R.I. court won't let gay couple divorce

Boston Globe ^ | December 8, 2007 | John R. Ellement and Jonathan Saltzman

[mngran2]

In a split decision, Rhode Island's top court said yesterday that it will not allow a lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts to get a divorce in the Ocean State.

The 3-to-2 ruling was viewed by advocates of gay marriage as a setback and by those who oppose the recognition of same-sex unions as an act of wisdom.

The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.

Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples.

[mngran2]

So, I open my email this morning and my niece has sent me a link to this story with a note that says, "See, more evidence that states are able to make their own decisions on these matters so a federal marriage amendment is unnecessary. That old boogeyman the Full Faith and Credit Clause didn't stop RI from saying no." How should I reply?

[Jim Noble]

How should I reply?

You should reply that, since these two women are not married at all, as such a thing is impossible, how is it possible for them to get divorced?

[Calpernia]

ping

[Always Right]

So, I open my email this morning and my niece has sent me a link to this story with a note that says, "See, more evidence that states are able to make their own decisions on these matters so a federal marriage amendment is unnecessary. That old boogeyman the Full Faith and Credit Clause didn't stop RI from saying no." How should I reply?

The non-uniform definitions of a basic fact, that marriage is between a man and a women, has led to this quagmire where so-called 'married' people are not allowed to divorce. This is more a perfect example why marriage needs to be defined to stop a few rogue states from creating a mess.

[Callahan]

Guess they’re stuck with eachother. You sat po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. I’m sure they can work it out lol.

[BackInBlack]

Jim, how does that answer help this guy? The question is whether it should be left to states or to the federal government through a constitutional amendment.

My answer, mngran2, is that some states will do as Rhode Island did and others will choose otherwise, and indeed, Rhode Island itself would have decided differently if just one vote had changed. If we want to ensure an America where a marriage is between a man and a woman, the way to do that is through a federal amendment. If we’re content with gay marriage sprouting up in various places and gaining momentum, we can leave it to the states. So the question isn’t what a particular state is deciding at a particular time; the question is what kind of country we want to be.

[BackInBlack]

That’s a good answer too — probably a better one.

[Nathan Zachary]

"How should I reply?" Say It's already been posted of FR about 50 times already.

[Yo-Yo]

My reply would be that this ain’t over yet until the nine people in black robes sing.

If this lesbian couple appeal to the Supreme Court, then the issue of “full faith and credit” will be decided. So far that issue has not been decided fully.

[mngran2]

Thanks for your response (I’m a gal, by the way, though).

Part of what I’m having a hard time reconciling in my own little brain is that for so long I’ve believed that states’ rights was an important concept and I generally dislike expanding federal power. Now, we’re faced with a situation where some states (ones that I don’t live in and so probably shouldn’t have a say over) are doing something I don’t like. Can I justify to myself advocating expanding federal power in this area? Will that set a bad precedent for other issues?

[Jim Noble]

If we want to ensure an America where a marriage is between a man and a woman, the way to do that is through a federal amendment.

It's not up to America whether or not marriage is "between a man and a woman" - that's what marriage means.

However many people are pretending to be "married", the reality of marriage cannot be changed - not by statute, and not by Constitutional amendment.

[no-to-illegals]

These two having never been married, why shouldn’t Rhode Island allow the divorce? Why deprive an attorney of money? Is Rhode Island refusing to take on the convictions of Massachusetts and attorneys everywhere, where a woman and a woman or where a man and a man, or where pet rocks and fools can be considered a marriage, or is there something much deeper here going on? It does appear Rhode Island has stood up to attorneys. This cannot be made the law of the land. Attorneys, throughout our nation, are needing the business of fools. The fools and the pet rocks in Massachusetts need to continue running rampant for the sake of the attorneys, and Rhode Island just decided it’s not a marriage means another attorney and that attorney’s family will go hungry tonight. Barney will start another male prostitute ring, Kennedy will drown another woman, and America will be a better place because Massachusetts slipped into the bonds of hell, while Rhode Island refused to go? What is happening to America, doesn’t Rhode Island get it?

[PAR35]

How should I reply?

Tell her the matter hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet.

[skinkinthegrass]

Why deprive an attorney of money?...This cannot be made the law of the land. Attorneys, throughout our nation, are needing the business of fools....doesn’t Rhode Island get it?

Short/concise.....and Bwarney Frwank panders / Swimmer Kenned(runk)y drinks.....

[pipecorp]

I thought they had this problem licked.

[brityank]

How should I reply?

Regardless of where or when, the basis of any Society is the stability and on-going continuity of that Society. In order to have continuation you need new members who willingly accept that Societies aims. That requires births of new members, who are then taught in that Societies morés. Every Society has some form of Marriage where Male and Female are required for validation, with certain obvious (siblings, parents, cousins) exceptions. There is no provision in marriage for same-sex unions -- they aren't marriages.

[Centurion2000]

How should I reply?

Tell her that the carpet munchers should have realized "till death do us part" is a lot more serious than they are taking it.

[Scotsman will be Free]

AG Lynch is a liar, and should be impeached. It is his job, duty, etc to defend state law.

[A.A. Cunningham]

How should I reply?

Homosexuals are intrinsically disordered.