Quantcast
Utah

Court ruling on gay marriage opens door to same-sex divorce in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    First they want to get married, now they want to get divorced? Why cant the gay community make up there mind?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 8:46 p.m.

    wrz
    Why would this lady want a divorce? Just move out and move on.
    LDS4
    Would you give that same advice to a straight woman with no kids at home....like your mom or daughter/granddaughter? What about community property or alimony? If your mom left your dad, would you be OK with her moving out with just the clothes on her back with no alimony community property?

    wrz
    These people can avoid the vicissitudes of divorce. The need for same-sex marriage is mostly for companionship. That can be had very easily without marriage.
    LDS4
    Gays want SSM for the same reason heterosexuals do...to provide legal and financial stability for each other and to provide a stabile environment in which to raise children. Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    Oh how simple it would be to go back to living conservative logic that doesn't have to be consistent nor make sense.

    Gay divorce means gay marriage is illogical? Mmmmm, lets ponder that about ALL marriages.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan, in 18 States that recognize marriage equality, it does matter. And it matters for Federal law. Ignoring the marriage doesn't mean it goes away. Just because you don't want to recognize it, doesn't mean government entities don't. The problem is most states have residency requirements before you can get a divorce. This left these two women in a bind.

    Also, please be honest about the Vermont case. The woman illegally kidnapped a child of whom she no longer had custody.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    Actually, it was the top Massachusetts court, not a federal court, that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A federal ruling in favor of same-sex marriage did not happen until 2010 after Prop 8, before that all rulings had been in state courts.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 3, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    The claims in this article are hogwash. Since the state does not recognize the relationship at all, this lady had the much easier option of ignoring it as well. The state would not in any way act to enforce her "marriage" and so she would not in fact be married.

    Stop believing false spin. This person was not in a bad situation, but people locked into same-sex marriage contracts will find it hard to ever truly get away, as happened to a lady in Vermont who eventually fled to Nicaragua to avoid being forced to continue some connection to the relationship.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @Mr. Smitty:
    "If more and more men marry multiple women, it means that more and more men would have less opportunity to marry."

    How many men have been killed in all the wars of the world? My guess is in the hundreds of millions. How many woman? Probably a few hundred. Leaves a perpetual sex imbalance. Don't you have concerns for the many women who can't find husbands because potential mates have been killed in wars? Further, women live longer than men... by as much as 10 years in some societies.

    Besides the Christian Holy Writ says: "In that day (last) seven women will take hold of one man and say, 'We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name to take away our disgrace.'" Isaiah 4:1

    Go figure.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    SSM is a work in progress. As long it is done state by state we will find these discrepancies.
    The SCOTUS (forget Congress)should come out with a ruling for the whole country. As long as states have reciprocity for the so called "traditional marriage", that reciprocity should be extended to all legal marriages.

    (Activist) Passive Aggressive authorities who oppose SSM will delay any action that may benefit the implementation of SSM or Divorce for those couples.

    It will take time but we are getting to "Equality". Actually faster than anyone would have predicted.

    It is a good time to be alive.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @Mugabe:
    "There will be an influx of Homosexual and Lesbians couples filing for divorce within a few years."

    These people can avoid the vicissitudes of divorce. The need for same-sex marriage is mostly for companionship. That can be had very easily without marriage. And separation is a snap because there's no divorce. Just wave good-bye. With heterosexual marriage the primarily goal is to give birth and rear children. Children survive best in a stable long-term relationship albeit some heterosexual marriages end in divorce... which seems to be increasing year after year.

    "You... such a romantic fool (sarcasm) Kind of crude and vulgar btw (no sarcasm)"

    Crude/Vulgar? (sarcasm) Try imagining how SSM's consummate marriages. (no sarcasm)

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    If marriage is a state issue, than divorce should be a state issue.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @Breathe Deep;

    Facts are important. Flawed studies lead to incorrect conclusions. Incorrect conclusions lead to incorrect actions (like Amendment 3, for instance). Should we continue to let people think the Earth is still flat? If he isn't going to cite his sources, he's probably just blathering.

    @Lane Myer;

    I know, isn't it just amazing? Straight couples are born, live and die in the same state and never, ever go anywhere else. It just boggles the mind.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    Someone wrote, "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality. "

    I might be open to the right of people to marry multiple people; however, I am also open to arguments demonstrating that it may harm people, which is an argument that doesn't work for gay marriage. If the argument doesn't hold any water, I'll accept it.

    If more and more men marry multiple women, it means that more and more men would have less opportunity to marry. I think marriage is healthy, so shrinking the population of available women would probably do harm to society. But, again, I'm open to contrary views.

