. Who are we trying to look good for, really? How is Tila any more representative of the gay community than Chris Brown for the straights? I don't remember any straight men talking about how Chris Brown was a terrible representation of their community, and made straight relationships look bad.

The whole "fake engagement" thing hit close to home, not because it wasn't a stunt, but because even a stunt straight marriage garners more respect and legal protections than most gay people will ever have after years together. And sometimes gay people could really use a damned pre-nup, or a legal division of assets, ect. But on top of not having that, we are under intense internal pressure not to jack things up for everyone else and let straight people in on the fact that sometimes our relationships aren't healthy, and it's not because we're gay, but because we're just freaking PEOPLE and sometimes people are just messed up.
posted by jnaps at 8:31 PM on January 9, 2010 [8 favorites]


I remember looking around our apartment one day and realizing: all this is mine. Three years into our relationship, there was no proof that he was even living there - except for his clothes in the closet and his Star Wars action figures tucked in a dresser drawer. If he were to disappear or just never come back, nothing would change. I'd pay the bills the same. I would keep the pots and pans in the same place. I'd replace the votive candles in the holder on the tv regularly. The closest we had to a legally recognized commitment together were our dogs.

Adopting Rory was sort of our way of getting married, silly as that sounds. There wasn't a really good option for settling down - the law in New Jersey was still in flux, and just too complex to fight with. Domestic Partnership was available, but required a lot more documentation than we wanted to fight with. After all, getting married isn't about whether you have a joint bank account or live together. And anyway, the courts were about to rule on marriage equality. We didn't even know if domestic partnerships would be around next week.

There's an anxiety that comes from wanting to commit to someone and not being allowed to do so publicly, legally. For all its failings, tradition has a way of serving as an outlet for that anxiety. Without a clear route toward commitment, all bets are off. And that's how you end up getting married by bringing home a dachshund mutt. That's a pretty flimsy marriage - and when that's all you have, you find yourself sitting in your darkened living room realizing that your partner of three years has never actually formed a home with you. And wondering why...

Of course, ironically, I ended things. I came home from work one day and told him that I was done. And that was it. That was our divorce. And the next week, he was gone. I took one dog, and he took the other.

Someone recently said to me, "Aren't you glad that you weren't married? It would have been so much harder to get out of that relationship." See, it WAS a toxic relationship. We were a couple of drunks who spent three years drinking alone together. The 18 months of sobriety that I have now are attributable almost directly to my divorce. Had I not gotten out of that relationship, I never would have had to recognize how much of a problem drinking had become for me.

But even though I wouldn't trade my sobriety for anything in the world, it still hurts like hell that all it took was a conversation after work to end my "marriage."
posted by greekphilosophy at 8:52 PM on January 9, 2010 [38 favorites]


Nadawi: It has nothing to do with them being lesbians. Casey's family cut her off because she was heavily into drugs and needed help. In order to do that, she needed to hit rock bottom.

This "needs to hit rock bottom" stuff is ridiculous. If that’s what they were trying to do they certainly succeeded. You can't get much lower then dead.
posted by delmoi at 9:13 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, this article does seem to be conflating engagement and marriage, which is unfortunate because it makes a good point. When the shit hits the fan, whether it's the end of the relationship or a death, the fact that you're "not really married" makes a huge difference, both legally and socially.

After the death of my first wife (domestic partner in the eyes of the law) I found this out firsthand. Fortunately, I don't have any horror stories because her family were really nice, supportive people, but there were were plenty of little insults. She never named a beneficiary on employer-provided life insurance so her parents got it. Her mother picked up her ashes from the mortuary and took them home with her. You can't refer to yourself as a widow around strangers because you're afraid they'll argue that you can't be a widow because you weren't really married. Or there's just the blank look as people do the mental calculations and decide that, no, a dead gay-married wife doesn't count as much as a dead husband. I had a friend whose partner died of cancer and my friend got nothing of her girlfriend's to remember her by, after having taken care of her for a couple of years during her illness. And all this was in the Bay Area - imagine how much worse it would be in, say, Idaho.

