The Marriage Debate
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
I realize that this is a very sensitive subject for most of you, so I hope that nobody finds me offensive. I am with Joe Biden that I do not want to see the word "marriage" re-defined, but I am completely 100% in favor of granting homosexual couples the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples. My take on the matter is, I do not think that the government has any right to step in and interfere with these kinds of matters. I think that the word "marriage" is very much a religious issue and that religious institutions are the only ones who have a right to say what "marriage" is and isn't. I don't think that religious organizations should be forced by the government to do something that is completely in opposition to their doctrine. However, on the flip side, I think that what the government should do is change the definition of "civil unions" to encompass (in the eyes of the law) both homosexual and heterosexual couples. "Marriage" can remain a union between a man and a woman, if the religious organization deems it so (and if there is a religious organization that says that a homosexual couple can be married, then they should be allowed to do so), and a "civil union" can be a legal union between two people, regardless of sexual orientation.
But even then, I believe (since I am very much in favor of limited government) that these issues should be left up to the states to decide. I think that people should be allowed to vote on the issue instead of allowing the courts to make a ruling. It's our government, so we should tell them how things should be, not the other way around. But that's just me.
Edited By MovieWes on 1224874472
But even then, I believe (since I am very much in favor of limited government) that these issues should be left up to the states to decide. I think that people should be allowed to vote on the issue instead of allowing the courts to make a ruling. It's our government, so we should tell them how things should be, not the other way around. But that's just me.
Edited By MovieWes on 1224874472
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Connecticut Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of no Separate but Equal in the definition of marriage.
Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry
By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
HARTFORD, Conn. - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters in a state where same-sex couples are legally wed.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
"I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jody Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.
In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Palmer wrote.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.
"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the ruling goes into effect Oct. 28 when it is implemented by action of the of the Superior Court. There will be no appeal, he said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."
State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.
"It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."
The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Supreme courts in Massachusetts and California also have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, concluding the domestic partnerships were unequal to the rights given in heterosexual marriage.
Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry
By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
HARTFORD, Conn. - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters in a state where same-sex couples are legally wed.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
"I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jody Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.
In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Palmer wrote.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.
"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the ruling goes into effect Oct. 28 when it is implemented by action of the of the Superior Court. There will be no appeal, he said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."
State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.
"It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."
The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Supreme courts in Massachusetts and California also have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, concluding the domestic partnerships were unequal to the rights given in heterosexual marriage.
Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Gay marriage: a new bind for church groups By Ben Arnoldy
Tue Jun 17, 4:00 AM ET
Oakland, Calif. - The same-sex marriage march begins across California Tuesday, with thousands of gay couples expected to wed in the coming weeks. But some notes of discord and rebellion can already be heard above Pachelbel's Canon.
Several county clerks have said they will stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples, gay or straight. And the state supreme court, fresh from its decision to legalize gay marriage, will decide shortly on whether a private-practice doctor can deny artificial insemination to a lesbian couple.
As gay marriage gains wider legal footing, scholars anticipate a flood of such conscientious objector cases. A key flash point will be religiously affiliated organizations that serve the public, such as hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies, and hold beliefs opposed to gay marriage.
Gay rights advocates say the courts have found workable compromises so far. But opponents warn that religious groups may have to retreat dramatically from the public square unless legislatures agree to create some religious exemptions.
"As gays come out of the closet, conservative religious people are put back in the sanctuary," says Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress in New York.
He expects legal battles ahead in religious schools, youth groups, and summer camps. Some recent cases have already alarmed lawyers for religious groups:
• In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.
• In April, a New Mexico human rights commission charged a wedding photographer in Albuquerque thousands of dollars in legal fees after she refused, based on her Christian beliefs, a request to shoot a commitment ceremony.
• After the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the legislature refused to grant longtime adoption provider Catholic Charities a religious exemption to let it place children with heterosexual parents only.
Stern notes that Catholic Charities in Boston ultimately withdrew from providing adoption services to the public. Though it lost its exemption case, he feels exemptions are the best way to avoid the cloistering of religious-based groups.
"On these contested moral issues, an exemption route in the long term is sounder than an attempt to suppress behavior you think is immoral but you have no chance of persuading a majority of your fellow citizens to agree, certainly over the long term," says Mr. Stern.
