Could a Same-Sex Divorce Result In Same-Sex Marriage
Two women “married” in Massachusetts (and yes, I’ll continue to put that in quotes) are seeking a “divorce”, 3 years later, in Rhode Island, where they live. However, Rhode Island does not officially recognize the union. So the question is, if they are granted a “divorce”, does this imply that Rhode Island considers their union a marriage and thus is a back-door to “same-sex marriage”?
Rhode Island politicians are divided.
PROVIDENCE — A state court can grant two Providence women a divorce without answering the highly charged question of whether a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch agreed in legal briefs filed with the state Supreme Court yesterday.
But Carcieri and Lynch differed sharply over what the outcome of the case should be if the high court does take up the larger issue.
Carcieri, a Republican and a Catholic who has opposed bills to legalize same-sex marriage, argued that Family Court should not recognize the marriage between Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston.
“Marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman is clearly the bedrock of Rhode Island family law,” Carcieri’s brief said, citing gender-specific terms such as “husband and wife” in state law. “Because of the pervasiveness of this position throughout its family law statutes, Rhode Island has a strong public policy against recognition of any other marriage than that between one man and one woman.”
Lynch, a Democrat and a Catholic who has a sister who married a woman in Massachusetts, argued that Family Court should recognize the Chambers/Ormiston marriage under principles of comity, in which states recognize the laws and judicial decisions of other states.
“The crucial issue is whether there is a public policy in this state that is so strong it will require Rhode Island to except same-sex marriages from the traditional respect and recognition it has shown to laws of its sister states,” Lynch’s brief said. “Rhode Island’s case law and legislative enactments do not support such a finding.”
Predictably, the Republican insists that the people, via their representatives, should decide, while the Democrat believes that the osmosis that comes with free travel between states should be enough to change the laws. And actually, Lynch foresees a Family Court system that treats same-sex couples the same as married couples. While that by itself doesn’t institute “same-sex marriage” in and of itself, once the precedent is set and the legal system is conditioned, it becomes much harder to keep it out. Lynch is innocently shortsighted at best, or an underhanded activist at worst.
And frankly, I believe that same-sex marriage supporters were banking on this all along. To simply get a friendly state to pass the law is all they would need, and then claim “comity” to make it a de facto law in the other 49 states. Never mind the people and their constitutions.
Technorati Tags: same-sex marriage, gay marriage, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri, Patrick C. Lynch, Margaret R. Chambers, Cassandra B. Ormiston, comity
Filed under: Culture • Government • Homosexuality • Marriage
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I find it interesting that Mr. Payton insists on putting marriage and married in quotes. According to MA law this couple is married, not “married.” This continued use of quotes, especially, in the case of same-sex couples that are legally married, is just plain silly. There are more mature ways to express disagreement and use of
quotes don’t make these marriages any less legal or valid.
And speaking of the people and their constitutions, since the original 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, there have been two elections (2004 and 2006) where the people of Massachusetts had the opportunity to express their opinions through their vote. Results: all of the incumbents who support same-sex marriage were re-elected and numerous incumbents who are against same-sex marriage were defeated by pro-same-sex marriage challengers. There have also been numerous failed attempts to amend the MA Constitution, but these attempts have failed. In June 2007 the MA Legislature voted 151-45 against the proposed amendment.
Looks like the Court, the Legislature, and the people have spoken.
Good afternoon! Thanks for bringing another great conservative perspective to the web. I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (gophub.com) and thought you might be interested. Anything you can do to help get the word out would be awesome, plus you can post any articles you write on your blog on it, and help get a few extra visitors here on your blog. Take care and have a great weekend!
Mr. Spector, in Massachusetts they have spoken. Not in Rhode Island. Or, more specifically, they have spoken and currently don’t want it. This is a case of one party (Democrats) trying to force an issue solely because of what a nearby state is doing, by whatever back-door means necessary.
As much as Christians and conservatives get accused of this by the left, one would hope the left would notice it when they’re doing it. One would be wrong.