    The bottom line is this: gay marriage and polygamy are two different things. So far, no one can make a reasonable argument that gay marriage should be banned. I'm not sure about polygamy. I haven't thought about it and researched it enough to have a strong opinion either way.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    K

    Mchenry, IL

    Why marry in what state and live in another?

    -----------

    It's never happened before, has it? No one has ever gone to Las Vegas to be married, even though they do not live in NV!

    These two actually lived in CT, but when they broke up, one moved to Utah. Maybe she has family here? Maybe her job transferred her here? Who knows why.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Jan. 3, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    Why marry in what state and live in another?

  • Breathe Deep Eagle Rock, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @ Ranch
    Why should CDL list citations? It appears from your past posts that when they are given you discredit them as being flawed in some ridiculous manner?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @ CDL
    I wouldn't be surprised that in a state like Utah where SSM came so suddenly and many couples rush to marry fearing that the window of opportunity to marry could close quickly. Probably, you will find some higher than normal rates of divorce. But, once it becomes the norm, only then we will be able to make some reliable studies.

    @sanpaco
    "So... am I supposed to feel sorry for these ladies?". No! they don't even know who you are.

    @ wrz
    "Why would this lady want a divorce? Just move out and move on. And if she wishes to shack up/move in with someone else, just do it." You... such a romantic fool (sarcasm) Kind of crude and vulgar btw (no sarcasm)

  • Breathe Deep Eagle Rock, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    What a Gay couple getting divorced? According to some people on here, Gay marrage is the epitome of society.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    @Canyontreker: Mass is also 48 in the nation in live births, so is it really good Catholics (who believe it a sin to use birth control) that are causing a change? I mean Utah is number one, so not worried about a decline in Utah child bearing because of gay marriage.

    Even 50% of 5% isn't going to compare to the male/female divorce rate, so maybe get your house in order before worrying about people who are used to fighting for every right they receive, instead of just having it by being born.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @Kimber

    I think the resurgence of the Catholic Church in Massachusetts, which is against divorce, has more to do with the low divorce rate than the same-sex marriage rule.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    Razzle2 said, "Massachusetts never legalized same-sex marriage."

    Good point.

    Massachusetts is not so socially liberal (as the west coast, while even California voted to ban SSM.) We are now the most Catholic state in the U.S. at 45% of the population. The Catholic Church does not support SSM nor does it support divorce or abortion.

    I lived in Boston when the Massachusetts law was turned over. With the Catholic Church and Romney as governor we were shocked that our laws could crumble by a court decision.

    By the way, Razzle2, although it was not the people of the Commonwealth or the Massachusetts legislature, it was not a Federal Judge that overturned the law either; it was the Commonwealth's own Supreme Court.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    @ DN Subscriber 2: "More slippery slope stuff from messing with a natural and fundamental definition which had served civilization well for thousands of years." Do you realize that arranged marriages were the common method for pairing couples up until about the 19th century?
    I didn't think so. It never ceases to amuse me that stringent supporters of "traditional marriage" no so very little about which they speak.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    oragami, "..Massachusetts, was also the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, in 2004."

    Massachusetts never legalized same-sex marriage, a Federal judge did. Mass had laws against same-sex marriage until a judge overruled.

    Just a little but big clarification.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Ah, Christopher B, you don't understand how equal treatment works, do you?

    You people seem to expect a higher standard from LGBT people than you do from yourselves. Gay/Straight, we all marry for the same reasons. Gay/Straight, when we divorce, it'll be for the same reaons.

    @DN Subscriber 2;

    Is it so difficult to treat a same-sex couple the same as an opposite-sex couple? Why?

    @Mike Richards;

    We are fully aware of the rights and risks associated with marriage. We weren't born yesterday. We actually make our decisions after thoughtful consideration, since it is generally pretty difficult for us in the first place. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least, if at some point down the road, the numbers are comparable.

    @CDL;

    Citations please.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    I suspect that Taylor is right. There will be an influx of Homosexual and Lesbians couples filing for divorce within a few years. As I said before, when the dust settles, reality sets in, and people soon realize that there is no magic in maintaining stable healthy relationships. The problems that plague married couples will be the same for Homosexuals and Lesbians as it is with a man and a woman. I think they will be more severe because a man can't be a woman, and a woman cannot be a man.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 3, 2014 6:15 a.m.

    Further evidence that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals...

    Dave D, thanks for your response to Socorny. It was spot on.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:28 a.m.

    No. Facts that make someone look bad are hateful, bigoted, racist and BAD facts.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    @ChuckGG:
    "As far as polygamy goes, that is another battle for another day."

