Posted on 12/07/2007 8:34:49 PM PST by Huntress
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - A lesbian couple that married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court, in a 3-2 decision, said the state's family court lacks the authority to grant the divorce of a same-sex couple because Rhode Island lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
"The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent," the court wrote.
Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live. But opponents of same-sex marriage said the court correctly avoided taking a step toward recognizing such unions.
Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.
No law specifically bans same-sex marriages in Rhode Island, but the state has taken no action to recognize them. The justices said Rhode Island laws contain numerous references to marriage as between a woman and a man.
"My civil rights, my human rights have been denied," Ormiston said in a phone interview after the ruling. "It's no small matter."
Nancy Palmisciano, Ormiston's lawyer, said couples married in other states and other countries are routinely granted divorces in Rhode Island, and the same freedom should apply to this couple.
Now Ormiston is stuck in a marriage she doesn't want to be in, Palmisciano said. The women's lawyers have said at least one would have to move to Massachusetts to get a divorce, but Palmisciano said Friday that was not a viable option for her client.
"I'm disappointed for anyone who's involved in one of these marriages who's a resident of the state of Rhode Island," she said. "I think these people are being confined to a legal limbo."
Louis Pulner, a lawyer for Chambers, said he was surprised by the decision.
"I feel that it's unfortunate that two people who are legally married can not get closure here in the state of Rhode Island," Pulner said.
Lawyers for the women had argued that the court should consider only whether Rhode Island could recognize a valid marriage from another state for the sole purpose of granting a divorce petition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage praised Rhode Island's top court for rejecting even a limited recognition of same-sex marriage.
"The meaning of marriage in Rhode Island is the union of a man and a woman," said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, which filed a brief in the case. "You have to have a marriage before you can have a divorce."
Karen Loewy, a staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said she viewed the court's decision as a narrow ruling, but feared that same-sex marriage opponents would use it to argue against broader legal recognition for same-sex couples in Rhode Island.
"You're essentially asking these women to move to access justice," Loewy said. "The door of the courthouse has been barred for them."
The couple's divorce petition drew a broad range of supporters, including Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who earlier this year released a nonbinding advisory opinion saying Rhode Island should recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.
In earlier court filings, Gov. Don Carcieri, an opponent of same-sex marriage, had also argued in favor of granting the divorce. He said under Rhode Island law, the Family Court didn't have to address whether the marriage was valid at all, avoiding a larger debate about same-sex unions.
But he hailed Friday's court decision, saying in a written statement that, "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage — and therefore divorce — only between a man and a woman."
Huh?
The couple went to MA when they got married, didn't they?
“The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent,” the court wrote.
Amazing to hear something like this coming from the Northeast.
Simply amazing.
LOL I just think it’s funny but the law of unintended consequences often is.
All they have to do is (each) move to another state and their marriage would mean nothing … all is well.
Ahhh, but you are not legally married in Rhode Island.
I have no doubt that the queers were hoping to open all kinds of doors and claims if they had been granted a 'divorce'. Then others could say that the marriage had been recognized because they were given a divorce. It was a sneaky and creative try though.
So, who gets custody of the turkey baster?
Civil rights means you get your day in court, lady, which you did. It doesn't mean you must win.
“Amazing to hear something like this coming from the Northeast.”
Amazing? I would call it miraculous.
“So, who gets custody of the turkey baster?”
Thank you for that mental image. Ugh!
Did you know that some judge is making a man (a physician)who donated semen to a lesbian associate 18 years ago now pay child support? Of course the fool was stupid enough to let the lesbian put his name on the birth certificate.
“I have no doubt that the queers were hoping to open all kinds of doors and claims if they had been granted a ‘divorce’. Then others could say that the marriage had been recognized because they were given a divorce. It was a sneaky and creative try though.”
Thankfully it didn’t work. I wonder if Mass. will stop issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals from that state now that it court has ruled that state doesn’t recognize homosexual unions.
That’s Mr Inseminator to you.
No she's not. Because she was never legitimately married in the first place! The fags just are just trying their best to warp, distort and trample the concept of family and marriage. And normal folks have had enough of their weirdness and perversions.
A good looking lesbian can only be seen in the eyes of another lesbian because REAL men seek REAL women. But of course, love between a man and a woman is natural and not contrived, why would we need some freek judge to decide what is right and not right...judges are hopeless freaks of our justice system. They are not God, and only God shall rule on these issues.
What is that, all of 6 or 8 miles? What an inconvenience. Sounds like they don't want to be divorced very badly to me.
Half of the State workers in Little Rhodie are lesbians.
The Atty. Gen. has a history of unpleasant associations.
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.