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

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

[CGASMIA68]

They were prob trying to set a precedence and if allowed to Divorce ,next day 2 more would come to marry be denied and use the Divorce as a recognition......Good going RI

[no-to-illegals]

It is his job, duty, etc to defend state law.

Why defend state law? Why defend the laws of America? Cannot the Citizens of America understand? Elected officials are not elected to defend the law. If elected officials were actually elected to defend and preserve the law, then the law would be defended and preserved. When surveying the landscape, one should remember chaos is preferred over the law. There is more money in chaos.

Now please, survey the landscape and tell me, is not chaos the way to go? A resounding YES, just echoed across America from our elected and the media, and our elected know what is best. Just another way to pay off the media, during an election year.

[wolfcreek]

Rember one of the main reasons FOR Gay marriage?..... They’re more likely to stay together.

Why would they need divorce?

[beejaa]

GLBT advocates are not going to stop trying to attain everything on their agenda. Their agenda includes gay marriage and then goes beyond it. (See, for example, the 1973 Gay Rights Platform formulated in Chicago. It’s available on the web at a number of sites.) Right now, R.I. is exercising states rights, but with an on-going push from these groups, R.I. may not be able to do so in the future.

[beejaa]

You can also point out to your niece that marriage was not previously defined in legal documents as being between a man and a woman because gay marriage was not even remotely on the horizon. Even in the turbulent 1960s, if you had mentioned that we’d be considering this issue in a few decades, people would have looked at you as if you were crazy. Drastic measures (like amending the Constitution) are being considered because the demand for gay marriage is extreme, not having even existed in ancient Rome or Greece.

[HenpeckedCon]

Gee, why don’t they go back to FallRivvve to get divorced? Could they have an agenda?

[N. Theknow]

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

When gays divorce they really rarely stick it to each other.

[HenpeckedCon]

No, not me. They just probably didn’t want to waste the “greenhouse gases” driving to Mass to get divorced.

[null and void]

so...anyone else think we should vote Massachusetts out of the union?

But but but we'd lose Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Joan Edwards!!!!

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Tell her that Rhode Island has recognized the lesbos' marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But since Rhode Island divorce laws only apply to couples consisting of a man and a woman, that State said the two lesbos cannot divorce in Rhode Island. Tell her Rhode Island is a sovereign state just as is Massachusetts. A girl in Massachusetts can get married without parental consent at 16. A girl in Rhode Island cannot get married without parental consent until she is 18. The laws of Massachusetts do not apply in Rhode Island. The contracts which are entered into in Massachusetts must be recognized as valid in Rhode Island. That is what the Rhode Island Supreme Court has done. It has recognized that the two lesbos are married because they entered into a valid marriage contract in Massachusetts. The justices of that court (okay, three of them) correctly stated there is no provision under Rhode Island law to grant two men or two women a divorce. What is interesting is that Massachusetts will not grant a divorce either since Massachusetts law requires the couple to have been residents for six months. Maybe the two who brought suit should check to see if Nevada law allows divorce between two women? I suspect those laws do not, but then since Nevada set itself up as a quicky divorce oasis to generate revenue for the state, those two twits might get what they want there.

[Wil H]

I thought they had this problem licked.

Yes, but apparently they are arguing over custody of the Turkey Baster.

[BackInBlack]

Whether marriage is immutable in your mind is hardly the point. The question is state and federal acknowledgment of gay “rights,” which may or may not include legally redefining marriage.

[BackInBlack]

I think there are conservative arguments to be made either for leaving gay “rights” to the states or for enacting a constitutional amendment. The first argument would appeal to states’ rights, as you suggest, and the second would appeal to traditional family values. The messy truth is that everyone — at least, every thinking person — holds ethical standards that eventually come into conflict. God has universal standards; the trouble for mere mortals is figuring out what they are in a complex world.

Ultimately, my belief in Scripture trumps my belief in states’ rights. That’s why I believe in a federal amendment on gays and, for that matter, abortion.

[madprof98]

so...anyone else think we should vote Massachusetts out of the union?

Not unless they take California with them.