Gay Couple Married In Mass. Can't Divorce In R.I.


R.I. Only Defines Marriage As Union Between Man, Woman

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state's highest court ruled Friday in a setback to gay rights advocates who sought greater recognition for same-sex relationships.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

"The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes enacted by the General Assembly," the court wrote in the state's first case dealing with same-sex divorce.


Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 after that state became the first to legalize same-sex marriages. The couple filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live, citing irreconcilable differences.

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

Though the women could divorce in Massachusetts if one moved there for a year, Ormiston said that was an unfair burden and something she would not do. She said she was "embarrassed" for the court.

"I see this as a matter of justice not denied - but rather justice delayed," she said. "This is an issue that will in time be resolved correctly. Today's not that day, but this issue will not go away."

Full Story

Gay Couple Married In Mass. Can't Divorce In R.I. - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

A most interesting case that in time will be resolved.

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

Another interesting side effect of not having nationwide law on the matter... RI made waves last year when they moved to legally honor gay marriage performed in Mass, but that apparently doesn't mean they will dissolve said marriages.

The resulting legal loopholes and dichotomies are just plain silly at best, and a violation of basic human rights at worst.

This is just one more reason why a nationwide standard on this issue is clearly needed, and sooner rather than later.

That's just it, RI never decided to honor those marriages. They have a law that specifically deems marriage a male/female union. So they "can't" honor a divorce for a couple that legally aren't married in the first place.

And if they DO honor the divorce, they would be honoring the marriage, and that's opening another whole can of worms. Unfortunatley for the couple, Mass doesn't allow non-residents to divorce. It takes at least a 1 year stay.

That may be why Mass have such a low divorce rate in the first place.

I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.

Courts | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

From your link...
Lynch noted that his opinion does not mean same-sex couples can marry in Rhode Island, and he said his opinion is not binding. But he said same-sex couples could use the opinion in future legal cases and he said he felt compelled to issue an opinion that dealt with “basic human rights.”

It seems "The State" hadn't moved on that yet. That's why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

Don't try to change the topic.

The topic at hand is not whether gay couples can marry in RI.
It is whether gay marriages performed in MA are being honored in RI.

They are.

Come on Forester, did you even read your own link? I'm not trying to change the subject at all. The c@p said that this guys word isn't binding....then your link goes on to say..
“While Rhode Island law does not affirmatively recognize same-sex marriages, it does state an affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in, among other areas, public accommodations, employment, credit, housing and home health care.”

and...

“The Supreme Court is going to have to address this question on its own, but the attorney general’s legal opinion is persuasive authority.”

The Court did and they said "no divorce due to no legal recognition". It's your own link. And it clearly says that "The State" does not legally recognize same sex marriages performed in Mass. I'm not changing the subject, you are ignoring your own information.

Though the women could divorce in Massachusetts if one moved there for a year, Ormiston said that was an unfair burden and something she would not do. She said she was "embarrassed" for the court.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how it gets resolved.

It's obviously a short-coming of a lack of a nation-wide policy on the issue.
But in my experience, nobody cares until it affects somebody other than the gays.

There was a story a while ago about a divorced man who was paying alimony. The ex-wife later proceeded in a committed homosexual relationship.
The husband sued to end alimony, and I believe he lost because of this type of issue.
Amusingly enough, THAT is when many of the people who were typically agast gay equality moves or apathetic to the general issue started posting and insisting that the alimony should be ended. All over a relationship which was "not marriage"...

The inevitable resolution to ALL this issue will wind up being all or nothing, with the trend towards "all".

Of course I read it. It would be silly to post a link that doesn't support my point, wouldn't it?

Did YOU read my link? My link makes no mention of the Court's ruling on divorce, other than to mention it would need to do so in the future (link is dated February.)

Again, please stop trying to change the subject.

The point I made is not whether gay couples can marry or divorce in RI.

It is whether gay marriages performed in MA are being honored in RI.
And again, they are.

Honestly, I think you too often let your quest for "fun through disagreement" carry you away. It's made you look foolish again here.

But your link clearly states that the marriages ARE NOT legally binding in RI. YOU my good friend are the one that can't seem to grasp your OWN argument nor read your OWN link. SOME institutions are honoring them in RI, but LEGALLY they are invalid. THAT is what the Supreme Court said, THAT is what your link said, and THAT is what I am saying. Come on Forest, what are you trying to prove here?

The only one that seems to be trying to change the subject is you, but I can't quite tell what subject you are trying to change it to.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)