Homosexuals Seek Divorce in Rhode Island

Story >

Homosexuals Seek Divorce in Rhode Island

Special Report - October 12, 2007
In a controversy that could lead to the recognition of same-sex “marriage” in the nation’s smallest state, the Rhode Island Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 9 in a complaint filed by two lesbians seeking to have their “marriage,” which was solemnized in Massachusetts, legally ended in Rhode Island. The plaintiffs in the case, Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, obtained a marriage license in Massachusetts shortly after the State’s Supreme Judicial Court legalized homosexual unions in that state in 2004. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed for divorce in Rhode Island, where the issue of same-sex “marriage” is not specifically addressed in state law. A Family Court judge passed the issue along to the State Supreme Court, asking whether a same-sex couple could legally divorce in Rhode Island.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a pro-family legal organization, filed three friend-of-the-court briefs in the case stating that, under current circumstances, recognizing a same-sex divorce would “effectively redefine marriage in Rhode Island without a formal change in Rhode Island law.” In the briefs, ADF argued that the plaintiffs in the case could not invoke Rhode Island’s divorce law since they are not in a marriage relationship recognized under state law. ADF also made a definitional argument on the issue of marriage, stating, “For any governmental authority—whether this Court or a local government or a state legislature—to recognize same-sex relationships as entitled to bear the name ‘marriage’ is to change the fundamental and commonly-accepted legal meaning of that word.”

In related news, a similar case filed by a homosexual couple is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. According to an ADF news release, plaintiffs Cait O’Darling and Stephanie Griffith claimed to have obtained a “marriage” license in Toronto, Canada, and are now seeking a divorce in Oklahoma. In November 2004, Oklahoma voters approved by a three-to-one margin a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment specifically states that a marriage “between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.”

“These cases emphasize why passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment is so important,” said Tami Fitzgerald, staff attorney with the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “A federal constitutional amendment would prevent the kind of legal challenges we are seeing in Rhode Island and Oklahoma by doing away with different definitions for marriage in each state and defining marriage by a solidified national standard as being the union between a man and a woman only.”