PDA

View Full Version : Court: Gay couple can't divorce in RI



82Marine89
12-07-2007, 11:29 PM
LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorce)

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - A lesbian couple that married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court, in a 3-2 decision, said the state's family court lacks the authority to grant the divorce of a same-sex couple because Rhode Island lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

"The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent," the court wrote.

Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live. But opponents of same-sex marriage said the court correctly avoided taking a step toward recognizing such unions.

Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.

No law specifically bans same-sex marriages in Rhode Island, but the state has taken no action to recognize them. The justices said Rhode Island laws contain numerous references to marriage as between a woman and a man.

"My civil rights, my human rights have been denied," Ormiston said in a phone interview after the ruling. "It's no small matter."

Nancy Palmisciano, Ormiston's lawyer, said couples married in other states and other countries are routinely granted divorces in Rhode Island, and the same freedom should apply to this couple.

Now Ormiston is stuck in a marriage she doesn't want to be in, Palmisciano said. The women's lawyers have said at least one would have to move to Massachusetts to get a divorce, but Palmisciano said Friday that was not a viable option for her client.

"I'm disappointed for anyone who's involved in one of these marriages who's a resident of the state of Rhode Island," she said. "I think these people are being confined to a legal limbo."

Louis Pulner, a lawyer for Chambers, said he was surprised by the decision.

"I feel that it's unfortunate that two people who are legally married can not get closure here in the state of Rhode Island," Pulner said.

Lawyers for the women had argued that the court should consider only whether Rhode Island could recognize a valid marriage from another state for the sole purpose of granting a divorce petition.

Opponents of same-sex marriage praised Rhode Island's top court for rejecting even a limited recognition of same-sex marriage.

"The meaning of marriage in Rhode Island is the union of a man and a woman," said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, which filed a brief in the case. "You have to have a marriage before you can have a divorce."

Karen Loewy, a staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said she viewed the court's decision as a narrow ruling, but feared that same-sex marriage opponents would use it to argue against broader legal recognition for same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

"You're essentially asking these women to move to access justice," Loewy said. "The door of the courthouse has been barred for them."

The couple's divorce petition drew a broad range of supporters, including Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who earlier this year released a nonbinding advisory opinion saying Rhode Island should recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.

In earlier court filings, Gov. Don Carcieri, an opponent of same-sex marriage, had also argued in favor of granting the divorce. He said under Rhode Island law, the Family Court didn't have to address whether the marriage was valid at all, avoiding a larger debate about same-sex unions.

But he hailed Friday's court decision, saying in a written statement that, "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage — and therefore divorce — only between a man and a woman."

82Marine89
12-07-2007, 11:31 PM
"The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent," the court wrote.

They must have been appointed by Republicans. :poke:

OCA
12-07-2007, 11:35 PM
1. The queers failed to recognize when they flocked to Massachusets that other states would not recognize their unholy unions.

2. Queers don't really want to get married as is the case here, they just wanted recognition of their perversion of choice. You will see many more queer divorces taking place coming up as queers go back and continue their promiscuous ways.

Yurt
12-07-2007, 11:49 PM
1. The queers failed to recognize when they flocked to Massachusets that other states would not recognize their unholy unions.

2. Queers don't really want to get married as is the case here, they just wanted recognition of their perversion of choice. You will see many more queer divorces taking place coming up as queers go back and continue their promiscuous ways.

Whether some queers have promiscuous ways is not the issue. It is allowing people to have equal legal rights. What rights? Those rights created by a STATE that abides by the first amendment. Marriage? No. That is traditonal. Right? But yet, my marriage is a contract with the state. And the state has powers over my divorce, should I have one.

Rights that fornicating hetros have should be granted to same sex couples:

medical
legal
etc


If the government creates a right to certain decisions based only upon whether you are "married" to a person of the opposite sex that is wrong. So Britney Spears has more rights, better yet, the guy that "marries" her, has more rights than someone of the same sex who has been living together for 30 years?

It is not about "endorsing" homoness. It is about state created rights. Such as, right to medical records, wills, trusts, etc..... IMO, if you are saying that the state created rights are there ONLY for hetros.....

PostmodernProphet
12-08-2007, 07:56 AM
the good news is they no longer need a divorce....if their state doesn't recognize their marriage, it doesn't need to be dissolved.....

Immanuel
12-08-2007, 12:15 PM
Whether some queers have promiscuous ways is not the issue. It is allowing people to have equal legal rights. What rights? Those rights created by a STATE that abides by the first amendment. Marriage? No. That is traditonal. Right? But yet, my marriage is a contract with the state. And the state has powers over my divorce, should I have one.

Rights that fornicating hetros have should be granted to same sex couples:

medical
legal
etc


If the government creates a right to certain decisions based only upon whether you are "married" to a person of the opposite sex that is wrong. So Britney Spears has more rights, better yet, the guy that "marries" her, has more rights than someone of the same sex who has been living together for 30 years?

It is not about "endorsing" homoness. It is about state created rights. Such as, right to medical records, wills, trusts, etc..... IMO, if you are saying that the state created rights are there ONLY for hetros.....

Exactly. The marriage rite should remain in the church and a religious matter separate from the state. The state should not grant any legal rights to a married couple straight or otherwise. The state should grant what rights it so desires to a legally joined couple regardless of whether they are married in a church or not. You can call this civil unions or what have you, but it should be completely separate from the rite of marriage in the church.

There are churches that will marry homosexuals. If a homosexual couple joins a church that does this and the church wants to marry them, then so be it, that is up to that church. I don't agree with it, but neither am I a member of such a church.

The only legal rights we should be granted as a couple should come via the license/contract that binds two people together from the state. A contract can also be broken or nullified. This would be different than a divorce and again would take this aspect outside of the church completely. Those who believe in the Sanctity of Marriage can remain as a married couple for their entire lifetimes those that don't do not even need to be married to have the same legal rights that anyone else has.

Immie

bullypulpit
12-08-2007, 07:40 PM
Why do y'all give a shit who gets married...straight or gay? Same gender couples, married or not, can't possibly cause you any harm or grief, unless you're just afraid of waking up queer one morning. No one has ever offered up ANY independently, repeatably verifiable evidence that allowing same gender couples to enjoy the same rights and responsibilites we straight married folks enjoy causes ANY harm to either individuals or society as a whole. Until you can present such evidence, go blow smoke up somone else's ass.

trobinett
12-08-2007, 08:04 PM
Why do y'all give a shit who gets married...straight or gay? Same gender couples, married or not, can't possibly cause you any harm or grief, unless you're just afraid of waking up queer one morning. No one has ever offered up ANY independently, repeatably verifiable evidence that allowing same gender couples to enjoy the same rights and responsibilites we straight married folks enjoy causes ANY harm to either individuals or society as a whole. Until you can present such evidence, go blow smoke up somone else's ass.

SOME of what you say bully, I find to be truthful, but, as to causing HARM, well, gay couples have a much higher, "divorce" rate, than straight couples, which ain't great to begin with, and their is MUCH more violence in gay relationships than is straight relationships. So, based JUST on those factors ALONE, I'D have trouble with saying same sex marriage is ok, and poses no threat to our society.

Course, that's just me..................:poke:

avatar4321
12-09-2007, 12:09 AM
Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.

Here is the problem right there. By what authority does a Massachusetts judge get to decide what will be recognized in Rhode Island??? This is such blatant overreach its not funny.

I'd argue that the marriage was void. obviously since Massachusetts restricts unions to states where the marriage would be recognized, and the Rhode Island court says its not recognized so they cant get a divorce, than the marriage is null and void.