Posted on 07/25/2008 6:40:19 AM PDT by John Jorsett
'They've given us no choice but to be married forever,' says a Rhode Island woman. Her state doesn't recognize gay marriage, and the state where she was wed limits divorces to residents.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- On the morning of May 26, 2004, Cassandra Ormiston and her long-time partner Margaret Chambers arose early, hopped in the car and raced across the border into Massachusetts.
Then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, had already ordered some Massachusetts cities to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples who lived outside the state, and Ormiston and Chambers hoped to get to nearby Fall River before the ban took effect there.
By afternoon, they were married.
"I was so elated," Ormiston said. "When I was in college, I was Chapter 9 in abnormal psych. To be able to marry the woman I loved at the age of 58 -- my feet didn't touch the ground for days."
Then, after two years of marriage, the 10-year relationship soured, and Chambers filed for divorce.
[snip]
A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn't recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren't legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn't get divorced.
Chambers then tried filing for divorce in the state's Superior Court, but last month a judge there ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions. A Massachusetts divorce isn't an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there.
"They've given us no choice but to be married forever," said Ormiston. "Their worst nightmare."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It won’t take long to straighten this out. If lawyers can make money at it, it will be “fixed” in no time.
The only real solution to this problem is prevention.
So.... what vows do they say when they wed?
"They've given us no choice but to be married forever," said Ormiston.
No, the state told her that she was NEVER married. This should leave her in very gay spirits.
Call the WAAAAMBULANCE!
Love, honor, and clean your carpet until something better comes along.
[ducking]
That's what I thought, too. You were so in love when you couldn't be married, and then once married the novelty has worn off.
Serves them right...in spades.
this is legal BS.
She can get the marriage anuled due to the non resident ban.
The whole purpose of forcing another state to divorce them is to play the FFC card.
Go to Mass, have it annuled as against the law and she and she are done.
We always joke that if two lesbians get a divorce how does the family court lawyer know who is wrong with no man around?
Years ago, when I too was childish, we called that 'going steady'.
>> The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren’t legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn’t get divorced. ... They’ve given us no choice but to be married forever,” said Ormiston. “Their worst nightmare.”
Actually, they said you weren’t married ... so you’re pretty well off the hook.
Additionally, those to whom “forever” is their worst nightmare might ought to think of that before embarking on “marriage”. You wanted “forever”, and you complain when you supposedly get it?
H
I've said it before I'll say it again, only a couple of homosexuals could remotely thing marriage has anything to do with sex... glad to see these two got what they asked for.. idiots.
Cry me a river of queer tears, ya damn idiot!
A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn’t recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren’t legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn’t get divorced.
They aren’t married, so they don’t need a divorcce. Split the goods and split. End of story.
Unless there is a totally different agenda here, like forcing RI to legalize homosexual marriage by going about it in a backwards fashion. I think that is probably the real story here.
Maybe they should have thought of that before rushing into a lifetime commitment.
On the other hand, since they aren't really married in any state but Massachusetts, they don't really need a divorce. Just say goodbye and move on.
If one of them ever moves to Mass., they just have to wait a year and they can get divorced before they marry someone else.
However, I'm sure these people aren't going to be satisfied unless they get the government to recognize their desire to be divorced.
I guess it is possible that it might cause some problems if one or the other holds assets in a state that does choose to recognize their marriage that they can't seem to legally end.
I suspect that this kind of thing will end up making its way up to the US Supreme Court. The simplest solution would seem to be to kick the responsibility back on to the state that "married" them and force them to handle the divorce of any marriage performed in their state, if those people's home states do not recognize that marriage.
It would have to be for both nonresidents who they allowed to marry, as well as for former residents who moved out of the state after marrying.
They aren’t considered married in RI or the eyes of God. They can simply part ways.
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.