Comments on: Same Sex Couple in New York Allowed to Divorce http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/2008/10/27/same-sex-couple-in-new-york-allowed-to-divorce/ Divorce and Family Law News Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:28:39 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Evelyn Jean http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/2008/10/27/same-sex-couple-in-new-york-allowed-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-12770 Evelyn Jean Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:41:35 +0000 http://blog.totaldivorce.com/?p=248#comment-12770 The term same-sex relationship may be used when the sexual orientation of participants in a same-sex relationship is not known. Many same-sex couples are parents, often by way of adoption, donor insemination, foster parenting, or surrogacy. A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn’t recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren’t legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn’t get divorced. Chambers then tried filing for divorce in the state’s Superior Court, but last month a judge there ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions. A Massachusetts divorce isn’t an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there. <a href="http://www.nobsdivorceadviceguide.com/" rel="nofollow">Nobsdivorceadviceguide - Divorce,advice guide,divorce advice,financial future,couples</a> The term same-sex relationship may be used when the sexual orientation of participants in a same-sex relationship is not known. Many same-sex couples are parents, often by way of adoption, donor insemination, foster parenting, or surrogacy. A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn’t recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren’t legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn’t get divorced. Chambers then tried filing for divorce in the state’s Superior Court, but last month a judge there ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions. A Massachusetts divorce isn’t an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there.

Nobsdivorceadviceguide – Divorce,advice guide,divorce advice,financial future,couples

]]> By: Marion TD Lewis, Esq. http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/2008/10/27/same-sex-couple-in-new-york-allowed-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-12188 Marion TD Lewis, Esq. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:30:30 +0000 http://blog.totaldivorce.com/?p=248#comment-12188 I am wrestling with whether or not I advocate giving ALL people the right to marry, no matter what or who. I keep thinking, what if three or four people want to get married. Is that okay? What if somone wants to marry an animal? Should that be okay? Why isn't polygamy and bigamy okay if all adults are consenting? The trouble is, if the test is that adults are consenting, and that we should all be free to marry whomever we want, what argument could we make as a society to proscribe certain unions, such as those that involve more than two people, or those that involve people and animals, or people and things, or other constellations that we find objectionable? Isn't it hypocritical to say that only two people can get married at a time if same sex marriages are in fact given legal recognition? I mean, I sympathize, but I think it is a slippery slope. Once same sex marriages are okay, then it will open a flood gate of marital scenarios that I don't think society is prepared to handle. Either every body can marry whomever or whatever they want when they want (total complete freedom), or marriage should stay as it is now, between one man and one woman. It's the only rational way. I feel bad for genuine couples who can't get married, but the alternative is too dangerous. M. Lewis, Esq. I am wrestling with whether or not I advocate giving ALL people the right to marry, no matter what or who. I keep thinking, what if three or four people want to get married. Is that okay? What if somone wants to marry an animal? Should that be okay? Why isn’t polygamy and bigamy okay if all adults are consenting? The trouble is, if the test is that adults are consenting, and that we should all be free to marry whomever we want, what argument could we make as a society to proscribe certain unions, such as those that involve more than two people, or those that involve people and animals, or people and things, or other constellations that we find objectionable? Isn’t it hypocritical to say that only two people can get married at a time if same sex marriages are in fact given legal recognition? I mean, I sympathize, but I think it is a slippery slope. Once same sex marriages are okay, then it will open a flood gate of marital scenarios that I don’t think society is prepared to handle. Either every body can marry whomever or whatever they want when they want (total complete freedom), or marriage should stay as it is now, between one man and one woman. It’s the only rational way. I feel bad for genuine couples who can’t get married, but the alternative is too dangerous.

M. Lewis, Esq.

]]>