|
|
« R.I. delegation decries children's health care veto | Today | Critic of creationism to speak at Roger Williams tomorrow » October 9, 2007High court hears arguments on same-sex divorcePROVIDENCE — The Supreme Court this morning heard arguments from lawyers for two Providence women seeking Rhode Island’s first same-sex divorce. Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston married in Fall River in May 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Their case marks the first time any of the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts have sought a divorce in another state. “The issue today is one that is very narrow in scope,” lawyer Louis M. Pulner told the high court. “Very simply stated: Do we recognize a validly entered into marriage in the state of Massachusetts for the purposes of granting a divorce here in the state of Rhode Island?” Pulner said that while the state legislature has had opportunities to pass a law on same-sex marriage, “they have not embraced it nor have they rejected it,” and he noted House and Senate leaders did not respond to the court’s invitation to file friend-of-the court briefs in this case. Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams pointed out that in recent years, the legislature also has chosen not to pass laws allowing civil unions or same-sex marriages. “They have opted not to take a position either way,” Pulner replied, “which I think speaks largely relative to how this court should be looking at this particular issue.” Williams said, “We are not the legislature, though, Mr. Pulner.” “I grant you that, you honor,” Pulner said. “But the fact is that the legislature has known same sex couples from the state of Rhode Island have been going over the border into Massachusetts and availing themselves of that particular licensing statute. This legislature has done nothing, not withstanding the fact they have been given several opportunities over several years to be able to make that kind of decision.” -- Journal writer Edward Fitzpatrick Posted by Brandie Jefferson CommentsMichael | October 9, 2007 1:15 PM link Great. Basic civil rights. Yet another measure by which Rhode Island lags behind its neighbors (Connecticut and Massachusetts). J.C. | October 9, 2007 1:59 PM link When these two individules went out of state to get married, they should have known if it did not RI's laws do not recognize same sex marriage and I'm in hopes that Judge Williams can see through this charade and enforce the RI law as it was intended to be interpited. Bill | October 9, 2007 2:13 PM link An embarrassment? What’s embarrassing is that this state which historically set a precedent of independence and civil liberty, providing religious freedom when Massachusetts did not and a separation of church and state, proving from the start to be a true leader in this great country, has deliberately ignored the will of the people and refused to grant basic rights. It is inevitable the law will be challenged time and time again and change will occur. Legislators can no longer remain at a stand-still to preserve their own self-serving interests, or avoid the call to make decisions (something their job requires them to do). Katie H. | October 9, 2007 3:32 PM link This is basic civil rights. Whether we recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts (The Attorney General says we should) or not, forcing this couple to live together, as a married body, for a year in Massachusetts to claim Mass. residency and dissolve their divorce is ridiculous, harmful, and degrading. Supreme Court, you need to rule using common sense and dissolve this poor couple's marriage. Aaron | October 9, 2007 3:40 PM link Has anyone noticed that many of the legislators who oppose gay marriage due to "moral concerns" are currently under investigation for corruption? How dare they speak about "morals" when they, themselves, clearly lack them. Bob North Smithfield | October 9, 2007 4:27 PM link The answer is obvious. If RI does not recognize the marriage, they could not possibly get divorced as they are not legally married, QED. David | October 9, 2007 4:57 PM link If these two got, [quote] married in Massachusetts, let them go to Massachuetts to get their divorce. anne marie gentile | October 9, 2007 6:57 PM link Why would they expect Rhode Island to allow them to file for a same sex divorce when Rhode Island doesn't even recognize it as a same sex marriage. Obviously, if Mass performed the marriage then it's only right that they should perform the divorce. I have some gay friend who make wonderful loving couples but did not get married out of state and if they did, they agree with my thoughts on this. Cindy | October 9, 2007 7:06 PM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
What an embarassment. Rhode Island has enough to worry about without these two drawing attention to themselves and the state.
Think of how this looks, in sound bites and word snippets, on a national scale.
Does is make you proud and happy to be a Rhode Islander?