With New York State's recent legalization of gay marriage, it is a good time to discuss another pressing issue; that is the problem of same sex divorce. Many same sex couples travel to states which have legalized same sex marriage or to a Canadian province in order to get married. These couples will face a number of difficulties if their marriage breaks down, and it is an issue that not many groups are focused on at this juncture. The need for same sex divorce is becoming a major problem and further emphasizes the need for marital equality through the United States.
A Limping Marriage
This difficulty stems from a phenomenon known as limping marriages. A limping marriage occurs when a couple becomes validly married in one jurisdiction which has no gender requirements under the Marriage Act, and then goes to another jurisdiction which does not recognize their marriage. They are married in one jurisdiction, and not in another; this is a limping marriage. A same-sex couple who travels to one jurisdiction and gets married is legally married in that jurisdiction but gains none of the benefits or corresponding responsibilities a married couple would have in their home state. One of the most important parts of a marriage that a same-sex couple does not receive in their home state is the ability to get a divorce.
The Divorce Problem
While it may sound counter-intuitive, divorce is one of the most important aspects of marriage. Normally, upon the break down of a marriage, the couple would divorce and follow their jurisdiction's system for dividing up assets and establishing custody and support. However, for same-sex couples in jurisdictions which do not recognize their marriage they are faced with the difficult prospect of trying to divide a life built together without the tools to fairly distribute the pieces of that life. Spouses are left without the necessary protection to obtain the support they need to transition into a new life, and children do not have the protection of the courts to ensure that custody arrangements are in their best interest. While same-sex couples have developed a number of alternative options; these are legally complicated and difficult to implement. Perhaps most distressingly, they require very close cooperation between the parties, which is impossible when the spouses are acrimonious or abusive.
The Need for Reform
Ultimately, the only way to address this problem is for the United States to finally and unequivocally recognize marital equality. Many jurisdictions in the United States expect same sex couples to return to the jurisdiction in which they were married in order to become divorced. This is not as simple as it sounds; in Ontario, Canada, the Divorce Act requires at least one of the individuals to be a resident in the province. Becoming a resident would require that person to stay in the province for a year; leaving their home, career, and life behind. Further, due to Canadian visa requirements; it would be unlikely that they could legally work during that time. This is clearly, not an option for most people. Some individuals state that Ontario needs to do more to warn same-sex couples who marry in the province about the consequences of their limping marriage. It is difficult to believe this will be very effective. Relatively few individuals willing to travel to another jurisdiction in order to enter into a valid marriage are likely to believe that their marriage will eventually break down and they will need a divorce.
Follow Andrew Feldstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andrewfeldstein
Serene Jones: Why I'm Not Marrying Any Gay Couples on July 25
Henry Gornbein: The New York Laws Regarding Same Sex Marriages What Will it Mean ?
Frederick Hertz: Wyoming Opens the Doors to Same-Sex DIvorce
I wouldn't give up what we have together for anything. I love him too much and he (and now our son) make my life the happiest it has ever been. You HAVE to want marriage and the benefits that comes with it.
Look, if you believe in "one man, one woman" then fine, keep it in your church. Just don't expect the government to give you benefits as it will discriminate against others. If you're a hetero/homo couple that isn't religious, just have a lawyer draft up any contract you want..."We, the signed, agree to stay committed to each other for life...if not we will divide the assets as such..." whatever you want. Let's get the government out of this promoting a "best" lifestyle business. There is NO BEST lifestyle in the eyes of the government (or at least there should NOT be). In the eyes of some churches, yes, you can believe what you want like hetero couples are the best and only lifestyle. Freedom of religion is guaranteed as long as you don't harm others. But don't expect the rest of us (or government) who don't believe in your religion to accept your logic. Maybe 2 women and 3 men want to all get married. Hey, whatever works for you.
In the end, the easiest solution is to get government out all together. NO BENEFITS for ANYONE. If you want a legal contract that commits you to life with another person (or group of people) because you think that makes your commitment stronger, then draft up a standard "lifetime union" contract.
Divorce is a possible reality in any marriage regardless gender. The author is just pointing out some extra difficulties that same sex couples face and might not be aware of it. Needless to say, I don't think these facts will prevent anyone from getting married in Canada or elsewhere, and besides is a great deal of helpful information to know in any case.
For those non-religious types that want some type of "lifetime contract" with another person (any sex) or number of people (not just couples, which would also be discriminatory), then they go find any lawyer to draft up any kind of contract they want that would legally bind them to stay committed to each other, similar to marriage law today. Nothing is stopping them from doing so and the lawyers would love the business.
So I agree with you in a lot of ways. Keep government out of recognzing a "best lifestyle" and let consenting adults choose the lifestyle for them. If they want lawyers to get involved and contracts to be signed because they think it makes their union stronger, so be it. But the government stays out of it. And only the courts get involved if there someone violates the contract, just like any legal issue.
I wrote an article on the civil rights that legal gay marriage provides; at the bottom of the article I list all of the rights that are denied to gays and lesbians when they are not allowed to legally marry. In turn, it only makes sense that they should also be able to dissolve them when getting divorced.
Thus the problem is not divorce, the problem is that they are not allowed to marry in all 50 states-
http://www.holisticwisdom.com/homosexual-gay-marriage.htm
But I think we both know it simply doesn't work that way. What you're suggesting is that, if I want to marry, I should find a woman and lie to her, lead her to believe we will be happy and satisfied together and then marry me. Maybe, if I really want to cause some trouble, we can have children together. Does this really seem like the kind of "family value" you want to encourage? Marriages built on lies where one partner doesn't even love or feel attraction to the other?
Not good.
in a civil union ...not a Marriage Union....If society wants to allow it ....render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ...Render unto God what is Gods.... Don't call it marriage.....
In states that do not permit same-sex marriage, gay couples can dissolve their marriages by seeking and receiving judicial annulments or declarations of nullity in lieu of a divorce. Those judgments are entitled to constitutionally mandated recognition everywhere, including in states that allow same-sex marriage. While those judgments do not deal with disputes over dividing their assets--meaning the couples themselves will have to voluntarily resolve those disputes--the couples will not be trapped in a marriage. The marriage itself can be dissolved.
The fact of the matter is that many, (if not most) Gay couples who are going to do this have been in their committed relationships for years.
My partner and I are have been together for 20 plus years. We are legally married in his home country, The Netherlands, and will be doing the same in my, our home state New York in the fall.
To quote a line from Funny Girl..[Don't Rain on My [our] Parade.
the biggest problem with gay marriage was when both grooms wanted to wear the same wedding dress
; )
1. Give everyone all the same government benefits as current hetero couples (religious or non-religious couples) have
2. Remove those current benefits that government provides to only hetero couples.
Both offer an equal end state for all couples. The one that gay marriage proponents advocate is #1 when I think the best approach is #2. #1 has many problems including where do you stop? Why can only TWO people get married? Why not more? The government would still be discriminating. In addition, single people are discriminated against because they don't get the same tax breaks and other benefits. It goes on and on. Going with option #2 makes us all equal again. And if you want to draft a legal contract up with someone else, go for it. It can include arbitration and anything else you want it to include. The government stays out of it.
So what gay marriage proponents should be fighting for is removal of government benefits from hetero couples because it is discriminatory (and it is) instead of trying to get the same benefits that were illegally given in the first place. And the reason they argue for Option #1 and not Option #2 is because Option #1 gives them more money/rights due to government benefits. "Hey, if they get a handout, I want one too!" instead of "Hey, hetero couples are getting a handout they shouldn't be getting so stop giving them one!"