|
 Rhode Island Supreme Court Mulls Gay Divorces
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: October 9, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET
(Providence, Rhode Island) Same-sex marriage is
not on the table but Rhode Island's highest court Tuesday began considering
whether a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts can divorce.
Justices heard oral arguments Tuesday from
lawyers for each of the two women. But the court refused to hear arguments
from either the state or from conservative religious groups.
The case involves Margaret R. Chambers and
Cassandra B. Ormiston who were married in Massachusetts in 2004.
The marriage was never recognized in their home
state of Rhode Island.
Last year the women filed for divorce in
Providence, citing "irreconcilable differences".
Rhode Island has no specific law banning same-sex
marriage. But the Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. said he
did knot know if he could rule without taking up the issue of marriage and asked
the Supreme Court justices to determine if he has the authority to hear the
case. (story)
The high court sent the issue back to Jeremiah
seeking additional clarification of the issues and the judge returned a single
question to the justices: "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?"
By keeping the issue to only the divorce, the
high court sidesteps the broader issue of whether Rhode Island's lack of
specific legislation barring same-sex marriage would allow gays to marry or
force the state to recognize those marriages performed in areas where they are
legal.
Although the justices refused to hear oral
arguments from anyone but attorney's for the two women seeking the divorce, the
court sought out and accepted legal briefs from socially conservative groups,
the governor and the attorney general.
In separate briefs Gov. Don Carcieri and Attorney
General Patrick C. Lynch each argued that that the two issues - marriage and
divorce - can be considered separately.
But even though they agreed the issue of marriage
and that of divorce could be examined by the justices separately they also
spelled out differing views on same-sex marriage.
"Marriage as a legal union of one man and
one woman is clearly the bedrock of Rhode Island family law," said the
brief submitted by Carcieri, a Republican and a Roman Catholic.
Lynch who also is Catholic but a Democrat told
the court that "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."
His brief goes on to argue that "Rhode
Island’s case law and legislative enactments do not support such a
finding."
Lynch, in his brief argued that under the comity
provisions of the US Constitution, gay marriages from areas where they currently
are legal must be considered legal in Rhode Island.
In its brief to the court the conservative Family
Research Council argued that just because there is no specific law banning
same-sex marriage it does not mean the state can hear the case.
"Following the logic of the appellants and
their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be
permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not
expressly prohibited it," the brief said.
The Alliance Defense Fund, another conservative
group that regularly fights LGBT issues invoked Lewis Carroll's book in which
Humpty Dumpty says: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to
mean — neither more nor less."
"Appellants and their supporting cast have
taken the Humpty Dumpty approach to the term ‘marriage,’ nowhere defining
what they mean by it, obviously assuming it means something other than a union
of a man and a woman, and using it with a malleability never contemplated by the
judicial decisions they cite,” the brief said. “This is unequivocally true
for Rhode Island. ‘Marriage’ in Rhode Island is not ambiguous and only means
the union of one man and one woman — no more and no less," the ADF brief
said.
The court gave no indication when it would rule.
©365Gay.com 2007
|
Entertainment
