Same Sex Divorce- Granted!
As I predicted in this blog, same sex divorce has come to New York. A Supreme Court judge in Broome County has granted a same-sex Binghamton couple a divorce.
As pointed out at Pressconnect.com, this divorce is a bit ironic.
New York doesn't allow same-sex marriages, but state Justice Molly R. Fitzgerald allowed Lauren Wells-Weiss to divorce her partner, Shari Weiss. The two married Aug. 13, 2004, in Toronto, after a private religious ceremony before family and friends in Ithaca in 2001.
The case is paradoxical, said both women's attorneys, because in their opinion the judge recognized the lesbian couple was married, although New York state law doesn't allow same-sex marriages.
New York will recognize as valid, marriages which were legal where they were solemnized, even if they would not valid if the marriage took place in New York.
Although New York will not allow same sex couples to wed, in the past year, there has been a line of cases which have recognized, as valid, same sex marriages lawfully performed in Canada and Massachusetts. In these cases, courts have extended to same sex couples legal rights previously only available to lawfully wed couples.
My only disappointment is that I had hoped that one of the same sex divorce cases I am presently working on would be New York’s first. Perhaps I will have to take consolation in representing litigants in the first New York City same-sex divorce.
View My LinkedIn Profile
Follow me on Twitter
Married in NY Fan Page
Comments (1)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endNYCitizen - April 2, 2009 5:41 AM
Mr. Clement
I urge you to be careful in your current cases. Yes, a divorce was granted, but no, the marriage was not "recognized" for any practical purpose in this case. No marital rights or protections were granted. The marital home was seen as separate rather than marital property, the agreement signed after the separation was not honored because it was not a "Legal Separation" and because the marriage was not recognized at the time of the separation, one party was forced into bankruptcy because the debts were not considered marital debts, yet at the time of the divorce the other party's debts created after the separation WERE considered marital debt up until the time the divorce was filed. There was no "equitable distribution" here. This was not a "win" for equal marriage rights. All of the obligations of divorce were mandated, but none of the rights of marriage were granted. I urge you to contact the parties involved in this case so that you can protect your clients against what many witnesses to this case have stated is a travesty of justice.