Gay Couple Married In Mass. Can't Divorce In R.I.

Gay Couple Married In Mass. Can't Divorce In R.I.

www.thebostonchannel.com

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state's highest court ruled Friday in a setback to gay rights advocates who sought greater recognition for same-sex relationships.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, isn't that a kick in the pants? And a new definition of "marriage" - it ends at the state line, apparently.

www.thebostonchannel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by jsobecky


well they could always drive back to where they tied the not and get a devorce there
or dont things work like that?

This is pretty strange considering RI is one of the most liberal states in the country. I have no doubt that we'll have laws allowing same sex marriages soon, but not just yet.

That said, I agree with Bodrul. The RI/MA state line is no more than a half hour drive from any point in the state, and about 5 minutes from Providence, so pony up the 5 bucks for gas and drive up to Attleboro.

Lazy lesbians

I'll also add that this is likely a case of activists attempting to force a decision on the gay marriage agenda. It happens all the time.

Well in most states you can't just wander in and get a divorce. You usually need to prove residency in the state for at least 6 months. Then there's all different kinds of property settlement laws in each state, alimony, etc, etc.

I can't say I have any sympathy for them at all, if they have to move to another state to get their divorce, they should have thought about how the laws would affect them beforehand.

It's not as simple as a drive to Mass. One of the two must live in Mass for at least a year prior to filing, to establish residency.

Though the women could divorce in Massachusetts if one moved there for a year, Ormiston said that was an unfair burden and something she would not do. She said she was "embarrassed" for the court.

The problem is that R.I. doesn't recognize the marriage as valid. And the Fed govt doesn't compel them to do so, if the category (same sex) doesn't exist in their state.

There is a body of precedent stretching back over 200 years, to the very inception of the constitution, that one state cannot be compelled to enforce another state's law (in this case, gay marriage) within it's own borders.

My memory isn't what it it was, but I think the Marbury v. Maddison case began the process of erecting state laws.

The fact that northern states refused to enforce slave law on runaways seeking sanctuary was another big kick in the direction of "state sovereignty."

Basically, one state cannot be compelled to enforce another state's laws, or abide by the other's legal definition. Be it marriage, divorce, community property, etc.

(edit to add)

Changing the law would not only overturn marriage laws, but all banking as well. I live in a state with numerous protections for debtors, i.e., 100% homestead refuge, limits on real property that may be confiscated by creditors, community property of spouses, and a 4 year window on filing suits to recover debts, and anti-harrasment laws against debt collection agencies.

Credit card companies, based mostly in new england, are mounting an ever-increasing campaign to force TX, FL and the few other "debtor havens" to be forced to abide by the bank laws of "bank havens" like New York and Delaware.

So there are significant forces at work to overturn the states-rights bias of US interstate commerce legislation.

.

.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by dr_strangecraft]