(no subject)
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deelaundryThis clear example of why we should just go ahead and make gay marriage legal on the federal level (from AP) made me think of Wilson:
Man must pay partnered ex-wife alimony
LOS ANGELES - A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.
California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.
An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.
The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."
Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.
Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
"If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said.
Man must pay partnered ex-wife alimony
LOS ANGELES - A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.
California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.
An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.
The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."
Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.
Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
"If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-25 09:26 am (UTC)Here in South Africa we (finally) got civil unions at the end of last year, which apply to everyone, regardless of their sex - and can take the form of either a marriage or civil partnership (whichever you prefer). It's a weird, partially redundant act, in that it now stands in addition to (rather than replacing) the existing marriage act - which applies only to straight people - but the rationale, I think, was to give the right-wing nutters something to hold onto until such time as they enter the modern world/die out.
It's just frustrating that it took the law such a long time to catch up with the constitution. I guess that's just the nature of the legal system.