Tila Tequila may be a famewhore, a wingnut, someone who doesn't know her own mind - but if she had been engaged to a man who'd put a rock on her hand and then died three weeks later her grief would be taken seriously and we could look forward to a People article in a year about how she's recovering from her tragic loss. And you can bet your ass paparazzi wouldn't be there taunting her as her fiance's stuff was being taken away.
posted by smartyboots at 9:23 PM on January 9, 2010 [15 favorites]


"you find yourself sitting in your darkened living room realizing that your partner of three years has never actually formed a home with you. And wondering why..."

Yeah, I'm sure someone will jump to point out that STRAIGHT PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THIS TOO, but honestly, this is exactly what I meant upthread, greekphilosophy, and what I think the quote in the FPP describes. Thank you for articulating this.
posted by hermitosis at 9:39 PM on January 9, 2010


hermitosis, greekphilosophy - thank you for sharing insights that have been extremely helpful. i'm straight and female and divorced with little knowledge of the nuances of such commitments (and their attendant challenges) but just prior to the holidays, a friend "got divorced". He was literally out in the streets with his stuff after three years of living with his (boyfriend/spouse/partner) having moved from Paris to Helsinki for said man. Knocking on my door on a cold winter's night with a laptop bag and small suitcase, nowhere to go with no recourse to "spousal support". He also needs regular expensive medication. Meh to the world, that is all. S is the most wonderful warm loving man I've ever known. This helps me when I go back (he's been apartment sitting for me) because now I understand much more of what that drives his need to ensure fiscal fairness in our current arrangement although I don't "need" the help.
posted by infini at 9:55 PM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Maybe it comes from living in Canada, but it always seemed obvious to me that purpose of legalized gay marriage was spousal benefits.

While I had never heard of Tila Tequila until a week or so ago, I find her situation heartbreaking. It must be hard to loose someone you love, and then get screwed over by the system, including relatives.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:17 PM on January 9, 2010


everyone involved seems to have an emotional age that's stuck in adolescence

Welcome to the United States of Twitter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:54 PM on January 9, 2010


I don't think that this is really the poster case for gay marriage, given how there's no recourse for straight "engaged" people, either.

But I hope that, conversely, the general awfulness of this situation doesn't detract from the basic need for legal equality for all people, gay or otherwise. Everyone deserves the right to make bad choices, to get stuck in an inappropriate marriage, and to pay for a messy and expensive divorce (and, of course, to have a long and happy marriage with their true love, of course).
posted by Forktine at 11:04 PM on January 9, 2010


Nadawi,

touche.....

I guess my point is that people like T. who on the surface appear to be shameless egomaniacs etc. etc. probably aren't the best spokesperson or representative for any cause as was said above.

The best way to deal with people who seem to be in it for the attention is to ignore them. There are people with real concerns and you are not going to win over the majority of the voting population with the kind of circus surrounding T. Image is everything, and people vote with their gut mostly.

Otherwise cross your fingers and hope the courts are on your side.
posted by dibblda at 11:36 PM on January 9, 2010


dibbblda, I see what you're saying, but I think what this article is trying to get at is the idea that being constantly engaged in a war to win the hearts and minds of straight people is damaging our own relationships, and it's really kind of condescending that we have to do so in the first place.

Why should we ignore Tila, just because she doesn't fit the mold that would benefit our cause? Why should everything be about public relations? Because if we're good enough, some housewife might possibly grant us the rights we deserve? I don't mean to be rude, at all, because I totally understand how Tila is viewed and why she's viewed that way, but it just feels like bullshit to me.

We've been crossing our fingers and hoping the courts would be on our side for a long time. And when the courts are on our side, because we're right, damn it, then state legislatures change constitutions or the general public changes the constitutions and I'm just really, really, really sick of the whole charade.

Obviously this isn't the best example of a situation that marriage equality would have helped, but as you've read upthread from hermitosis and greekphilosophy, the messy situation hits home because of the inherent disregard so many people hold for our relationships. It's...not so much Tila, but just the fact that if she were a man, as smartyboots pointed out, the paparazzi probably wouldn't have been harassing her so crassly, even if the whole thing was suspected to be a sham, because society holds straight relationships as more authentic.
posted by jnaps at 12:26 AM on January 10, 2010 [5 favorites]


Maybe it comes from living in Canada, but it always seemed obvious to me that purpose of legalized gay marriage was spousal benefits.

