Posted on 10/09/2007 10:13:01 AM PDT by j_hig
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - A lesbian couple married in Massachusetts should have the same right as heterosexual couples to divorce in their home state of Rhode Island, lawyers for the women told the state's highest court Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers were married in 2004 after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. Last year, the couple filed for divorce in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island law is silent on the legality of same-sex marriages.
If the women can't divorce in Rhode Island, their lawyers said the only legal avenue available to them would be for at least one to move to Massachusetts and live there long enough to obtain a divorce.
"It is an absolutely unfair burden," Ormiston said outside Rhode Island's Supreme Court. "It is a burden no one else is asked to bear, and it is something I will not do."
Lawyers for the women told the Supreme Court the only question to consider was whether Rhode Island could recognize a valid same-sex marriage from another state for the sole purpose of granting a divorce petition.
They stressed the case has no bearing on whether gay couples could get married in Rhode Island.
"You have a valid marriage in the state of Massachusetts," Louis Pulner, an attorney for Chambers, told the justices. "No one is asking the court to address the question of whether such marriages would be valid in Rhode Island."
In September 2006, a Massachusetts judge decided same-sex couples from Rhode Island could marry in Massachusetts because nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned gay marriage. But the courts and the legislature in Rhode Island have not taken any action to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.
Attorney General Patrick Lynch earlier this year issued a nonbinding advisory opinion saying the state would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.
The justices did not indicate when they would rule.
That’ll learn ‘em...
Choke!———G-A-S-P———gurgle.........Snort!.......
Just another of life’s little ironies.
Divorce should be defined as being strictly between a man and a woman! Allowing this would cheapen the meaning of divorce!
Sheesh...everybody knows you need to change the carpet every few years.
“You have a valid marriage in the state of Massachusetts,” Louis Pulner, an attorney for Chambers, told the justices. “No one is asking the court to address the question of whether such marriages would be valid in Rhode Island.”
Riiiiiiigt.
Roll Tide!
One tent at a time.
Brilliant
Marriage is instituted by God for one man and one woman only. These two individuals aren’t married. You can get a piece of paper from the government stating you are a three headed goat, that doesn’t make it so.
Roll Oxy-Clean!..............
Massachusetts activists judges, coming to your state next.
Ha! Ha!.....make them stay married!
Okay....just ewww.
Who gets custody of the Pontiac Aztek?
If RI doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place, what are they worried about divorce for?
you are so on the money here
Maybe. The fact the grounds aren’t mentioned is rather curious. If you are going to go to the courthouse and peruse the filings, its odd you wouldn’t bother to mention it.
Oh, I don’t know. Call it a ‘civil union’ to denote the ‘coupling’ but keep Divorce as the term used to void it.
If gays want to experience the ‘wonder and joy’ of divorce, who are we to deny them?
(chuckle)
Now the Tubes will have to re-write the song “What do you want from life” with the line, “...a Massachusetts wedding, a Rhode Island divorce!” near the end.
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.