R.I.: No Gay Divorce

[Dis]

Originally posted by Vesayen


They get to be miserable like the rest of us?

[Aeson]

In a split decision, Rhode Island's top court said yesterday that it will not allow a lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts to get a divorce in the Ocean State.

The 3-to-2 ruling was viewed by advocates of gay marriage as a setback and by those who oppose the recognition of same-sex unions as an act of wisdom.

This could just as easily be an Onion article.

Pro gay marriage: "They shouldn't be together!"
Anti gay marriage: "Don't let them out of their marriage!"

[Reiko]

This is crazy, if they want a divorce then they should be able to get one like anybody else.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ramo
Your holding of gay people to a standard that straight people demonstratively do not achieve.

No.... it is an entirley a legal issue.

You can't annull something which the law never acknowledged to exist in the first place.

This has absolutley NOTHING with them being gay.

If California had some crazy state law that allowed you to wed a grapefruit and then you come to Ohio and demand a judge anull the marriage it cannot do so because there never was any marriage to begin with in the eyes of the state of Ohio.

I support gay marriages, no not civil unions, gay marriages. Sounds fine to me. This however has nothing to do with equality. I am suprised to see the court was almost split on this.

[Ramo]

Did you read the thread?

[Kuciwalker]

How would you tell? Since when have any of his posts had a rational connection to reality?

[Vesayen]

I read the thread, I have one of the first responses.

This has absolutley nothing to do with equality or gay rights, really, it is an inter-state recognition issue.

[Asher]

I agree with Vesayen that he should be allowed to marry a grapefruit.

[Flubber]

This example is one that shows why it is clearer to have marriage and divorce as a federal head of power.

I support gay marriage which includes the right to divorce but IF a jurisdiction will not recognize a marriage under its laws, it would be ludicrous to grant a divorce regarding a marriage it does not acknowledge. The fact that it was 3-2 probably means that their were complexities not in the story or that 2 judges decided to make a pro-gay marriage type vote as a political statement .

While I think they should be able to get a divorce, that just follows from my belief that they should have their marriage recognized and doesn't really advance the issue.

While I can understand the strong desire to get a divorce, practically I wonder how much this matters. If you live in a state that does not considered you married, it is difficult to see how you would have the rights and obligations of a married person. Property division can be accomplished contractually or through mediation.

The only hiccup is that I assume that they would always be considered to be married in Mass. and any state that recognized their marriage. I wonder could they get a "quickie" divorce in some other state or would that road be barred as well

[Deity Dude]

Here's a question. Suppose both of them remarry men in R.I. Since Mass. recognizes hetero marriage of other states, if they went back to Mass for any reason after their remarriages could they be charged with bigamy?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Here's a question. Suppose both of them remarry men in R.I. Since Mass. recognizes hetero marriage of other states, if they went back to Mass for any reason after their remarriages could they be charged with bigamy?

That's a great question. I suspect that Massachusetts would simply refuse to acknowledge the second marriage as legal in Mass.

[Vesayen]

That is a great question.

Didn't Mass. stop giving gay marriages out a few months back though and rule new ones were illegal?

I think it WOULD be bigamy. Mass. has to recognize the marriages of other states... and it already recognizes one for that set of people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Didn't Mass. stop giving gay marriages out a few months back though and rule new ones were illegal?

Um... I don't think so.


And yes, I agree that it'd probably be considered bigamy in Massachusetts. Or they could just choose to refuse the second marriage and not charge the people for bigamy. I think it'd be entirely up to the state. They could say it is against public policy for people married in the state to marry someone else without a divorce and therefore not recognized.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Vesayen

If California had some crazy state law that allowed you to wed a grapefruit and then you come to Ohio and demand a judge anull the marriage it cannot do so because there never was any marriage to begin with in the eyes of the state of Ohio.

Except for the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution, which requires each state to respect the laws and court judgments of the other states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Except for the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution, which requires each state to respect the laws and court judgments of the other states.

FF&C does NOT override public policy considerations of states. Hence a state does not have to recognize marriages that violate the public policy of the state (like with grapefruit or gay marriage or even too low of an age of consent).