Judge Grants 'World's First' Gay Divorce.
A lesbian couple pose for a photo after a gay marriage in California. A court in Canada has granted what is believed to be the world's first same sex divorce to a lesbian couple, barely a year after Canada gave the green light for gays and lesbians to wed.
Sept. 14, 2004 - A Canadian court has approved what a lawyer claimed was the world’s first same-sex divorce after a judge ruled that the definition of spouses in the Divorce Act is unconstitutional.
The lesbian couple – identified in court documents only as JH and MM. – had been together for almost 10 years when they married in June 2003, shortly after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalised same-sex marriages. They separated just five days later.
Superior Court Justice Ruth Mesbur struck down the section of the Divorce Act that said only spouses – defined as a man and woman – can divorce.
“The definition of a spouse is unconstitutional, inoperative and of no force and effect,” she said.
Lawyer Martha McCarthy, who represented one of the women, said the ruling is historic.
“We believe that this is not just the first gay or lesbian divorce in Canada, but actually the first gay or lesbian divorce in the world,” she said outside court.
“It’s an important step when we talk about the legal landscape as it exists at the moment.”
In July, less than 24 hours after the couple’s divorce petition was publicised, the federal Justice Department conceded that excluding gays and lesbians from the definition of spouse in the Divorce Act would prohibit them from divorcing and was therefore unconstitutional.
“It would be absurd to say it’s legal to get married, but not divorced,” McCarthy said. “As usual, though, the federal government’s approach to all things involving same sex issues is, ‘If we can obfuscate and delay, we will.”’
McCarthy said the couple realised their marriage was a mistake and there was no reasonable possibility of reconciliation.
“They ironically believed marriage would solve their problems,” she said.
....... and they needed only five days to find out after being together almost 10 years ...... ???
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Britney Spears' two-day-old marriage to a childhood friend was dissolved Monday shortly after the pop superstar filed for an annulment, claiming she didn't fully understand what she was doing when she got hitched on the spur of the moment.
Clark County Family Court Judge Lisa M. Brown signed the order at 12:24 p.m., said Las Vegas attorney David Chesnoff, who was cleaning up after a weekend frolic between Spears and Jason Allen Alexander.
"There is no marriage now," Chesnoff told The Associated Press. "Jason agreed to this completely. They've made a wise decision. I know they care about each other. They are friends."
It took the judge about two hours to act on the "complaint for annulment" filed in Family Court shortly after 10 a.m.
"Plaintiff Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage," the annulment petition said.
The 22-year-old pop star married Alexander -- who hails from Spears' hometown of Kentwood, Louisiana -- about 5:30 a.m. Saturday at a Las Vegas wedding chapel. Alexander said he and Spears hatched the idea to get hitched early Saturday morning.
"It was just crazy, man," the 22-year-old told "Access Hollywood" in an interview at his home Monday morning. "And we were just looking at each other and said, 'Let's do something wild, crazy. Let's go get married, just for the hell of it.' "
According to the petition, "Before entering into the marriage the plaintiff and defendant did not know each other's likes and dislikes, each other's desires to have or not have children, and each other's desires as to state of residency. Upon learning of each other's desires, they are so incompatible that there was a want of understanding of each other's actions in entering into this marriage."
Ah, the sanctity of marriage... Let's hope the homosexuals won't despoil such an honored instution.
Originally posted by bbarr
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Britney Spears' two-day-old marriage to a childhood friend was dissolved Monday shortly after the pop superstar filed for an annulment, claiming she didn't fully understand what she was doing when she got hitched on the spur of the moment.
Clark County Family Court Judge Lisa M. Brown signed the order at 12:24 p.m., said Las Veg ...[text shortened]... ity of marriage... Let's hope the homosexuals won't despoil such an honored instution.
[/b]
The one event has NOTHING to do with the other. You seem to be missing the point.
.... ah I see, you joined the cavalry now .... glad to see you're still a warrior
Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course the two events are related, Ivanhoe. If they aren't related, then why do they appear together in this thread?
The one event has NOTHING to do with the other. You seem to be missing the point.
.... ah I see, you joined the cavalry now .... glad to see you're still a warrior
Originally posted by bbarr
Ah, the sanctity of marriage... Let's hope the homosexuals won't despoil such an honored instution.
I think Ivan's point is that when there is a problem in a relationship, marriage is not the solution. In this case the couple likely believed marriage would somehow solve their problems.
Originally posted by pcaspianGood point. I know a few homosexual couples that considered getting married after the initial court ruling that made it possible--couples whom I don't think would have seriously considered it otherwise. My guess is there will be a bunch of same-sex divorces resulting from weddings that happened shortly after they were allowed to marry.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Ah, the sanctity of marriage... Let's hope the homosexuals won't despoil such an honored instution.
