(no subject)

[deelaundry]

This 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.

Comments

[asynca.livejournal.com]

I will just point out that while I'm not aware of the laws in Orange County - in Australia, married people get tax breaks and extra benefits that domestic partners don't. So it actually wouldn't be so unfair for the husband to keep paying alimony here - because the female partners wouldn't be better off as a result of living together. In fact, they'd pay MORE tax.

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

Okay, this probably makes me a bitch, but my first thought was HA! If such a fucked-up system and society works in our favor on a rare occasion, so be it. I don't condone the ex continuing to accept alimony, but it's a bit amusing, and depending on what caused the divorce, I can't say I'd be above it.

That being said, the whole concept of alimony baffles me. I wouldn't let myself become financially dependent on a partner while we were together, let alone after we'd split. Finances should be settled at the time of the divorce. You're your own responsibility.

[thinlysliced.livejournal.com]

Interesting case. You'd think Kirkwood would be embarrassed still to be demanding his money when effectively married to someone else! Though, I guess, she is arguing that she'd do the same if she were married to another man. Still, it seems rather scummy of her, to me - and kind of undermining of the idea that her same-sex relationship should be taken to be equivalent to or the same as opposite-sex marriage

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.

[aribbonofblack.livejournal.com]

I think it's wrong of her to take the money, simply because it doesn't honor the partnership she has with her DP. This disgusts me as much as the rich African American kid who takes scholarship money based on affirmative action, or the adult child of wealthy parents who takes welfare simply because he can. I guess I believe in the spirit of the law more than the letter. I don't really understand why the gay rights people are not pissed off about this - because it's basically a ruling that says that homosexual partnerships aren't the same as marriage (although maybe they're glad because it points out the inequity - separate but equal just doesn't work).

I think this woman dishonors herself and her new spouse (partner?), and I guess that's all I have to say about it.

:(

Commentary from the lawyer...

[(Anonymous)]

That degree should be good for something, eh? :-) Anyway, it seems to me that this doesn't really have anything to do with gay marriage (which, by the way, I support 100%), but, rather, with interpretation of the parties' agreement. Key word here: "agreement," which the ex-husband signed, fair and square, knowing that under California law, a domestic partnership does not equal marriage. If the guy's mad at anyone, it should be his lawyer, who apparently did a lousy job of (a) negotiating this settlement, and (b) advising his client of the potential consequences.

Just my $0.02. :-)

Tammy