Legislative exemptions would also forgo a "train wreck" of case-by-case decisions in the courts, argues Robin Wilson, a law professor at Washington & Lee University. She's editing a forthcoming book, "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts," in which she draws parallels to the legal turmoil following the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
"Same-sex marriage is divisive in our society in a lot of ways that abortion was," says Ms. Wilson. "There's this rich variety and history around abortion that gives us a whole bunch of ways to accommodate religious conviction and the legitimate need of same sex couples to enter into marriage."
Following the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973, courts saw an initial flurry of conscientious objector cases, followed by a host of legislative exemptions.
At the federal level, the Church Amendment prevented the threat of withholding federal monies to compel individuals or institutions to perform an abortion contrary to their beliefs. Most states followed suit with their own versions.
"I argue for conscience clauses, the same thing we have for abortions," says Wilson. Such exemptions allow physicians and religious hospitals to opt out of performing an abortion provided other doctors are available and the mother's life isn't in danger.
Similarly, county clerks like those in California's Kern and Butte Counties could opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples – so long as there's another clerk around to do it. Ditto for adoption providers and artificial insemination cases.
Gay rights activists aren't warming to the mounting discussion of religious exemptions. They argue that courts have been balancing religious beliefs with antidiscrimination protections for many years.
"Our society has done a pretty good job balancing personal views, including religious views, with the need to have basic rules protecting everyone against discrimination in the public sector, and there is no need now for a special gay exception," says Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of "Why Marriage Matters."
In California's case, the legal framework for balancing these competing interests has been in place for years, says Jennifer Pizer, a senior counsel at Lambda, a gay rights law group.
Since the 1950s, the state has had a civil rights act preventing discrimination, with sexual orientation added to it through case law and amendment. California has also provides for domestic partnerships with all the rights of marriages.
Over the years, when civil rights have bumped against religious rights, courts here have relied on a couple of broad distinctions, says Ms. Pizer. The first looks at whether the activity in question is primarily religious or secular. The second considers whether the group is actually incorporated as a religious entity or not. Religious activities by religious entities, like sacraments performed at churches, receive the broadest protections from competing values, like antidiscrimination claims.
Pizer points to a 2004 case in which Catholic Charities lost its bid to exempt birth control from its employee prescription-drug plan. Though affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Charities is not incorporated as a religious entity and its work consists primarily of social welfare programs for the general public.
"Groups that are worried that something new will interrupt their ability to function the way they are functioning will soon see that [gay marriage] will not change the rules that govern their public activities," says Pizer. "Those rules have been in place and work just fine."
Stern suggests, however, that gay marriage tends to make sexual orientation more explicit in many contexts, such as hotel accommodations, making more clashes inevitable. And the high court's rhetoric – comparing same-sex marriage bans to inter-racial marriage bans – threatens to elevate the level of protection afforded sexual orientationl.
"If the courts threat this as a ban on racial discrimination," says Stern, "then there's not much likelihood that any religious claims will survive."
Tue Jun 17, 4:00 AM ET
Oakland, Calif. - The same-sex marriage march begins across California Tuesday, with thousands of gay couples expected to wed in the coming weeks. But some notes of discord and rebellion can already be heard above Pachelbel's Canon.
Several county clerks have said they will stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples, gay or straight. And the state supreme court, fresh from its decision to legalize gay marriage, will decide shortly on whether a private-practice doctor can deny artificial insemination to a lesbian couple.
As gay marriage gains wider legal footing, scholars anticipate a flood of such conscientious objector cases. A key flash point will be religiously affiliated organizations that serve the public, such as hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies, and hold beliefs opposed to gay marriage.
Gay rights advocates say the courts have found workable compromises so far. But opponents warn that religious groups may have to retreat dramatically from the public square unless legislatures agree to create some religious exemptions.
"As gays come out of the closet, conservative religious people are put back in the sanctuary," says Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress in New York.
He expects legal battles ahead in religious schools, youth groups, and summer camps. Some recent cases have already alarmed lawyers for religious groups:
• In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.
• In April, a New Mexico human rights commission charged a wedding photographer in Albuquerque thousands of dollars in legal fees after she refused, based on her Christian beliefs, a request to shoot a commitment ceremony.
• After the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the legislature refused to grant longtime adoption provider Catholic Charities a religious exemption to let it place children with heterosexual parents only.
Stern notes that Catholic Charities in Boston ultimately withdrew from providing adoption services to the public. Though it lost its exemption case, he feels exemptions are the best way to avoid the cloistering of religious-based groups.
"On these contested moral issues, an exemption route in the long term is sounder than an attempt to suppress behavior you think is immoral but you have no chance of persuading a majority of your fellow citizens to agree, certainly over the long term," says Mr. Stern.
