(no subject)

[chhotii]

I'm all for repealing the 1913 law. What a boon for the state's economy if thousands of couples come to Massachusetts to get married every year!

Not quite sure whether it would be a plus or a drawback for the economy if people are forced to move to this state and live here for a year in order to get a divorce. From the FAQ at LMF's website:

20. What happens if we marry in California and later wish to divorce?

The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. In order to divorce in California, at
least one of the parties to the marriage must be a resident of California for at least six months
and of the county in which the divorce is filed for three months before filing a divorce petition. If
you move from California to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a
divorce could be difficult. Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex
married couples have a clearly established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however,
Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a
Massachusetts court for a divorce. New York law appears to respect same-sex couples’ out-of-
state marriages even though same-sex couples cannot yet marry in that state. Married gay and
lesbian couples should be able to petition for divorce in New York; however, New York also has
a residency requirement for divorce.
Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Being unable to divorce
means that one may not marry someone else; it also may cause serious legal problems and
complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation if they move to or
travel through other states. As always, we recommend seeking legal advice specific to your
situation.

Any thoughts on this issue?

Comments

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

The magic words are "full faith and credit". The California divorce proceedings (which were significantly more onerous than the relatively simple residency requirement) made Reno Nevada the divorce capitol of the west. But this worked because a divorce granted in Nevada was recognized in California.

For some reason, I don't think that many of the states which ban same-sex marriage (or civil unions) would be as averse to granting such couples a divorce. I could be wrong, either legally or politically.

Rhode Island also pushed thru legislation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, making them an explicit loophole to the old 1913 law (which stated that "marriages could not be performed for residents of a state which would not recognize that marriage"). With Connecticut and New Jersey on the way to making it legal, and with Vermont's "civil unions" sliding toward actual marriage, the interstate divorce issue should gradually fall.

Which, of course, may not help some couples. But that's the only kind of change that resists pendulum swings of popular opinion.

[tamidon.livejournal.com]

"For some reason, I don't think that many of the states which ban same-sex marriage (or civil unions) would be as averse to granting such couples a divorce. I could be wrong, either legally or politically."

Actually, I suspect they won't want to grant divorces because that gives legal justification to marriage. Can't be divorces if you aren't married.

[totient]

I suspect that for the next few years at least, couples from states other than MA, CA, and NY will just get annulments. This is already possible for first cousins in states that don't allow such marriages.

[koshmom.livejournal.com]

My guess is, if you want to get a divorce and you don't want to go to any of the named states (MA or CA or others listed) all you have to do is go to a state that doesn't recognize that marriage, and get married there. Since they don't recognize the gay marriage, it never happened, thus no divorce is necessary. Annulments imply you believe the thing happened.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

My initial thought is that with marriage equality comes divorce equality. The real problem is the lack of full faith and credit from all the other states. Ideally, what ought to happen is that the other states come around and recognize both same-sex marriage and same-sex divorce. The states that are already doing so shouldn't need to change their laws just because all the other states haven't caught up yet.

That probably sounds kind of harsh, I know. But I got divorced in Massachusetts, and the residency requirement applied to me. Why shouldn't it apply to everyone else who wants to divorce here? That's the other side of equality.

[totient]

Annulments imply you believe the thing happened
Quite the opposite: an annulment is a statement that it (mostly) never did. First cousins who get married in a state that allows that can have their home state (if it doesn't allow that) declare the marriage void -- and there's tons of case law supporting this.