Posted on 09/03/2015 6:30:14 PM PDT by Bayard
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
The couple — Thomas Bumgardner, 65, and his wife, Pamela, 61 — were married in November 2002, records show. They had no children together and filed for divorce in September 2014, citing irreconcilable differences.
After four days of testimony, Atherton decided their marriage was not "irretrievably broken," and said it could be salvaged.
The Bumgardners and their attorneys, Jillyn O'Shaughnessy and Pamela O'Dwyer, decided not to comment on the matter.
Atherton's decision follows on the heels of officials in other states refusing to obey the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The most prominent is Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, who said she invoked "God's authority" Tuesday by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis is scheduled to appear in federal court today for defying several court orders.
Regina Lambert, one of the lawyers who represented Tennessee plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, called Atherton's reasoning irrelevant.
"Overall, Tennessee has had a fantastic response to this Supreme Court decision," Lambert said. She said the Supreme Court's decision is about marriage equality — not divorce.
"He is just making a statement," she said. "I just think change is hard for people."
Here in Chattanooga, Atherton's order ruffled the legal community.
Some lawyers wondered why Atherton chose to cite the Supreme Court decision. Others emphasized how unusual it is for a judge to dismiss a divorce. And some questioned the legal grounds Atherton used to justify his ruling.
"I don't know for sure," said Chattanooga attorney Mike Richardson, "but I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court did not intend to preempt divorce law."
Jim Blumstein, a professor of constitutional law at Vanderbilt University, said the Supreme Court decision does not appear to be the main determinant behind Atherton's dismissal; he believes Atherton is expressing his political disagreement with the ruling.
Whether Atherton disagreed with the decision is beside the point, said Penny White, a former member of the Tennessee Supreme Court and now a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law.
"State court judges, regardless of their personal points of view, must defer to the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation," she said in a written statement.
In his office Wednesday afternoon, Atherton defended his decision but declined to discuss it.
"I don't want extraneous conversation," he said. "I'll have to stick with the words of the order."
Skirting questions about the Supreme Court, Atherton picked up a volume of Tennessee statutes, leafing through the pages.
"There are several different grounds a person can claim to support entitlement to divorce," he said.
The Bumgardners, in their petition, listed two: inappropriate marital conduct — which Atherton said was never proved — and irreconcilable differences.
The couple can file again for divorce, attorneys said. But this time, they have to come up with new reasons.
Asked what the couple could do next, Atherton was optimistic.
"Hopefully," he said, "they can reconcile.
They need Trump’s attorney. He is well versed in divorce law.
the Fed govt has federalized marriage. Let it federalize divorce.
Unintended consequences.
Back to the 50s and the private eyes in the hotels, haha!
Yep. It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
The ruling said it said states had to recognize homosexual marriages, so states that had it have couples potentially married for months if not years.
Do those with civil unions have to go back to get “married” and greater legal rights?
A bigger can of worms - when do people come back and say we were common law same sex married people, seeking retroactive recognition?
Do couples living together that weren’t legally same sex married have to get married to get tax benefits, social security benefits, survivor’s benefits?
If not, how far back can the “I was really married” go?
What happens when someone’s estate is settled and a same sex lover comes in and says we were really spouses, give me half or all of it?
What happens when Mom’s room mate of 20 years comes in after Mom dies and says I was her spouse, give me the house?
And man goes where no man has gone before. Good for THIS judge. More on the court, please. These ‘folks’ want to be treated as equals, WTP must comply. Here comes the judge. Here comes the judge. Score one for this judge. Excellent point,sir.
>>They had no children together and filed for divorce in September 2014, citing irreconcilable differences.
If they were gay, they could have cited irreconcilable similarities.
Well they both enjoy a good joust.
Your change from Earth to Hell, for example, might be a little disconcerting.
“I don’t know for sure,” said Chattanooga attorney Mike Richardson, “but I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court did not intend to preempt divorce law.”
Wait, so when applying Supreme Court decisions, we’re supposed to look at the original intent of a court that refuses to recognize the original intent of the people who actually wrote the laws?
Gee. What was that fracas a few years ago about “state’s rights?” I’m beginning to think the wrong side won.
Excellent point.
Honestly, judges across the 50 U. S. States should do the same thing. Cram this ruling right down the SCOTUS throat.
And Reagan’s too come to think of it.
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.