Here's a twist: Gay couple can't get DIVORCED!

[tazber]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 2:27am

This is one of those cases that I never thought about until it happened.

legal limbo

Updated On: 12/8/07 at 02:27 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:57am

If 49 states don't recognize their marriage and they don't live in the only one that does, can't they just break up and consider themselves divorced? There's nothing legally binding to their relationship, so what difference does it make at this point?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:59am

It's the principle.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 4:07am

and the division of assets.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 12:46pm

If you also register as a domestic partner in California, a domestic partner is the same as a spouse for community property purposes. I believe that you have to notify that the partnership is terminating in order to get a "divorce" for property purposes.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:10pm

and also to stop medical benefits, etc

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:17pm

Yep.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:23pm

not that I'd ever do that, hehehehehehe

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:25pm

It is funny, I was researching the very issue regarding some business processes where I work, and I informed folks that domestic partnerships in California are treated the same as marriage for community property purposes (as well medical benefits and other rights granted to a partner when registered) and folks were surprised.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:29pm

yup....apparently a lot of people don't know that

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:30pm

BTW - Happy Holidays Scott!

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 3:38pm

you too, D

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 4:35pm

If division of the assets is a problem, then they do like every other couple that are not legally married (because as far as Rhode Island is concerned, they're not) and work it out themselves. None of you have broken up from a longterm relationship before and had to argue over who gets the apartment/dog/season 2 Buffy DVDs?


I understand that "it's the principle", but they shouldn't use gay divorce as some roundabout way of legalizing gay marriage.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 6:47pm

So if you and your husband went in together and bought a car, and have both names on the loan, how exactly would you divide that?
What about a mortgagae? Could one of you take say, the kitchen and the other the living room?
The likelihood of an amicable and fair allocation of property by two people without a judge is slim to none. This isn't about who gets the Madonna cds and who gets the porn stash.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 7:49pm

Palimony cases are based upon contract law, and (if my memory serves me) a contractual offer to provide support in lieu of someone giving up a career or working - and they are hard to win.

I believe there are domestic partnership laws in California, DC, Maine, Oregon, Washington have forms of domestic partnership laws, New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont have Civil Unions laws (with New Hampshire in 1/200 and Mass has full marriage.

There are legal presumptions that come with a commitment to spend your life with someone, so I think to compare it to a long-term relationship is to trivialize the issue for those who want to make a commitment. Division of property, when a couple splits, is not something you can always do without the assistance of a a neutral third party. Also, certain states have rules that one you file for divorce, certain things happen. For example, if you named your spouse as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy, that designation is presumed invalid unless confirmed post-separation.

It is a valid question and concern about how the legal community will handle these relationships as they break apart, and what analogies, if any, will be drawn to legal marriage.

If someone was married in a commitment ceremony without registering as a domestic partner or as a civil union, it will get even more interesting and confusing for those involved. We have already seen that the law has not caught up to reality with such things as same sex parents divorcing, where one parent is the biological parent and the other is not.

And, for the record, in states with domestic partners, it is not limited to same-sex partners - it can be a heterosexual couple that does not believe in the institution of marriage that is now breaking up.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 9:24pm

I understand that "it's the principle", but they shouldn't use gay divorce as some roundabout way of legalizing gay marriage.

Why would you care why gay marriage was legalized as long as it was legalized? I am presuming you are in favor of gay marriage, but if I'm incorrect than this is moot.

They were legally married. They should be allowed to legally divorce, without having to establish residency again in the state in which they were married. If the government really> wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage they should take note. Imagine if straight couples had to return to the state in which they wed to divorce. It would keep a lot more straight people married. I do accept that there is NO BIGGER THREAT to heterosexual marriage than gay marriage, though.

Nothing seems to make people go more batsh*t crazy than gay marriage, though, so this should add some fuel to the Huckabee campaign.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 11:04pm

The only thing that might get a Republican President elected in 2008 is Adam & Steve in court fighting over who gets custody of the butt plug.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 11:26pm

tazber, my friend was in a relationship with his boyfriend for 20 years. They owned a house and two cars together, and every single one of their financial accounts was joint. They broke up. They had to work out the mortgage, the car payments, separating the accounts, house custody, as well as the "Madonna cds and the porn stash". They did it all without a judge mediating or divorce laws to ease the process. There are probably countless situations regarding the dissolution of longterm (decade-plus, since people apparently need clarification that this term isn't "trivializing") relationships going on around the country as we speak and they're forced to work it out as best they can.

If their main concern is equitable division of the assets, they should use those lawyers referenced in the article to sort out that problem instead of using this divorce as a way to force the legalization of gay marriage in Rhode Island. Yeah, that will make it legal in THEIR state, but 48 other states still have their own battles to fight. They don't need this kind of PR for opposers to beat into the ground as an example of disrespect towards the sanctity of marriage (hypocritical or not) to dissuade other states from legalizing it.

[DG]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 11:37pm

20 years? Boyfriend?

I realize it's just semantics, but honestly . . .

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 11:42pm

They weren't married. They didn't want to call themselves something they weren't.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 12:35am

I know the preferred word choice of many is "partner," but that just doesn't work for me.

I still think the women should have the right to have their marriage legally dissolved in the state in which they reside. I'm sure it seems like a pretend marriage to most people on the outside, but I'm sure it feels pretty real to them.