In Massachusettes, a new problem is challenging the legal system: same-sex divorce. This is a messy issue for many reasons: in cases of child custody, the maternal preference doesn't apply because there are either two mothers or none at all; it's hard for some couples to find lawyers familiar with how the law affects gay divorce; if a gay couple was married in Massachusettes, both people must remain residents in Massachusettes in order to get a divorce because other states may not grant divorces as they may not recognize the marriage in the first place; divorced same-sex couples can be financially ruined as the IRS does not recognize same-sex marriages and so the support money paid from one spouse to the other is not tax deductible, etc.
A good example of some of the complications the question of same-sex divorce presents is child custody--a child born to a heterosexual couple is considered a child of the marriage whether or not both spouses are its biological parents. However, a child in a homosexual marriage must be adopted by both spouses or else give up any legal attachment to the spouse that has not adopted it. Because of this rule, spouses have lost children that were not their biological offspring as well as child support money (because the other spouse had no legal obligation to the kid).
A further complication is seen through a lesbian couple who married in Massachusettes and then moved to Rhode Island. Although they now wish to get divorced, there is no way to do it unless they move back to Massachusettes and establish residency for one year before filing for divorce.
This raises a question debated between the presidential candidates in our election simulation - should the federal government intervene in this issue or stay out of it? Will leaving it to the states cause too much confusion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Same-sex divorce is a confusing situation, as well as same-sex marriage, so nobody should expect a solution any time soon. The states should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to allow same-sex marriage and divorce. But the problem with that is it will cause too much confusion. Right now, I am kind of confused by some of the things that Erika said. In the example of the lesbian couple, this kind of situation is going to happen more than once. But letting the states decide for themselves will not resolve the issue. So, I think that the federal government needs to think long and hard about coming up with its own solution that the states have to follow. I don't know what that solution is, but the federal government needs to make one.
Sorry for the confusion. I was actually a little confused too...but here's the article link in case anyone wants to take a further look.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101734.html?hpid=topnews
The moral of the story: don't get married and expect everlasting bliss -- relationships are complicated -- and please don't get married and then reveal yourself as someone who was just pretending to be cool in order to get some in the first place. Or, in the Massachusetts example, don't get married to make a political statement about gay rights unless you are totally committed to each other in the first place. Its a shame that so many marriages fail, and I suspect same sex couples will fare no better or worse than heterosexuals when it comes to making relationships work over the long term. Alas.
Post a Comment