EDGE New York City

When Massachusetts couple Hillary and Julie Goodridge wed, nearly five years ago, they were hailed as "pioneers" who had ushered in a new day for America’s gay and lesbian families--a day of matrimonial equity, when gays and lesbians could, for the first time, wed their life’s partners.

What the court case that bore their name--the case that is still called "Goodridge" for short"--meant was that the right to a family was, in Massachusetts at least, a matter of constitutional guarantee. Gays and lesbians were, for the first time, as good as everyone else: good enough to marry legally... and good enough to divorce.

After all, the point of marriage equality was never to lay claim to gay and lesbian relationships being better than heterosexual unions. All gay and lesbian families wanted was equality: the right to decide who to offer promises to, and the right to then try to keep those vows intact for life.

Inevitably, some of the marriages that followed were going to end in divorce: the flipside of equality.

But the Goodridges led the way. They were seen as a symbol, and symbols are of interest to the wider community.

Thus, when Hillary and Julie Goodridge filed for divorce on Jan. 29, there was bound to be interest from those in the GLBT community, as well as from those who fought to prevent marriage equality and, after it became a matter of law in Massachusetts five years ago, sought to repeal it.

A Feb. 3 article in the Boston Herald called the Goodridges "gay icons," and noted that the details of their divorce have been kept private.

The article quoted Ann Kiernan Smith, the 82-year-old mother of Hillary Goodridge, who observed, "I guess because Julie and Hillary made headlines, people will pick on it."

Indeed, marriage equality foe Kris Mineau, who heads up the anti-gay Massachusetts Family Institute, was quick to issue commentary about the news.

Said Mineau about the divorce--one of 168 that were filed for in one month in Suffolk County, the Herald said, with most of those divorcing couples being of opposite genders--"Obviously, they don’t hold the institution in very high esteem."

Mineau said that he couldn’t "help but reflect on the pain this couple has caused on the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] and the nation to redefine marriage.

"And now they’re getting divorced?" Mineau continued.

"It doesn’t make a lot of sense."

Some statistics indicate that up to 50% of heterosexual marriages dissolve within the first five years.

A study in Britain last year found that gay and lesbians who had entered into Civil Partnerships stayed together more, with a lower rate of divorce than heterosexual married couples.

Still, the prestige of having made marriage possible for so many has meant that the divorce will be a very public one, even if it proceeds quietly.

Smith lamented the breakup, saying, "I wish I could talk them into staying together, but I don’t see how.

"They had a great thing going."

Smith spoke in glowing terms of daughter Hillary’s longtime partner and wife of five years, saying, "I love Julie, and I always will."

The article said that neither Hillary nor Julie Goodridge commented on their divorce.

Though the couple’s status as a "symbol" of queer commitment has brought their divorce more publicity than other breakups might receive, that same status might well have prolonged their marriage, according to speculations by Gerald Nissenbaum, a divorce lawyer who was quoted in the article.

Nissenbaum, who is also a columnist for the Herald, is not involved in the legal proceedings, but he offered the opinion that having a common goal, and an internationally celebrated triumph, might have held the relationship together.

Nissenbaum opined, "Every day, every meal, it had to have consumed their lives."

The divorce attorney went on, "Any perceived dissatisfaction with each other was swept aside because they were a symbol."

Added the columnist, "Whenever there’s a cause that keeps people together, once the cause is over, in my experience, there’s a high rate of dissolution of the relationship."

"It’s sad, but it’s real. And what a surprise: Gay people are like everyone else."

Which some would say was, after all, the point of marriage equality all along.

Another divorce lawyer, Joyce Kauffman, also offered commentary in a separate article in the same edition of the Herald.

Noted Kaufmann, "Same-sex couples break up for the same reason that heterosexual couples break up,

"They break up because they fall out of love.

"They break up because they aren’t able to resolve their disputes.

"They break up because maybe they got married for the wrong reason in the first place."

Added Kauffman, "There is no difference."

Except maybe that, despite being a big political issue, gay marriage is still not, numerically speaking, so very prevalent--and there are even fewer gay divorces.

The article said that Registers and Registers of Probate in different Massachusetts counties had not had to deal with many gay divorces.

And though at least one law firm had marketed its services to divorcing gay couples, "We haven’t had anyone call us for same-sex divorces," according to Susan Jacobs of Volterra, Goldberg & Jacobs.

Following Massachusetts’ lead, California made same-sex marriage legal last spring; voters there narrowly approved an initiative that rescinded marriage rights for gay and lesbian families, throwing 18,000 marriages into doubt.

A challenge to the initiative is due to be heard next month by the California Supreme Court.

Connecticut also made marriage equality legal last year.