ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2007/12/sneaking-around-law.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2007/12/sneaking-around-law.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.lo3x×[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈÐ( îDOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip (àîDÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 19:15:01 GMT"ef995854-151a-402a-a1a1-34c0afee8e9b"¬ZMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *×[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÎkîD Dakota Voice: Sneaking Around the Law?

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, December 10, 2007

Sneaking Around the Law?

Court Rules Against Same-Sex Divorce
By KATIE ZEZIMA
BOSTON, Dec. 7 — The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts, the only state that allows same-sex marriage, may not divorce in Rhode Island.

In a 3-to-2 decision, the court ruled that it was up to the legislature, not the court, to determine whether same-sex marriages and divorces would be recognized in Rhode Island.

The court said its role was “not to determine policy, but simply to determine legislative intent.”

The ruling said, “The General Assembly has not granted the Family Court the power to grant a divorce in the situation described.”

The decision came in the case of Cassandra B. Ormiston and Margaret R. Chambers, who were married in May 2004 in Fall River, Mass., a week after the state legalized same-sex marriage. Ms. Chambers filed for divorce in October 2006 in Rhode Island, citing irreconcilable differences.


Color me wondering but....

If Rhode Island determined to recognize the above-mentioned divorce, wouldn't it then be likewise recognizing same-sex marriage as a legal and binding union?

Was someone trying to sneak around the law?


0 comments:

 
Clicky Web Analytics