    No. Polygamy and all other types of marriage combinations are the issues of the day as well as same-sex marriage . If one divergence of marriage beyond heterosexual is allowed, to be fair all types of marriages should be in the offing.

    "Once you go beyond two people in a contract, then you have a wide variety of issues to address ranging from custody, inheritance, multiple people on a health policy, and so on."

    These issues are easily solved... by prenuptial agreement or other types of contracts. Divorce courts can easily handle these issues. As for multiple people on a health policy, that happens now... for a family with children, even up to age 26 per the ACA.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2014 11:32 p.m.

    "A federal court ruling striking down Utah’s law defining marriage as between a man and a woman made it possible for same-sex couples to legally marry. It also made it possible for same-sex couples to file for divorce."

    This is way to funny! Welcome to the world of marriage.

    Why would this lady want a divorce? Just move out and move on. And if she wishes to shack up/move in with someone else, just do it. Forget the marriage. Marriage is primarily to birth and raise children. In same-sex relationships this objective/goal is either nonexistent or way down the line in relevance. The main purpose of same-sex marriage is companionship and you don't need marriage to engage in/get companionship. And it makes separating much, much easier.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    The divorce rate in the states that allow gay marriage is 20 percent lower than in states that prohibit it. The state with the lowest divorce rate, Massachusetts, was also the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, in 2004. (Massachusetts’s divorce rate has actually declined since then.) Of the 15 states with the highest divorce rates, all ban gays and lesbians from marrying.

    Overall, the divorce rate among same sex couples is roughly half that of opposite sex couples.

    I guess conservatives could learn a thing or two about successful marriages from liberals and homosexuals.

  • AngelaMarie Tempe, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    This liberal has no problem with polygamy as long as it's between consenting adults.

    The people saying that people will be able to marry kids or animals are fools. No one is fighting to marry anyone that isn't a consenting adult. The fact that you have to act like this is any kind of argument is telling.

    This article isn't about gays not thinking they have to deal with alimony or any of the other pains of divorce. This woman is complaining that she doesn't have the right to divorce in any state. That's it. She's right to be upset about that.

    To the people saying "the will" of the people is what we should be rules by, you obviously have no clue what the constitution is for. If we ran government by popular rule, a majority of people could take your home away if they felt like it. However the Constitution PROTECTS you from the will of the people. Homosexuals are PROTECTED by your bigoted opinions concerning their rights.

    You people will be look upon the same way that people who were against civil rights are looked upon today.

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    Not so much as one would think.

    If a marriage (or any activity) is recognized in one state and not in another, then the couple in question would have to go back to the state in which the marriage was established and apply for divorce in that state. If plural marriage is legal in Utah, and the couple moves to a state where it is not legal the same would hold true. This will be a can if worms in record time...

    Now about the legalization of marijuana in one state and not another.........

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 9:44 p.m.

    I recently saw research from Massachusetts that were showing that since gay marriage has been legal there for ten years, that their divorce rate has declined. As to whether or not that had anything to do directly with gay marriage being legal there is not certain. But it stands to reason that it does. However, in any state in the U.S, divorce is legal, so I feel for this couple. It stands to reason that both marriage and divorce should be legal everywhere.

  • sanpaco Sandy, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:45 p.m.

    So... am I supposed to feel sorry for these ladies? Let's get something straight. I don't agree with same sex marriage. I also don't agree with people simply getting divorced because they changed their minds 10 months later. Accept responsibility for the "rights" that you demand access to.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:08 p.m.

    "Never heard traditional marriage proponents state that their happiness depended on the law allowing them to marry."

    1.) They were never compelled to say that because the law has always allowed them to marry.

    2.) Perhaps you have never attended an LDS meeting, gone to a wedding, or talked with an engaged couple. I hear all the time how much marriage makes people happy.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    Kings Court- the article did not try to spin anything nor even attempt to make an argument. All it did was point out an obvious fact that now with one came the other. But if you want a little truth though I doubt you do, but in States where Gay Marriage has been legal a while, there has been a much higher divorce rate for that group as well. Do a little research. It's not hard, and that fact has noting to do with any bias, it simply is what it is.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    if it was't a marriage in the first place, how can it be a divorce? that is why the will of the people is so important! the will of the people won't make foolish laws in the first place, including recognition of ss marriage!

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    How ironic that most lgbt activists claim that a prohibition of same sex marriage doesn't allow them to be happy.

    Never heard traditional marriage proponents state that their happiness depended on the law allowing them to marry.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    Well of course there are going to be divorces. That's all our gay brothers and sisters want--to be treated equally. That means marriage, and that also means, sometimes, divorce.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    What am I reading? Do "same-sex" couples really think that they should have all of the advantages of "marriage" but none of the consequences? Do they think that only marriages consisting of one man, one woman should have alimony and child support levied when that marriage is dissolved?

