Posted on 05/18/2006 11:46:56 PM PDT by MadIvan
A lesbian couple who could become the first to divorce after "marrying" just three months ago were warned by lawyers yesterday that they may have a long wait.
Liz King, 40, and Daphne Ligthard, 36, registered their civil partnership in Ashford, Kent, on Feb 11 before sharing a honeymoon in Amsterdam.
But the relationship soured after Miss Ligthard accused Miss King of seeing another woman who had been a guest at their "wedding". The couple are now splitting up and face the prospect of dividing their joint assets.
Miss Ligthard said that the break-up came after Miss King said she no longer loved her.
"Liz told me she didn't love me any more, that she hadn't done so for years. I was absolutely flabbergasted," she said.
"I asked her why she had gone through the wedding and she said it was to make me happy. But it was all her idea.
"She even asked if I would change my name by deed poll because she liked the sound of it. We seemed more in love than ever."
She said she noticed something was wrong after Miss King, an amateur triathlete who works in insurance, began spending a lot of time away from home and kept bringing another woman back to the house.
"Liz is into athletics and is a triathlete. She began spending a lot of time training with another girl at her athletics club," Miss Ligthard, who works for Eurostar, told The Sun newspaper.
"They were together every day and this girl began coming round to the house when I was at work."
Miss King said: "I have nothing to say except I feel sorry for Daphne at this time."
Lawyers said that, under the Civil Partnerships Act that came into force in December, the couple could not terminate their partnership until it had been in existence for at least a year.
Moreover, in contrast to marriage, adultery was not recognised as grounds for ending a civil partnership, though unreasonable behaviour could be cited.
Mark Harper, a divorce specialist with the London law firm Withers, said that the dissolution of a partnership was almost exactly the same as any other divorce.
"The court would look at the assets that existed at the start of the relationship," he said. "The presumption would be that assets built up during the course of a relationship would be equally divided even if one partner earned much more than the other."
What good is a story on lesbian tri-atheletes without pictures?
Gay marriages are a potential gold mine for lawyers. They'll have all those new legal definitions and findings to test.
Never mind the awful fallout and lives destroyed in the process, plenty of them will have many billable hours and lots of new $$$ available to them.
Ba$tard$ all!
Pinz
I agree with you 100%. Granting a divorce accepts the "marriage" itself as a reality, which is not something we want to see happen. But on the lighter side, isn't there some joke that asks "How can you tell a lesbian on her second date?" and is answered with "By the bags of clothing, the two cats, and the U-Haul."
This is just one more step in the 'normalisation' of gay marriage. Even though it isn't actually called marriage, the whole process mirrors heterosexual marriage and the homosexual community always refer to it as marriage.
The 'gay divorce' process is another step nearer putting homosexuality on a par with normal relationships.
Too bad there isn't a place like Reno where they can get it done "lickity split " :-)
It was quick.
I think we conservatives can now turn around to the gay marriage lobby and say, "Told you so". There are many fine gay people, but these repeated attempts to somehow make the gay lifestyle fit into a heterosexual model just is a dead end.
Regards, Ivan
Ivan, I am with you. The only thing they will do is throw Briney back in our face or Renee or any other hetro marriage that didn't even last 3 months. I don't think that divorce is enough to stop this marriage debate. We need more than that.
Who'll get custody of the cucumbers?
I would agree with one disclaimer -it is another step nearer attempting to put homosexuality on a par with normal relationships...
They couldn't agree on who was going to what to whom!
It sounds a lot like the couple whose wedding I went to; the marriage was over in six weeks because the groom got rather attached to one of the bridesmaids. Good thing we didn't spend much on the present.
She said she noticed something was wrong after Miss King, an amateur triathlete who works in insurance, began spending a lot of time away from home and kept bringing another woman back to the house.
She should have noticed something was wrong long before even simulating anything could be right in the whole absurd fiasco...
Such is the homosexual disorder combined with the delusion and the delusional that give it life...
Hey.... I think I was at that wedding...
But the relationship soured after Miss Ligthard accused Miss King of seeing another woman who had been a guest at their "wedding". The couple are now splitting up and face the prospect of dividing their joint assets.
HA!
I guess you attempt to allude to by "moral relative" argument a point that eludes me...
Stick your neck out -get to your point...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.