Pa. judge refuses to grant woman same-sex divorce

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Philly.com/AP

READING, Pa. - A Pennsylvania judge has refused to divorce two women married last year in Massachusetts, leaving them in apparent limbo because they do not meet the residency required to divorce in the Bay State.

Berks County Judge Scott Lash said he could not grant a divorce to Carole Ann Kern and Robin Lynn Taney because their marriage is not recognized under Pennsylvania law.

"Relief under the divorce code can only be obtained by parties who are recognized to be married," Lash wrote in a ruling issued Thursday.

Kern, a Berks County resident, had filed a petition in October seeking to divorce Taney on grounds their marriage was irretrievably broken. The pair had married four months earlier in Brewster, Mass.

Massachusetts law has no residence requirement to marry, but requires couples seeking to divorce to have lived there for a year, a requirement they did not meet.


Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20100326_ap_pajudgerefusestograntwomansamesexdivorce.html

---

Jeez, just divorce them. They were legally married in another state.

[Libertas1776]

1. i don't understand

was their divorce denied because it was a same sex marriage or because they didn't meet the residency requirement? If its the latter, than I guess I would understand. If not than its bullshit on the part of Pennsylvania.

[brooklynite]

2. It's perfectly simple...

In order to prevent Gay Marriage from coming to Pennsylvania, they have to preserve Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania...

[vduhr]

8. I like that...ha ha ha ha!

[No Elephants]

23. LOL. Clever!

[RamboLiberal]

4. Because gay marriage is not legalized in PA

In fact we have some idiot Repubs in this state trying to put in constition this:

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, proposes to add these 20 words to the state constitution: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth."


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/pennsylvania_senate_committee.html

BTW, the measure failed.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Why don't they add the restriction to their Constittuion

that only allows marriages between those at least 16 years old?

They have to recognize marriages in other states even if it wasn't legal to marry in their state.

[marshall]

19. Has a married minor ever tried to get a divorce in a state where they couldn't get married?

I suppose it must have happened at some point. It would be interesting to drag that precendent out.

[Ms. Toad]

7. These being the key words: "recognized as a marriage"

AS I noted below - you can't end what doesn't exist. Sort of like sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "la-la-la-I can't hear you."

The sad reality is that from a legal perspective passing a law saying that "la-la-la-I can't hear you" is an effective means of denying the legal existence of something works unless the law (or the amendment) is declared unconstitutional.

[No Elephants]

24. Whodda thunk it would fail in Penn., but succeed in California?

[backtomn]

17. If I am correct........

At least one of the two was a PA resident, but they were married in MA because there is no residency requirement for marriage there. However, MA does have a residency requirement for divorce and, living in PA, they don't qualify. So, they tried to be divorced in PA, but could not because PA doesn't recognize the marriage in the first place. Head spinning yet??

The amusing (or not amusing) thing was that their marriage fell apart in 4 months. I guess crappy, poorly though-out marriages are equal opportunity.......equal opportunity to be miserable??? Geez.

[No Elephants]

22. They married in MA, but live in Penn.. Penn. won't grant the divorce and MA can't,

because they are not MA residents.

[Enrique]

3. protecting the sacred institution of divorce

I know my own divorce would feel less meaningful if these women were allowed to divorce.

[No Elephants]

29. Exactly. We must save the sacred institution of divorce from teh gay by keeping them married

against their will.

I believe God said that in the Bible. Well, no, He didn't, but I believe it anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Any same gender couple contemplating marriage -

that wasn't already aware of this, among the many legal quirks associated with a legal status that is not recognized everywhere - this is a real problem (and was actually key to recognition of many interstate relationships in the past - such as common law marriages). In the run-up to Ohio's 2004 election I had a website that set out several scenarios explaining the discrimination Ohioans were being urged to adopt - this very scenario was one of them.

From a legal perspective, most of the marriage discrimination amendments/laws bar state recognition of same gender marriages, regardless of where they were created - they want to make sure no couple can do what this couple did - go to someplace where it is legal, come back home and force state recognition of their marriage.

Here's how it impacts a divorce: to grant a divorce, the court must recognize that a marriage exists. You can't end what never existed (according to that state's law) - and if you recognize that the couple's marriage exists for any purpose, that opens the very floodgates the amendments were designed to hold closed.

