Rhode Island’s highest court yesterday heard appeals from two homosexual women seeking a “divorce” in their home state, while in Oklahoma, a state lawmaker filed an amicus brief in a similar case.
Attorneys for Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers yesterday said the only question before the Rhode Island Supreme Court was whether the state can recognize a same-sex “marriage” from another state for the purpose of dissolving it.
The attorneys stressed that the women’s lawsuit — which seeks to end a “marriage” they obtained in Massachusetts in 2004 — has no bearing on whether homosexuals can “marry” in Rhode Island.
“You have a valid marriage in the state of Massachusetts,” Louis Pulner, an attorney for Miss Chambers, told the justices. “No one is asking the court to address the question of whether such marriages would be valid in Rhode Island.”
However, a conservative legal defense organization said same-sex “marriage” is exactly what the state will get if the court recognizes a homosexual “divorce.”
If the high court grants a “divorce” to these two women, the “ruling would radically redefine marriage in Rhode Island without legislative or voter input,” said Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which filed briefs on behalf of the Family Research Council and a Rhode Island clergyman.
“Rhode Island’s public policy on marriage is clear and same-sex ’marriage’ isn’t a part of it,” Mr. Nimocks said.
The high court allowed the state to file briefs but not argue the case. In his brief, Attorney General Patrick Lynch said the state generally has been able to grant divorces even when a marriage is “void” or “voidable by law.” He also said Rhode Island should recognize same-sex “marriages” conducted in Massachusetts because of Rhode Island’s nondiscrimination law and state comity, the respect for laws in other jurisdictions.
Rhode Island Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican, said in his brief that any change to state marriage law must be decided by voters or lawmakers.
Separately, ADF yesterday filed an brief on behalf of Oklahoma House Speaker Lance Cargill, a Republican, with the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a lesbian “divorce” case.
Oklahoma doesn’t recognize homosexual “marriage,” and in 2004, voters passed a constitutional amendment saying the state doesn’t have to recognize foreign same-sex “marriages,” ADF said. In addition, it said, Cait O’Darling of Tulsa didn’t prove she legally “married” a woman in Canada. Miss O’Darling said in court papers that she “married” Stephanie Griffith in 2002, but Canada didn’t start legalizing same-sex “marriage” until 2003, ADF said.
Miss O’Darling petitioned for — and received — a civil “divorce” last year, but the judge set aside his decision when he realized the petitioners were both women. Miss O’Darling is appealing that decision.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.