I think Ivan's point is that when there is a problem in a relationship, marriage is not the solution. In this case the couple likely believed marriage would somehow solve their problems. [/b]
Originally posted by pcaspianActually, from what I've read it's unclear whether the divorce was a result of problems in the relationship, or if it was a political tactic. Check out the following article:
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Ah, the sanctity of marriage... Let's hope the homosexuals won't despoil such an honored instution.
I think Ivan's point is that when there is a problem in a relationship, marriage is not the solution. In this case the couple likely believed marriage would somehow solve their problems. [/b]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/samesexdivorce.html
Originally posted by richjohnsonWere these couples you know in long-term relationships? The women in this case were together for ten years prior to getting married. Seems a bit strange they would realize five days after their marriage that they no longer wanted to be together. It's possible, I guess, but it doesn't strike me as likely.
Good point. I know a few homosexual couples that considered getting married after the initial court ruling that made it possible--couples whom I don't think would have seriously considered it otherwise. My guess is there will be a bu ...[text shortened]... m weddings that happened shortly after they were allowed to marry.
Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, from what I've read it's unclear whether the divorce was a result of problems in the relationship, or if it was a political tactic. Check out the following article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/samesexdivorce.html
Which part makes you believe it was a political tactic ?
Originally posted by pcaspianThe fact they had been together for ten years prior to getting married makes me skeptical that they're actually separating. The following quote, from court documents, from one divorcee:
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Actually, from what I've read it's unclear whether the divorce was a result of problems in the relationship, or if it was a political tactic. Check out the following article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/samesexdivorce.html
Which part makes you believe it was a political tactic ?[/b]
"Same-sex couples are entitled to the equal respect, recognition and benefit of the law, including all family-law rights and obligations guaranteed to heterosexual couples".
Coupled with the fact that:
"Before the ruling in September 2004, when a gay married couple split up, the common-law rules applied. Under the law, there is no sharing of property when a common-law relationship ends, except jointly-owned property."
And now:
"Now that gay couples are allowed to divorce, general provincial laws dictate that each person involved in a divorce should have an equal share of property gained by the efforts of each partner. The contributions of a homemaker and an income-earner are treated the same. Some property is exempt, such as property owned before a marriage, gifts from someone else and inherited property."
Originally posted by bbarr
The fact they had been together for ten years prior to getting married makes me skeptical that they're actually separating. The following quote, from court documents, from one divorcee:
"Same-sex couples are entitled to the equal respect, recognition and benefit of the law, including all family-law rights and obligations guaranteed to heterosexual couples".
To clarify , you suggesting it is an attempt to gain media attention or rather an attempt to gain legal status for their relationship ? As they've seperated, would the latter be feasible ? I assume it is an amicable seperation afterall, thus what benefit would a legal title supply ?
Media attention could be I suppose, would be pretty immature and a slap in the face of all homosexual couples sincerely wishing to get married.
Originally posted by bbarrOne of them was (still is). I don't think it's that strange. Some couples might have simply jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon without thinking it over carefully. Sometimes people in long term (heterosexual) relationships don't get married because, even though they are living together and monogamous, the psychological strain of making a positive and public commitment is not appealing.
Were these couples you know in long-term relationships? The women in this case were together for ten years prior to getting married. Seems a bit strange they would realize five days after their marriage that they no longer wanted to be together. It's possible, I guess, but it doesn't strike me as likely.
Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, from what I've read it's unclear whether the divorce was a result of problems in the relationship, or if it was a political tactic. Check out the following article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/samesexdivorce.html
Bbarr: "Actually, from what I've read it's unclear whether the divorce was a result of problems in the relationship, or if it was a political tactic."
Bbarr, I'm sooo glad you brought this up. Now I cannot be accused of being paranoid or believing in "conspiracies". Thanks very much.
I hope you know understand better why I said you were missing the point posting that silly post of yours. This has NOTHING to do with my post. The fact that the two of us post in the same thread doesn't mean we are related .......or are we ? .... lol .....
Originally posted by pcaspianI assume it is an amicable seperation afterall, thus what benefit would a legal title supply ?
Originally posted by bbarr
The fact they had been together for ten years prior to getting married makes me skeptical that they're actually separating. The following quote, from court documents, from one divorcee:
"Same-sex co ...[text shortened]... of all homosexual couples sincerely wishing to get married.
Did you not read the post above? Here is the relevant part again:
"Before the ruling in September 2004, when a gay married couple split up, the common-law rules applied. Under the law, there is no sharing of property when a common-law relationship ends, except jointly-owned property."
This ruling changes how the courts allocate property when same-sex married couples separate.