After all that fuss to get married.....

Cypress said:
I could be wrong about this, but running away to another state doesn't mitigate legal issues involved with divorce under Rhode island law. Things like custody or alimony.

Hmmm...I wonder if I could avoid alimony if I ran away from california? (just kidding)
Click to expand...
However the Defense of Marriage Act specifically exempts Rhode Island, or any other state for that matter, from recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in another state. A state cannot give a divorce for a marriage that is not recognized.

As I said before, this is an attempt to force other states to recognize those marriages. It isn't like people who live in RI couldn't drive over to Mass.
 
Cypress said:
I was just kidding. Only scumbags would scheme ways to get out of alimony or child support payments.
Click to expand...
As far as I know you either would have to have married here or live here in order to file the divorce regardless. But heck, I'm no expert in divorce law. I can't even foresee one in my future.
 
Damocles said:
There is this law, the "Defense of Marriage Act" that specifically excepts these marriages....

You are being disingenuous and basing arguments from ignorance. Educate yourself before attempting to "insult" others with dry sarcasm that doesn't just miss the mark, but is based in total ignorance of the subject and based wrongly on actual application and law.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the Defense of Marriage Act invalidates the constitution. The law is unconstitutional. It was an appeal for votes by desperate Republicans who know it won't stand up to a real court challenge.
 
Damocles said:
As far as I know you either would have to have married here or live here in order to file the divorce regardless. But heck, I'm no expert in divorce law. I can't even foresee one in my future.
Click to expand...

I've heard some celebrities even get very quick divorces in Mexico, come back home, and the divorce is recongnized. I'm going to be a lawyer one day, and I'll get back to you on it. It's going to take about a decade though. :)
 
Watermark said:
I don't see how the Defense of Marriage Act invalidates the constitution. The law is unconstitutional. It was an appeal for votes by desperate Republicans who know it won't stand up to a real court challenge.
Click to expand...
Basically, what they are trying to do is get a ruling on that law with this divorce.
 
Damocles said:
If the state doesn't recognize the marriage at all, then there is nothing to dissolve.

Say, Mr. IMarriedFourFourteenYearOldGirls moved to RI and tried to "divorce" them all, what would happen to him? Would he simply go to jail for his idiocy or would they grant 'divorces' to marriages that they don't recognize?
Click to expand...
No no no kids. Marriages that are legal in other states between heteros are recognized in other states under the full faith and credit clause. Let's say Mr. IMarriedAFourteenYearOldGirl moves to Rhode Island with his bride now 20, and she wants a divorce. She cannot claim the marriage was void under Rhode Island Law IF the Marriage was valid in the state in which they were married. In some states, with permission, 14 and 15 year olds can get married (Alabama for example: Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry. ) For further reference go to http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

So these two people come to Rhode Island (Which also DOES allow marriage if you are under 16 but with approval of a family court judge) from Alabama and there were married according to the laws of Alabama. Rhode Island MUST grant them a divorce if they meet the residency requirements. This is what the whole Loving v. Virgina case helped establish with inter-racial marriages. So long as the marriage (between 1 man and 1 woman) was valid in one state then ALL states MUST recognize the marriage.

This is where a real serious question of equal protection arrises in states that say by law or state Constitutional amendment that they will not recognize same sex marriages. Those laws and Amendments would be uncontitiutional if they said they would not recognize marriages between races or different religious beliefs. But so far the RR Conservatives once again don't think that equal protection applies to those perverse queers. Real nice freedom lovers those RR conservos.
 
"This is where a real serious question of equal protection arrises in states that say by law or state Constitutional amendment that they will not recognize same sex marriages. Those laws and Amendments would be uncontitiutional if they said they would not recognize marriages between races or different religious beliefs. But so far the RR Conservatives once again don't think that equal protection applies to those perverse queers. Real nice freedom lovers those RR conservos."

Which is my point. This 'divorce' is forcing a look at the Defense of Marriage Act.

Is the state forced to grant a divorce to a marriage they have been exempted from recognizing by another law?

We keep running into that particular law, and that is what I believe that this divorce is all about. Especially considering that those who live in Rhode Island have no hardship driving over to Mass.
 