We (an opposite-sex couple) didn't need to get married, because after long enough together under NZ law you get the same stuff, to all intents and purposes, as marriage from that perspective. My wife still wanted to, we did, and you know what? Having a big formal occasion where you can pull your friends and family together and affirm under the highest laws of the land that you're a couple and committed to one another has a whole shit-ton of emotional and social weight that goes way beyond legal benefits, and I think that's what greekphiliosophy is trying to get at.

Why should we ignore Tila, just because she doesn't fit the mold that would benefit our cause? Why should everything be about public relations?

Free speech is for jerks, too, and all that.
posted by rodgerd at 1:57 AM on January 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Couple of people brought up that engaged is not the same as married and that no protection exists for straight engaged couples.

This couple could never be anything more than engaged, thats's the point being made.
posted by Iteki at 2:19 AM on January 10, 2010 [4 favorites]


[...] but just the fact that if she were a man not Tila Tequila, as smartyboots pointed out, the paparazzi probably wouldn't have been harassing her so crassly [...]
posted by cavalier at 5:33 AM on January 10, 2010


I think that my parents felt the way that Greekphilosopher and Hermitosis do. At least my dad, who got married in Toronto very soon after it became legal, even though it would have no legal weight in the state where he lives.

But unlike my moms and dads, I grew up with parents who never had weddings to each other and were never tied together by anything but feelings, but whose bonds were self-made, self-celebrted, real, and lasting, and it is what I aspire to for myself, as a straight woman.

All of my emotional and political support is behind those working for marriage equality and I try to dance with sincere joy at ALL my friends' weddings. But in my heart I don't believe for a second that there is anything more real or sacred or precious about a relationship under state/community auspices than one not.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:17 AM on January 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


This couple could never be anything more than engaged, thats's the point being made.

Exactly, the "Well they were only ENGAGED" argument rubs a little raw considering there was no actual way they could have married. I mean, really I'M only engaged, and may well be so forever depending on where we end up living.
posted by hermitosis at 6:23 AM on January 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


jnaps,

I understand the frustration, and if more people saw and hear you and others in this thread and had them in mind when they went to the ballot box, then I think they would have voted differently in California as an example.
posted by dibblda at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2010


The day Casey died, TMZ was the first to report it. Tila went on throughout the day, updating her Twitter account (as always) with entries completely unrelated to Casey. It was hours after TMZ's report that Tila made an entry about it.

Exactly. People use "alleged fiance" because it would be bizarre to pretend the relationship had any sort of real foundation. Tila didn't know her "fiance" was dead for days; she said, oh, well, we had a fight and then her phone was off starting the 29th and... And what?? If my fiance went missing for 6 hours, I'd freak out, go to his house, call the police, not update my Twitter with flirty comments for my fans.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


TPS - thank you so much for responding. I was having a hard time reading through the posts after mine trying to say that they "could *only* be engaged.." and that "we don't know her.." as it pertained to her truly loving this woman or not. I'm pretty certain that Tila was planning on taking Casey somewhere where they *could* legally wed. It was just an issue of when, and obviously for Tila's sake, the sooner the better.

I wasn't sure of the exact amount of time they hadn't spoken between the fight and Casey's death, but I knew it was a few days. Especially because there was a holiday in between (how do you not talk to your "beloved" fiancee for days on end during the holiday season and then have the gall to try to push family and friends who have been there through thick and thin for years away? It's disgusting). She's still grasping for people to "understand how much she loved Casey," and even more trying to push how much "Casey loved HER," -- which is a sadistic way of trying to attain assets that shouldn't rightfully be yours. And what is she showing for it? *Twitpics.* Of boob-grabbing and making out. Awesome.

While we need to stand up for marriage/union rights of all human beings, we also need to stand up for the rights of human beings who are/were not in a healthy state of mind and on a rapidly plummeting decline and their families.

It's also a sad state of affairs when the article has to go on and on for paragraphs on end after the initial write-up to defend itself or at least instill the fact that they really don't know the whole story and the more they learn about it, the less and less they want to put this attention whore on the poster child pedestal.
posted by june made him a gemini at 1:47 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older Holy Purple Potion Scientist Man!   |   Banished: The Lost Boys of Polygamy Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post