When my spouse and I married in Canada (five years ago this month), one of the things we took into account was that we would probably not be able to divorce (not that we expected to need to - our 29th real anniversary is in a few months). We knew that if we ultimately decided to divorce, one of us would need to move to a state/country that recognized our marriage, establish the requisite residency, then initiate divorce proceedings.

It is an odd status - your marriage exists (regardless of state attempts to ignore that fact) because it is a quasi-contract between the couple and the governmental entity that created it. Without recognizing the marriage and pulling it into the marriage reciprocity rules, nothing any other state does can alter the couple's legal status. Playing games with refusing to recognize it creates a multitude of problems like this (and will ultimately create inheritance problems - one of the areas of law that was key to initially creating interstate recognition of marriages - such as recognition of common law marriages by a state that does not grant them, interracial marriages by a state that did not grant them, marriages between first cousins by a state that does not recognize them, etc.)

I have always found it a tad ironic - despite the accusations that our marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage, if heterosexuals had to live under the restrictions they impose on us there would be a lot fewer heterosexual divorces.

[joanmj]

10. Thank you

this very clear statement!:donut:

[Ms. Toad]

12. You're welcome. n/t

[BlueIris]

18. Great post! nt

[mike_c]

9. these women are trying to ruin my divorce....

I'm with the judge all the way on this one.

:sarcasm:

[musical_soul]

11. That's why this can't be a state issue.

This is ridiculous.

[donco6]

13. And exactly why marriage recognitions have always wound up being interstate.

On this issue, I think time will cure a lot of things. The old farts (such as myself) will die off and the more enlightened will look around and ask, "What the hell are we fussing over this for?"

I just wish it could happen sooner. I love my other half and would marry him in a heartbeat - after 14 years. Oh well. Maybe in my next life.

[No Elephants]

26. Marry in Massachusetts. (And don't be such an ageist!)

[hughee99]

14. What's the alternative?

Making it a federal issue, in which case the federal govt wouldn't allow same-sex unions in ANY state? Given the choice between the two, I'd rather have this on a state by state basis than a federal law right now.

When done on a state by state basis, the people of, say, Vermont were brave enough to allow for this. The people of MA, seeing that it did not, in fact, cause the gates of hell to open up, became more receptive to it. It's now legal in MA and is generally accepted, so there's not overwhelming support to overturn this. As people become educated about what actually will or won't happen (as opposed to the doom-and-gloom scenarios the religious right put it), it will spread to other states.

If we were waiting on the federal government to do it, it would not allowed anywhere, and we wouldn't even have these examples of states that have tried it to support the argument that it should be legal.

[musical_soul]

21. You're right.

I just wish it didn't have to be this complicated.

[No Elephants]

25. Massachusetts was the FIRST state to recognize same gender marriage.

Sorry, but I am very proud of Massachusetts for being the first.

Vermont may have been the first to create civil unions--not sure--but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts broke ground on marriage.

The SJC gave the MA Legislature the option of doing something else within six months, whereupon its decision would become effective automatically. Despite an onslaught from wackadoodles from other states (e.g., phone banking by folks with Southern accent), the Legislature never acted, so the court decision became law. The Legislature also did not act during the next session to overturn it, again despite all kinds of efforts by domestic and "outside agitators."

Romney tried to prevent people coming from other states to take advantage of the law by invoking a very old state statute tha was designed to prevent mixed race couples from coming from other states to marry here. But, the stench that arose from that statute eventually beat him back.

Since then, the issue just quieted down.

[Dappleganger]

30. Civil rights are a federal issue, which should be under the Constitution.

Enough of this crap where any bigoted judge or bigoted state can do whatever they want.

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. anyone getting a sex change should marry opp sex first... make gop heads explode!!!!

[No Elephants]

27. First, you'd have an "opposite marriage" and then, you wouldn't!

That dim California beauty pageant contestant would never be able to figure out whether she was for it or against it.

[cbdo2007]

16. Gay couples should be able to screw up their families through divorce just like straight couples do!

[marshall]

20. They can file under the current PA annulment law

But I hope they give their marriage another try. Four months is not very long.

[Morning Dew]

28. Like the old adage

Marry in Little Haste, MA

Repent in Leesport, PA

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. Full faith and credit clause, dude.

That's why a gay couple married in Mass. was granted a divorce after they moved to Texas.

Don't these judges know about the Full faith and credit clause? States must recognize marriages legally entered into in other states. Duh.

:banghead: