Jorodryn wrote:
So if a gay man gets married to a woman and fesses up later about his gender identity you are saying he should still honor his promise to her? got it.
Promises are like this:
1. One should make promises in good faith, ie you should intend to keep a promise.
2. If circumnstances change such that a promise can no longer be kept, you should revisit the promise.
3. If circumnstances change such that a promise can no longer be kept, you should
not break the promise while still acting as if the promise is in effect.
The simple fact is, promises are rigid. Life isn't. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't make promises, but it does mean that promises may have to be discarded if life changes so much that keeping them isn't a realistic option. If this happens, it's important to remember that promises are made between people, so people involved in the promise need to be kept in the loop. More importantly, this also means that promises are nothing but an artifact of human interaction, thus they can be amended via that interaction.
In the situation above, if Anne marries Bob, but Anne realises later on in the marriage that she's actually not in love with Bob, but her workfriend Claire, then Anne and Bob need to talk. If Anne realises that she is, in fact, Andrew, then Andrew and Bob need to talk. Anne/Andrew have made promises to Bob, but these promises are not physical laws - she has options for bending and amending them. If Anne/Andrew and Bob cannot reach a reasonable decision on how to maintain the relationship while amending the promise, then obviously one of these two things will have to give.
But, more importantly, this is going to be the case regardless of the genders/sexualities of the people involved. If Bob was married to David, but then Elizabeth came into his life, and he realised that he can't live life without her, then Bob and David need to talk, and see if their promises to each other can be amended to allow Elizabeth into Bob's life. If that's not possible, then something has to give. And what ends up giving can't be made into a blanket rule - If Bob and David decided that Elizabeth couldn't be a part of their lives, but this ends up making Bob resentful of David while he stays around, in theory the promise has been kept, but no one is a winner. Better, perhaps, for Bob to leave David and stay with Elizabeth, as at least then, Bob and Elizabeth are happy, even if David isn't. If Andrew really wants to stay in the relationship with Bob, but Bob can't bring himself to love a man, then their marriage is going to be a dysfunctional one at best, and it would be better for the two to renege on their promise and part ways. But in another situation, Andrew and Bob might still love each other, even if Bob isn't willing to be sexual with the new man in his life. If that's something the two can tolerate, then staying together may be the better option.
The thing is Jorodryn, I think you're clamouring and searching for a one-size-fits-all rule that will cover all relationships in all contexts, and I have to tell you, such a thing cannot exist. Sometimes a marriage has to break, sometimes the two can work at it, sometimes the two just have to redefine the relationship to make everyone happy. No single rule can define which way it should end up, but being open and honest will at least make sure that there are less bad feelings in the end. People are people, and that means that things will change, but it also means that when things do change, we can negotiate our way around it.