Legislative exemptions would also forgo a "train wreck" of case-by-case decisions in the courts, argues Robin Wilson, a law professor at Washington & Lee University. She's editing a forthcoming book, "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts," in which she draws parallels to the legal turmoil following the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
"Same-sex marriage is divisive in our society in a lot of ways that abortion was," says Ms. Wilson. "There's this rich variety and history around abortion that gives us a whole bunch of ways to accommodate religious conviction and the legitimate need of same sex couples to enter into marriage."
Following the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973, courts saw an initial flurry of conscientious objector cases, followed by a host of legislative exemptions.
At the federal level, the Church Amendment prevented the threat of withholding federal monies to compel individuals or institutions to perform an abortion contrary to their beliefs. Most states followed suit with their own versions.
"I argue for conscience clauses, the same thing we have for abortions," says Wilson. Such exemptions allow physicians and religious hospitals to opt out of performing an abortion provided other doctors are available and the mother's life isn't in danger.
Similarly, county clerks like those in California's Kern and Butte Counties could opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples – so long as there's another clerk around to do it. Ditto for adoption providers and artificial insemination cases.
Gay rights activists aren't warming to the mounting discussion of religious exemptions. They argue that courts have been balancing religious beliefs with antidiscrimination protections for many years.
"Our society has done a pretty good job balancing personal views, including religious views, with the need to have basic rules protecting everyone against discrimination in the public sector, and there is no need now for a special gay exception," says Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of "Why Marriage Matters."
In California's case, the legal framework for balancing these competing interests has been in place for years, says Jennifer Pizer, a senior counsel at Lambda, a gay rights law group.
Since the 1950s, the state has had a civil rights act preventing discrimination, with sexual orientation added to it through case law and amendment. California has also provides for domestic partnerships with all the rights of marriages.
Over the years, when civil rights have bumped against religious rights, courts here have relied on a couple of broad distinctions, says Ms. Pizer. The first looks at whether the activity in question is primarily religious or secular. The second considers whether the group is actually incorporated as a religious entity or not. Religious activities by religious entities, like sacraments performed at churches, receive the broadest protections from competing values, like antidiscrimination claims.
Pizer points to a 2004 case in which Catholic Charities lost its bid to exempt birth control from its employee prescription-drug plan. Though affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Charities is not incorporated as a religious entity and its work consists primarily of social welfare programs for the general public.
"Groups that are worried that something new will interrupt their ability to function the way they are functioning will soon see that [gay marriage] will not change the rules that govern their public activities," says Pizer. "Those rules have been in place and work just fine."
Stern suggests, however, that gay marriage tends to make sexual orientation more explicit in many contexts, such as hotel accommodations, making more clashes inevitable. And the high court's rhetoric – comparing same-sex marriage bans to inter-racial marriage bans – threatens to elevate the level of protection afforded sexual orientationl.
"If the courts threat this as a ban on racial discrimination," says Stern, "then there's not much likelihood that any religious claims will survive."
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Great News!
California's top court overturns gay marriage ban By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
California's top court overturns gay marriage ban By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Well that's a big part of the debate. Should the federal gov't pass a law making such unions legal, or should each state decide? The other part, of course, is the overwhelming desire of the people to block gay marraige as a matter of principle. To balance those concerns won't be easy, but this will be a continuing issue for years to come. I think legalizing civil unions nationwide would be easier than sanctioning gay marraige, but a lot of gays would not like that. So there has to be some other way to settle it where neither side feels their rights or interests are hurt.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
But if you'd read the article, you'd see that because the divorce laws weren't amended when the marriage laws were, it's not as easy to get divorced as it is to get married. Matter of fact, some states even prohibit you from getting divorced...
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Well, the short-term solution then would have to be that if you get married in Massachusetts and cannot get divorced in Rhode Island, you should try to do the divorce in Massachussetts. Since this is not federally mandated, you have to go state-by-state.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Is this not one of the dumbest things ever? You don't want them to get married, but if they do, you don't want them to get divorced? What sense does that make...
Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 55 minutes ago
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.
In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.
"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."
Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.
Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.
Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.
"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.
It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.
In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.
She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.
Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.
Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.
Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.
In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.
Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.
The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.
"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.
Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.
Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.
"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1208296386
Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 55 minutes ago
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.
In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.
"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."
Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.
Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.
Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.
"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.
It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.
In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.
She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.
Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.
Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.
Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.
In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.
Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.
The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.
"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.
Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.
Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.
"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1208296386
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin