Rhode Island Judge Faces Legal Quandary as Gay Couple Seeks Divorce

[highwayman]

This was bound to happen.
If New Jersey does not recognise same sex marrieges then the union between these two does not exist, so why file for devorce?
If there is an issue then go to the state were the marriege was conducted in the first place...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231473,00.html

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A lesbian couple married in Massachusetts has filed for divorce in Rhode Island, setting up a legal conundrum for judges in a state where the laws are silent on the legality of same-sex marriage.

Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston of Providence were married after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage starting in 2004.

They filed for divorce in Rhode Island on Oct. 23, citing irreconcilable differences, Chambers' attorney, Louis Pulner, said Wednesday. Ormiston declined to comment.

Rhode Island Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah Jr. has yet to decide whether his court has jurisdiction and said he believes it is the first filing for a same-sex divorce in the state. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 5.

 

[chcr]

This was bound to happen.

It's already happened before. Evidently it wasn't lurid enough. I don't recall the story now but there was one last spring. Why does anyone care? Why should they? It has nothing whatsoever to do with you or yours. Once again, we're combing the internet for items we can pretend to be offended by, huh? I note that when the liberals do it it's bad though. I get tired of it from both sides.

 

[highwayman]

I don't care what one does in the privacy of ones house, don't wave it in my face like this does...

 

[spike]

Who waved something in your face?

 

[Gonz]

We've discussed marriage & its inherent implications until we're blue in the (fingertips?) yet some folks just don't want to see larger picture.

Maybe it is time to abandon hope.

 

[chcr]

I don't care what one does in the privacy of ones house, don't wave it in my face like this does...

What do you think they're waving in your face? That they weren't smart enough to figure out whether or not they could live together.

Ever time I here someone complain about this I wonder if they think about every hetero couple they ever hear about divorcing boinking like bunnies because that's the clear implication. I don't particualrly enjoy hearing about it either, but I don't hear about it from them, I hear about it from folks like you.

Jeebus H, if it bothers you to think about it, don't think about it. If it bothers you so much you can't help but think about it perhaps it's time to reconsider you life choices.

We've discussed marriage & its inherent implications until we're blue in the (fingertips?) yet some folks just don't want to see larger picture.

Maybe it is time to abandon hope.

 

[Gato_Solo]

It's already happened before. Evidently it wasn't lurid enough. I don't recall the story now but there was one last spring. Why does anyone care? Why should they? It has nothing whatsoever to do with you or yours. Once again, we're combing the internet for items we can pretend to be offended by, huh? I note that when the liberals do it it's bad though. I get tired of it from both sides.

I couldn't care one whit. All I know is this...for a group that claims marriage is the 'be-all, end-all' of their relationship, this comes off as rather humorous...

Hell...why not make marriage a legal, binding, contract, with no way out except for a violation of said contract (physical abuse, infidelity)...

 

[spike]

Jeebus H, if it bothers you to think about it, don't think about it. If it bothers you so much you can't help but think about it perhaps it's time to reconsider you life choices.

Karma given.

I couldn't care one whit. All I know is this...for a group that claims marriage is the 'be-all, end-all' of their relationship, this comes off as rather humorous...

Hell...why not make marriage a legal, binding, contract, with no way out except for a violation of said contract (physical abuse, infidelity)...

What do you find humorous? Hetero couples consider marriage the "end all" too and they get divorced. Everybody should have the same rights.

Your not the first person to suggest connecting gay marriage to stricter divorce laws for all (physical abuse, etc) but I still find it strange. I don't see how they are related.

Divorce laws no matter who they apply to should not be designed to force someone who wants out of the relationship to stay against their will and play some legal chess game to leave.

Working out differences is a highly personal matter that can't be left to a decision by a judge that's known both people for 30 minutes. It's absurd.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Hell...why not make marriage a legal, binding, contract, with no way out except for a violation of said contract (physical abuse, infidelity)...

It already is, in the eyes of God. And He pretty clearly doesn't recognize gay marriage either. Hence, these two can split at will. It impacts nothing.

 

[chcr]

I couldn't care one whit. All I know is this...for a group that claims marriage is the 'be-all, end-all' of their relationship, this comes off as rather humorous...

Sure it does. So does the constant whining about "slippery slopes" and how it would be "the downfall of civilization." As I've asked time and again, why does anyone who isn't gay even care?

Hell...why not make marriage a legal, binding, contract, with no way out except for a violation of said contract (physical abuse, infidelity)...

It is to me.

It impacts nothing.

Exactly the point. Well, excepting certain peoples delicate sensibilities of course.

 

[Gonz]

Hetero couples consider marriage the "end all" too and they get divorced.

Working out differences is a highly personal matter that can't be left to a decision by a judge that's known both people for 30 minutes. It's absurd.

Absurd is no-fault divorce. Absurd is the mentality of quickie marriages. Absurd is going into a lifelong commintment & contract with the tickle in the back of your mind that "if I don't like it I can get out". Absurd is changing marriage from a bedrock of the community & socity as a whole to just another gift chase.

There are three reasons to get divorced: Abuse, Addiction & Adultery. Addiction is not an absolute there. The other two are a violation of the commitment.

If divorce were harder, more people would keep their clothes on & be more apt to actually learn about the other person as opposed to allowing emotions to overrule common sense.

Instead of arguing for strengthening marriage, we're arguing watering it down even more. Homosexual marriage is just another wedge into a greater attack on the family & society in general. Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to people of the same gender. Homosexuals already have access to legal rights yet they've chosen not to pursue those because it takes effort-something marriage already insists on.

Instead of focusing on the single issue, it would be nice if folks took the time to see the whole. Then maybe there'd be some movement.

 

[chcr]

Yeah, "Oops, I guess I didn't wanna be married so much after all" is just plain stupid. I don't think it can be watered down anymore, Gonz. It desn't mean anything significant to most people now.

 

[rrfield]

 

[highwayman]

Be careful of the wrecking crew...

 

[Gonz]

I don't think it can be watered down anymore, Gonz. It desn't mean anything significant to most people now.

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why we need to fight for it. It's an important institution that needs to be fixed while there is still a chance. Not much of one but some is better than none.

 

[chcr]

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why we need to fight for it. It's an important institution that needs to be fixed while there is still a chance. Not much of one but some is better than none.

And I fail to see how gay marriage affects the problem. It's a separate issue. Banning or allowing it will not affect the situation in any way.

 

[Gonz]

It's a separate issue.

Which is where we seperate. I think it's just one of a number of problems.

 

[spike]

Absurd is no-fault divorce. Absurd is the mentality of quickie marriages. Absurd is going into a lifelong commintment & contract with the tickle in the back of your mind that "if I don't like it I can get out". Absurd is changing marriage from a bedrock of the community & socity as a whole to just another gift chase.

There are three reasons to get divorced: Abuse, Addiction & Adultery. Addiction is not an absolute there. The other two are a violation of the commitment.

If divorce were harder, more people would keep their clothes on & be more apt to actually learn about the other person as opposed to allowing emotions to overrule common sense.

Instead of arguing for strengthening marriage, we're arguing watering it down even more. Homosexual marriage is just another wedge into a greater attack on the family & society in general. Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to people of the same gender. Homosexuals already have access to legal rights yet they've chosen not to pursue those because it takes effort-something marriage already insists on.

Instead of focusing on the single issue, it would be nice if folks took the time to see the whole. Then maybe there'd be some movement.

Quickie marriages and not taking a lifelong commitment seriously are absurd. So is your solution to force people to stay with someone they don't want to. You'd actually force a woman to stay with you that desperately wanted to leave? Would you force her to have sex with you too?

I don't need your nanny state. Marraige is a personal matter and no judge is going to much insight into a couples personal problems he has never even met before.

Homosexual couples should have the freedom to marry each other if they desire but you want to legislate personal preference too. Again with the nanny state.

But chcr is right these are seperate issues completely. The similarity is the nannyrestrictions on personal freedom in both cases that you advocate.

 

[highwayman]

I don't need your nanny state.

Don't you live in California? Thats a nanny state...

Homosexual couples should have the freedom to marry each other if they desire but you want to legislate personal preference too. Again with the nanny state.

One of the requirements to marry should be the ability to procreate, it's not possible for a same sex "union" to produce offspring...

But chcr is right these are seperate issues completely. The similarity is the nanny restrictions on personal freedom in both cases that you advocate.

Gonz is right, there should be clear and definitive lines drawn...

 

[rrfield]

One of the requirements to marry should be the ability to procreate, it's not possible for a same sex "union" to produce offspring...

so straight men with the *snip snip* cant marry? straight women who have had a hysterectomy or had their tubes tied? straight people who are sterile for some other reason?