Ordie
07-28-2007, 06:34 AM
What can I say?
This sucks.
My opinion: Get rid of civil marriage, allow for universal civil unions. Let the churches handle the marriage part.
Man Must Pay Partnered Ex-Wife Alimony
Monday, July 23, 2007
(07-23) 18:04 PDT Los Angeles (AP) --
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. Garber 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-*** marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-*** 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-*** marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and hetero****** 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-*** 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-*** 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 that both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and that 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.
Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/07/23/national/a102937D80.DTL&type=printable
This sucks.
My opinion: Get rid of civil marriage, allow for universal civil unions. Let the churches handle the marriage part.
Man Must Pay Partnered Ex-Wife Alimony
Monday, July 23, 2007
(07-23) 18:04 PDT Los Angeles (AP) --
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. Garber 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-*** marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-*** 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-*** marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and hetero****** 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-*** 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-*** 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 that both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and that 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.
Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/07/23/national/a102937D80.DTL&type=printable