In Some States, Gays Fight for Right to Divorce


#1

abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21059800&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2F

"The couple bought a house together in Walls, a town of about 1,100 in northern Mississippi's DeSoto County in June 2009. But the marriage was tumultuous and, like so many others, it didn't last.Czekala-Chatham, a 51-year-old credit analyst and mother of two teenage sons from an earlier straight marriage, filed for divorce in chancery court in September. She wants to force Mississippi to recognize the same-sex marriage for the purpose of granting the divorce.

"It's humiliating to know that you spend that money, that time to be in a committed relationship and for it to end. I mean, that hurts. But then to be in a state that doesn't recognize you as a human being, or recognize you for who you are, for who you love, it's hard," Czekala-Chatham said during an interview at her current home in Hernando. "I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen.""


#2

[quote="GreyRabbit, post:1, topic:346751"]
abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21059800&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2F

"The couple bought a house together in Walls, a town of about 1,100 in northern Mississippi's DeSoto County in June 2009. But the marriage was tumultuous and, like so many others, it didn't last.Czekala-Chatham, a 51-year-old credit analyst and mother of two teenage sons from an earlier straight marriage, filed for divorce in chancery court in September. She wants to force Mississippi to recognize the same-sex marriage for the purpose of granting the divorce.

"It's humiliating to know that you spend that money, that time to be in a committed relationship and for it to end. I mean, that hurts. But then to be in a state that doesn't recognize you as a human being, or recognize you for who you are, for who you love, it's hard," Czekala-Chatham said during an interview at her current home in Hernando. "I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen.""

[/quote]

There's no marriage...therefore, why would there need to be a divorce? Just quit "living in sin."


#3

I would like to see some research on the divorce rate among gays, because from what I heard their unions don't really last long.


#4

I don't understand the basis, as Mississippi does not recognize gay marriage. Is this person claiming a "common law" marriage?" I know that approach has succeeded in some states fir over 20 years, now.


#5

Did they get legally married in some other state?


#6

[quote="GreyRabbit, post:1, topic:346751"]
"I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen.""

[/quote]

She is being treated exactly like any neighbors who live together without being married.


#7

[quote="Johann_du_Toit, post:3, topic:346751"]
I would like to see some research on the divorce rate among gays, because from what I heard their unions don't really last long.

[/quote]

From the article:

One of the few large-scale studies addressing the question was conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Stanford University. He assessed the breakup rates among about 3,000 couples since 2009, and concluded there was little difference between gay couples and straight couples.

[quote="Dawnia, post:6, topic:346751"]
She is being treated exactly like any neighbors who live together without being married.

[/quote]

Also from the article:

She and Dana Ann Melancon traveled from Mississippi to San Francisco to get married in 2008.

So what exactly are you talking about?


#8

In the state she is living in, she could not legally marry so therefore she could not legally divorce. An unmarried person cannot receive a divorce. If she wants a divorce, I think she and her partner would have to go to a state that recognizes she is married in order to obtain it.

Honestly, I think she is just being used as a pawn in a big game to force a legal precedent. If the state of Mississippi recognizes her divorce, then they would, by default, recognize she was married. This would then set the precedent to legally fight for same sex "marriage" in that state. I think people know that this is a way to push for that in a state, so they intentionally try to start these "woe is me" campaigns to push an agenda.


#9

[quote="Iheartcoffee, post:8, topic:346751"]
In the state she is living in, she could not legally marry so therefore she could not legally divorce. An unmarried person cannot receive a divorce. If she wants a divorce, I think she and her partner would have to go to a state that recognizes she is married in order to obtain it.

Honestly, I think she is just being used as a pawn in a big game to force a legal precedent. If the state of Mississippi recognizes her divorce, then they would, by default, recognize she was married. This would then set the precedent to legally fight for same sex "marriage" in that state. I think people know that this is a way to push for that in a state, so they intentionally try to start these "woe is me" campaigns to push an agenda.

[/quote]

But she is not unmarried. Do you really see no hardship in having to establish residency in another state just to get a divorce? The fact they would have to take children out of school, leave jobs and move away from family and friends is not a hardship? You really need to explain that one. Because it sounds like you just don't understand the hardship.


#10

The whole thing is ridiculous. People tend to forget that civil marriage is licensed by a particular state. Not all states have reciprocity with licenses, and that is true with some marriage licenses. If the state doesn’t recognize your license, then you have basis for a dispute involving your license. Example: If I had a license in California, and tried to address an issue pertaining to that license in Florida, the licensing department in Florida would go tell me to contact the appropriate agency in CA and to have a nice day.

Mississippi has no jurisdiction in this particular matter.


#11

Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.


#12

[quote="Slavonic, post:9, topic:346751"]
But she is not unmarried. Do you really see no hardship in having to establish residency in another state just to get a divorce? The fact they would have to take children out of school, leave jobs and move away from family and friends is not a hardship? You really need to explain that one. Because it sounds like you just don't understand the hardship.

[/quote]

It is impossible for her to be married, unless she is married to a man. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. The Church says that it is impossible for her to be married, therefore it is impossible.

Simply because a few localities have taken it upon themselves to give sanction to a fraudulent simulation of this sacrament does not mean that any of us here are required to do so (in fact, it would be highly imprudent for any of us to do so).


#13

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

[/quote]

I have various licenses in issued by my state. No all are recognized by other states.

Furthermore, this issues pertaining to marriage vary by states; this is nothing new. A common example is common-law marriage. It might be recognized in the state on resides, but if they move to my state, it won't be.


#14

[quote="Slavonic, post:7, topic:346751"]
From the article:

Also from the article:

So what exactly are you talking about?

[/quote]

I would be skeptical of Michael Rosenfeld's research based on analyses of claims in a study on parenting that he did by Douglas Allen et

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-012-0169-x


#15

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage


#16

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage:eek:


#17

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage:cool:


#18

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage:rolleyes:


#19

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage:rolleyes::o:mad:


#20

[quote="didymus, post:11, topic:346751"]
Like it or not I don't see how states without gay marriage can avoid recognizing marriages entered into in other States:

One solution might be to let the Mississippi courts to allow the divorce to proceed under California law.

[/quote]

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57869.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 of CRS report for Congress

DOMA opponents take the position that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments. 31 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 32 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.”

As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.33 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State.

The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.34 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,35 Idaho,36 Illinois,37 Kansas,38 Missouri,39 Pennsylvania,40 South Carolina,41 and Tennessee42 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring out-of-state marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”43

Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage:(


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.