Judge declines divorce case, citing gay marriage ruling

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."

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.

The letter

Jane and Jill were studying in their college dorm room. The RA knocked, entered and gave the mail to Jane. Jane looked at the envelope and exclaimed with excitement. The letter was from Mr. “It”. Both coeds were all atwitter as, with shaking hands, Jane tore open the envelope and began to read.

Jill waited in anticipation. Finally - Jill asked, “Well! What did he say?”

Clutching the letter to her heart, Jane replied, “He loves me!”

In truth, Mr. “It” had written all about his football practice. Jane was reading into his words what she wanted to hear.

Can you see that she might as well have written the letter to herself, if she was not going to read it as the writer had intended. By spinning her own interpretation, she destroyed the value and purpose of the letter.

It is the same thing when a judge or lawyer seeks to spin the meaning of a law, rather than researching and understanding the intent of those who wrote and ratified the law. That is why history is important. There are lots of articles written about most laws at the time they were ratified. That history, not today’s interpretations and norms, give the law its authority.

Speaking of authority – Like it or not, all authority originates with God. God gave “We the people” inalienable authority over our choices, within the laws of nature and of nature’s God. “We the people” chose to grant part of our authority to a government that “We the people” created. Government authority exists within the limits that “We the people” established.
Those limits, in turn, must lie within the limits of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. That is – “We the people” cannot grant what we don’t have. Our God-given authority is limited by the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Any law outside those limits is tyranny and has no authority. Such a law is to be considered as no law at all. The Supreme Court had no authority to define marriage. It is already defined by the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

Some might say, “Well, that is fine for you, but I don’t believe in God, therefore His laws don’t apply to me.” Try breaking the “Golden Rule” and stomping on someone’s toe. See how you like the consequences. Doing unto others as you would have others do unto you is one of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. When you choose an action, you choose a consequence - - - regardless of what you believe!

“Meaning of law.—Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey. …

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct; not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle, therefore, has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will.”
[“Commentaries” – by William Blackstone, “Father of the legal profession” 1765]
Ben Gilmore -
http://achstudygroups.com/about/

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.