|
|
« Budget request would cut healthcare for thousands | Today | 2 R.I. men indicted for murder of Fall River man » December 7, 2007Alert: R.I. Supreme Court says no to same-sex divorceThe state Supreme Court has ruled that a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts may not divorce in Rhode Island because, the court says, the General Assembly has not given the state's Family Court the authority to grant such a divorce. The court was split, 3-2, on the decision. In the case, the court was asked by the Rhode Island Family Court whether Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston, two women who were married in Massachusetts, could divorce in Rhode Island.
Read the decision in .pdf format. Chambers and Ormiston married in Fall River in May 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Chambers filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island Family Court, and Ormiston filed a counterclaim, with both citing “irreconcilable differences.” The case has received national attention because it’s believed to mark the first time any of the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts have sought a divorce in another state. The Rhode Island Supreme Court weighed this question: “May the Family Court properly recognize, for the purpose of entertaining a divorce petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who were purportedly married in another state?” In the majority opinion, authored by Justice William P. Robinson III, the court said that “well-established principles of statutory construction would lead us ineluctably to conclude that the General Assembly has not granted the Family Court the power to grant a divorce in the situation described in the certified question.” The statute that empowers Family Court to “hear and determine all petitions for divorce from the bond of marriage” was enacted in 1961. But what did its authors mean by “marriage”? Trying to determine the intended meaning of the word, the justices did what most people would do, they consulted a dictionary – albeit one 45 years old – to figure out what the authors of the law were trying to say. “With respect to the case at hand, there is absolutely no reason to believe that, when the act creating the Family Court became law in 1961, the legislators understood the word marriage to refer to any state other than ‘the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex,’” the opinion reads, quoting the definition of marriage in the 1961 edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Later in the 30-page opinion, the court wrote, “We are cognizant of the fact that this observation may be cold comfort to the parties before us. But, if there is to be a remedy to this predicament, fashioning such a remedy would fall within the province of the General Assembly.” The majority consisted of Chief Justice Frank J. Williams, Justice Francis X. Flaherty and Justice Robinson. Justice Paul A. Suttell and Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg dissented. In a dissenting opinion, according to the press release, Suttell wrote that the certified question was extremely narrow in scope, and that it sought recognition of a same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of divorce and no other purpose. Suttell wrote that the question did not address the eligibility of same-sex couples to marry under Rhode Island law. The couple were lawfully married in Massachusetts, and had satisfied the applicable domicile and residence requirements for divorce in Rhode Island. “The subject matter jurisdiction of the Family Court does not turn on the gender of the parties; rather it turns on their status as a married couple,” Justice Suttell wrote. “We are in complete agreement with the majority on one critical point, however. The legal recognition that ought to be afforded same-sex marriages for any particular purpose is fundamentally a question of public policy, more appropriately determined by the General Assembly after full and robust public debate.” -- With reports from projo.com staff writer Brandie M. Jefferson and archival reports Posted by Jack Perry CommentsInterested Person | December 7, 2007 3:01 PM link Just another reason why ALL of RI government - Executive-Legislative-Judiciary- deserve little respect. Most are self-absorbed and concerned with maintaining their control over the status quo. Daninprov | December 7, 2007 5:56 PM link I thought RI had decided to recognize Massachusetts marriages? If they do that, then clearly they have to permit a divorce process. trudy | December 7, 2007 6:12 PM link This case has been wrongly decided. Massachusetts, for better or worse, has recognized same sex marriage. Consequently the marriage in it would recognize any other Massachusetts marriage. Given that it is a legal marriage all Rhode Island has to do is to follow the standard proceedure for a divorce. Reference to a common dictionary of almost half a century ago hardly provides a solid legal ground for denying a divorce. 187099 Henry Schwarz | December 7, 2007 7:23 PM link If they grant divorce for same sex marriages, which RI doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, they open up a new door for lobbyists. Once a same sex divorce is allowed so will same sex marriages be recognized. You can't grant something for something that you don't recognize. Obviously if Mass changed their laws for same sex marriages and allowed people who live out of state to participate, they should change the rules for divorce to allow non-residents to get divorced!!! Especially if that's where you got your marriage license. Look at what they created and want other states to deal with. Everyone deserves to be happy and if you change laws for people to be together you should also change laws so that they can be apart if it doesn't work out. How could you only go half way! Cindy | December 7, 2007 7:36 PM link "I thought RI had decided to recognize Massachusetts marriages? If they do that, then clearly they have to permit a divorce process." Tim | December 7, 2007 7:39 PM link I give high praise to the RI Justices for their careful decision to hold to the intent of the legislative authors of the marriage law in RI. The Justices could not recognize the divorce because the state does not, and does not have to recognize a so-called marriage in another state. If Vermont were to grant marriages to Donkeys, would courts in RI or any other state have to recognize that, to allow a subsequent but related action: i.e., divorce, heir to estate, etc.? The answer of course is NO. Bravo to Messrs. Flaherty, Williams and Robinson. The Senescent Man | December 7, 2007 7:59 PM link Hang on. They are not recognized as married, in Rhode Island, so why would they even need a divorce? Chairm | December 8, 2007 12:31 AM link Judge Suttell wanted to let the divorce go through because it means more money for his divorce lawyer friends and more business for the family court where he once played. Thank goodness we have three justices with a little sense. Good Decision | December 8, 2007 5:08 AM link It is disappointing that RI justices feel that all people are not created equal. So is it safe to assume I don't have to pay RI taxes either as I am not an equal citizen. Mike | December 8, 2007 7:41 AM link The consultation of a 46 year old dictionary to interpret today's laws would be funny if it weren't so sad. Good grief! Leaving RI | December 8, 2007 7:55 AM link --> "Do we really want to find out what this state would look like if all the gay people left?" Sure, make it another social experiment. Just kidding. Marriage is both-sexed. There is no test for homosexuality or even for gay identity. No such criterion exists. So what the SSM campaign is all about is forcing false equivalencies. There is a broad nonmarital category. But the SSM campaign focuses on just the same-sex sub-category. And only a tiny subset of that sub-category would be gay or lesbian arrangements. SSM is far more exclusive than SSMers portray it to be. This lesbian couple were not married. Massachusetts has its residency requirement. They are Rhode Island residents and were never considered married there. So, why do they need a divorce if they are not married? Chairm | December 8, 2007 10:06 PM link Here's an interesting example that will highlight this to everyone. Say I'm bisexual. I'm male. I get married to another male in MA. We move to Rhode Island. Per the State of Rhode Island, we aren't married. So no need for a divorce when we break up. Now I get married to a Woman in Rhode Island and my company transfers me to MA and we both move there. Am I now guilty of bigamy? What if I don't get married in RI before I move back to MA, but my former partner/husband doesn't move back with me. Do I now have to get divorced to marry again? See what a mess all this is? John | December 10, 2007 9:18 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
Wow. I guess I thought the RI courts would recognize any marriage that was legal in the state where the marriage was performed for purposes of a divorce. So, Rhode Island doesn't recognize a marriage made in Massachusetts but won't let these people get divorced? The 'couple' isn't good enough to be recognized as married but we won't help them undo it? Amazing.