Damocles said:
"This is where a real serious question of equal protection arrises in states that say by law or state Constitutional amendment that they will not recognize same sex marriages. Those laws and Amendments would be uncontitiutional if they said they would not recognize marriages between races or different religious beliefs. But so far the RR Conservatives once again don't think that equal protection applies to those perverse queers. Real nice freedom lovers those RR conservos."

Which is my point. This 'divorce' is forcing a look at the Defense of Marriage Act.

Is the state forced to grant a divorce to a marriage they have been exempted from recognizing by another law?

We keep running into that particular law, and that is what I believe that this divorce is all about. Especially considering that those who live in Rhode Island have no hardship driving over to Mass.
Click to expand...
However, with the exception of Nevada which will grant divorces on short notice every other state has a 90 to 180 day residency requirement for divorce. Also State courts in many states cannot issue orders about property division when that property in located in another state. ALSO ALL states have a 6 month residency requirement over children born or adopted during a marriage. SO if the lesbians have lived in Rhode Island for 8 months and have a child together either by adoption or of the marriage, then Mass has no jurisdiction over the custody of that child. So once again the LAW is used to create an injustice on the same sex married couple that NO man/woman marriage is subject to there for violating the equal protection clause of the same sex couple based SOLEY on the gender of the two parties who are married. But like I said the RR Conservo has NO PROBLEM denying the perverted queers rights.
 
Socrtease said:
However, with the exception of Nevada which will grant divorces on short notice every other state has a 90 to 180 day residency requirement for divorce. Also State courts in many states cannot issue orders about property division when that property in located in another state. ALSO ALL states have a 6 month residency requirement over children born or adopted during a marriage. SO if the lesbians have lived in Rhode Island for 8 months and have a child together either by adoption or of the marriage, then Mass has no jurisdiction over the custody of that child. So once again the LAW is used to create an injustice on the same sex married couple that NO man/woman marriage is subject to there for violating the equal protection clause of the same sex couple based SOLEY on the gender of the two parties who are married. But like I said the RR Conservo has NO PROBLEM denying the perverted queers rights.
Click to expand...
If such things were the subject of the 'divorce' there are plenty of laws already on the books to deal with who gets the child, child custody could be taken care of without resorting to forcing a state to recognize the marriage and then grant a divorce. You and I both know that this isn't what the divorce is about.

The point of this 'divorce' is to question the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. If all it was to do is divide up property they could use the same laws that live-in couples without marriage use.
 
Damocles said:
If such things were the subject of the 'divorce' there are plenty of laws already on the books to deal with who gets the child, child custody could be taken care of without resorting to forcing a state to recognize the marriage and then grant a divorce. You and I both know that this isn't what the divorce is about.

The point of this 'divorce' is to question the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. If all it was to do is divide up property they could use the same laws that live-in couples without marriage use.
Click to expand...
Well I am glad to see that you agree with the RR Conservos that MARRIED couples who happen to both have the same set of genitalia should not be protected by our family laws.

In a state that recognizes same sex marriage a child born or adopted of that marriage would be a child BY LAW of both women. But you want other states to deny one parent her right to custody because that one parent has the same sex organs as the other parent. In states where one is not the BIOLOGICAL parent of a child but rather just some one that hangs aaround and raises the child that person has no rights over the biological parent. They are just a friend. They get no court ordered visitation, they aren't ordered to support that child. So the child, at the end of the relationship loses a valuable part of their life. EVERY states child custody laws recognize the right of the child to have BOTH parents involved in its life. Now with the adopted child that will be less of a problem, but in a state that recognizes same sex marriage a child created by artificial insemination and born of the marriage is a child of both women and should be affored his or her RIGHT to have both parents involved in the raising and support of that child.

But because some of you are as uncomfortable with two women being married as the citizens of Virginia were with a black man being married to a white woman, rights should be denied.
 
Socrtease said:
Well I am glad to see that you agree with the RR Conservos that MARRIED couples who happen to both have the same set of genitalia should not be protected by our family laws.

In a state that recognizes same sex marriage a child born or adopted of that marriage would be a child BY LAW of both women. But you want other states to deny one parent her right to custody because that one parent has the same sex organs as the other parent. In states where one is not the BIOLOGICAL parent of a child but rather just some one that hangs aaround and raises the child that person has no rights over the biological parent. They are just a friend. They get no court ordered visitation, they aren't ordered to support that child. So the child, at the end of the relationship loses a valuable part of their life. EVERY states child custody laws recognize the right of the child to have BOTH parents involved in its life. Now with the adopted child that will be less of a problem, but in a state that recognizes same sex marriage a child created by artificial insemination and born of the marriage is a child of both women and should be affored his or her RIGHT to have both parents involved in the raising and support of that child.