    Well, welcome to the real world where actions have consequences. If you want to be "married" you automatically sign up for the penalties that come from "divorce". Open your wallet and be prepared to pay for the rest of your life.

    Every "heterosexual" couple has known about that possibility, why should it come as a shock to same-sex couples who demand to be "married"? Anyone want to guess what the figure for alimony will be?

    About 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Anyone want to venture a guess of what percent of "same-sex marriages" will end in divorce?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    Hey, if they get married, this liberal hypocrite is all for polygamist divorce rights. In fact, since polygamy is usually driven by religion and therefore rife with abuse and coercion, I would advocate that every polygamist wedding be prefaced with a mandatory sitdown of the group with a judge or lawyer and the various partners of the relationship. Everyone should be informed, and sign off that they've been informed, that they have legal rights in the process and may leave of their own choice, and possibly be entitled to a portion of the assets of the group. Not to be discriminatory, I don't mind if that happens before same sex or hetero marriages, as well.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    @Christopher B

    "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality."

    The people who fought for interracial marriage in the 1960s... were they also hypocrites for not including other types of marriages in their fight for equality... or do you use different standards when it comes to marriage advocacy you support and marriage advocacy you don't support?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    @Christopher B

    "I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality."

    ============

    Hey, as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I really don't think it's societies place to dictate who, or how many.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    Whoa...wasn't ready for that shocker...

    That's kind of like saying the leading cause of divorce is marriage.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    Now that the state of Utah can not define marriage legally ALL types of unions should be legalized or the ruling is hypocritical and fradulent.

    Brothers to Sisters
    One man to 12 women
    One woman to a 13 year old boy
    etc.

    Once you open up Pandora's Box ....

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:41 p.m.

    More slippery slope stuff from messing with a natural and fundamental definition which had served civilization well for thousands of years.

    Moving forward, we MUST legalize polygamy. After all, if two (or more) people love each other why discriminate? How about the folks that love their pets, don't be a bigot!

    But, all of this is sort of irrelevant any more since a (disgustingly) large number of people play house together, have children out of wedlock, purchase property together while unmarried, et. Thus, the necessity for marriage of ANY sort (hetero, same sex, polygamous, etc) seems to be crumbling onto the ash heap of history.

    Change is not always good. Sometimes it is just made legal.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    As far as polygamy goes, that is another battle for another day. While I am not against it, same-sex marriage is a far easier concept to implement than would be polygamy. Once you go beyond two people in a contract, then you have a wide variety of issues to address ranging from custody, inheritance, multiple people on a health policy, and so on. Implementing it looks like a legal can of worms what will take some time to figure out. It should keep attorneys employed for years to come.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    I believe this drives home the point even further that we are now, and always have been, talking about secular CIVIL marriage - not religious marriage. I fully expected divorces to accompany Marriage Equality. That is just human nature. Having civil marriage is why we have Divorce Court and not Divorce Church.

    Regarding the quote: "What a mess this whole thing is turning out to be, Aaarrrggghhh!"

    What mess? This is mindlessly simple. A state cannot very well recognize the undoing of the marital contract that it doesn't recognize in the first place. Once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, same-sex divorces will not encounter these glitches.

  • G-Day-M8 WVC, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    What a mess this whole thing is turning out to be, Aaarrrggghhh!

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    I sure wish liberals would stop being hypocrites and start including polygamists rights in their fight for equality.

    And to say that a polygamists already had the same rights in being able to marry ONE person would be like me saying a gay already had the same rights as everyone else in being able to marry someone of the opposite gender.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    Seems odd to me, that Utah encourages same-sex marriages so strongly that the state refuses to help dissolve them.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    This article tries to spin another argument against same-sex marriage by saying there is going to be a "boom" in same-sex divorces. Because such a small number of people are homosexual and only a certain percentage of them will ever get married, the vast, vast majority if divorces on the docket will be opposite sex divorces and will always be opposite sex divorces. I would hardly call the same-sex divorce industry a "boom" for attorneys. Divorce lawyers have already had an ongoing "boom" with divorces well before same-sex marriage came along, especially since about 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

  • Dave D Spring Creek, NV
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    Really Socorny?

    How many of us move to a place based on the marriage laws on the books? The fact that your question could not even be asked of a straight couple is revealing of the inequalities people like this have to endure.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    I kind of assumed that opportunities for marriage and divorce came as a matched set.

  • socorny Canyon Country, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    If it was so important for them to be married in the first place, then why did they move to a state that didn't even recognize their marriage soon after?