« Concentration of rare whales has left Cape Cod Bay | Today | Barrington student, 18, accused of molesting girl, 16 »

May 8, 2008

Judge wants more information in same-sex divorce case

PROVIDENCE — A judge today said she needs to know more before deciding whether to ask the state Supreme Court if the Superior Court can grant Rhode Island’s first same-sex divorce.

In December, the Supreme Court ruled that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce to two Providence women who married in Fall River in 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But now one of the women wants the high court to determine whether Superior Court — the state’s main trial court — can dissolve the marriage.

During a hearing this morning, Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Hurst asked both sides to submit legal memos, and she scheduled another hearing for June 12.

“You have caught me off guard with a one-page motion with no supporting memoranda, no analysis,” Hurst told Louis M. Pulner, the lawyer representing Margaret R. Chambers.

But the judge did make some initial comments on the request to certify a question to Supreme Court.

“Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, so the question is whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over proceedings that resolve marital rights without calling a divorce proceeding.” Hurst said. “We do not have jurisdiction over divorce proceedings. Does the court have jurisdiction over two people who want to resolve property interests? That happens every day.”

Pulner said Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston already have a Superior Court case over property interests. What they want is a divorce, and Superior Court does have jurisdiction to grant them a divorce, he said.

Pulner’s motion asks the Superior Court to pose this question to the Supreme Court: “May the Superior 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?”

The motion says that question “is one of extreme public importance, which is capable of repetition but will evade review unless decided by the Supreme Court.”

-- Journal staff writer Edward Fitzpatrick

Posted by Jack Perry  at 2:09 PM | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)