But because some of you are as uncomfortable with two women being married as the citizens of Virginia were with a black man being married to a white woman, rights should be denied.
Click to expand...
LOL. You make assumptions about my opinion how? Each and every time another lefty attempts to give me an opinion they are wrong. Yet you all keep trying... It is pitifully weak to attempt to do so when you are so invariably wrong. If you want my opinion on something then ask for it.

I simply can see exactly what they are trying to do by forcing a divorce. Do I support their effort? Yes. I do.

That doesn't change what I see happening here. The reason they do not apply the laws that would apply to them for a "marriage" that doesn't exist according to the state (those same laws that apply to opposite sex couples who live together without marriage would apply) is because they hope to force a ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage act and laws that deny the recognition of their marriage in other states.

Now, do you plan on attempting to give me another opinion that isn't based in reality or on anything that I have stated?
 
Also live in couples who buy property like cars together, that is they both pay for the car have to jump through far more hoops to prove they paid for the car and helped with the up keep if that car is in only one person's name ( which happens alot when only ONE PERSON can get the financing) but in a marriage, if the car was purchased with community assets then it is community property. You don't have to jump through the hoops to prove that you have a possessory right, you do by law. Again, you just don't have a problem with making life harder on couples who were legally married in one state but another state doesn't want to recognize the marriage because both people in the marriage have a penis.
 
Socrtease said:
Also live in couples who buy property like cars together, that is they both pay for the car have to jump through far more hoops to prove they paid for the car and helped with the up keep if that car is in only one person's name ( which happens alot when only ONE PERSON can get the financing) but in a marriage, if the car was purchased with community assets then it is community property. You don't have to jump through the hoops to prove that you have a possessory right, you do by law. Again, you just don't have a problem with making life harder on couples who were legally married in one state but another state doesn't want to recognize the marriage because both people in the marriage have a penis.
Click to expand...
Again, you attempt to give me an opinion when I have said nothing to ascertain that I have such an opinion. I have given a reason why I believe that they are working to force the state to recognize the marriage and thus grant a divorce.

At least read my posts before getting all huffy and pretending you have a moral high ground.

If you argue this way in court, then I doubt you are very successful as a lawyer. Can you get your emotions all over the board any more than this? It's getting all sticky.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. You make assumptions about my opinion how? Each and every time another lefty attempts to give me an opinion they are wrong. Yet you all keep trying... It is pitifully weak to attempt to do so when you are so invariably wrong. If you want my opinion on something then ask for it.

I simply can see exactly what they are trying to do by forcing a divorce. Do I support their effort? Yes. I do.

That doesn't change what I see happening here. The reason they do not apply the laws that would apply to them for a "marriage" that doesn't exist according to the state (those same laws that apply to opposite sex couples who live together without marriage would apply) is because they hope to force a ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage act and laws that deny the recognition of their marriage in other states.

Now, do you plan on attempting to give me another opinion that isn't based in reality or on anything that I have stated?
Click to expand...
But under the full faith and credit clause the states HAVE to recognize legal marriages performed in other states EXCEPT if the two people are the same sex. The laws you say they CAN use for custody and property place greater burdens on similarly situated couples (married) based soley on the gender of those married. The DOMA in a logical world not tainted by born again religious values would recognize no difference in the couples and apply the laws equally. That is what the problem is here and you don't seem to have an objection to it.
 
Socrtease said:
But under the full faith and credit clause the states HAVE to recognize legal marriages performed in other states EXCEPT if the two people are the same sex. The laws you say they CAN use for custody and property place greater burdens on similarly situated couples (married) based soley on the gender of those married. The DOMA in a logical world not tainted by born again religious values would recognize no difference in the couples and apply the laws equally. That is what the problem is here and you don't seem to have an objection to it.
Click to expand...
Which again was MY POINT. I believe that they are suing the state to grant a divorce because it will cause the case to decide the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

You keep not reading my posts and instead attempting to pretend you know my opinion.

Up until I stated, "Do I support their effort? Yes. I do." I had given no opinion of my own other than my opinion on the reason for the suit to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top