Printer Friendly

Split decision: a Texas judge grants a "gay divorce," giving the first legal recognition to civil unions outside Vermont. (Court).

Divorce is seldom a cause for celebration, but a case in Beaumont, Tex., has turned out to be about much more than a breakup. The divorce, which was granted March 3 by district court judge Tom Mulvaney, is very likely the first legal recognition of civil unions outside Vermont.

Mulvaney's decree dissolved the Vermont civil union between Russell Smith, 26, and John Anthony, 34, which was granted in February 2002. Smith, who filed the petition, said getting the divorce in Texas was strenuous. But getting the union dissolved in Vermont would have required that either he or Anthony live in that state for at least a year.

Smith's case is not the first to test the civil unions law. In 2001 a Georgia woman asked that her union be recognized so she could regain custody of her children. And the following year a Connecticut man asked to have his union dissolved. But courts in both those cases turned down the requests on the grounds that same-sex civil unions were not valid outside of Vermont.

Smith's attorney, Ronnie Cohee, said her legal justification in the Beaumont case relied on the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit clause," which requires states to recognize marriages and other contracts from other states. Circumventing that clause was in part the right-wing motivation for the "defense of marriage" acts enacted by the U.S. government and a majority of states, which prohibit recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. Texas, however, is not one of those states. Although state law refers to "husband" and "wife" when talking about marriage, it refers to "parties" when discussing dissolution, Cohee said.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York City-based Freedom to Marry Collaborative, was enthusiastic about the Beaumont case, but he said it's impossible to know how the case could affect the broader campaign for equal marriage rights. "This is a small, positive decision in a developing body of law that the country, the courts, and couples are going to have to get used to as long as the marriage rights of gay people are not recognized," he said. "In a very normal circumstance--a couple's desire to terminate their committed relationship--this Texas court treated a gay family with some degree of respect and common sense."
COPYRIGHT 2003 Liberation Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine)
Geographic Code:1U7TX
Date:Apr 15, 2003
Previous Article:Rants & raves.
Next Article:Marriage--who decides? (Court).

Related Articles
Separate but equal.
Breaking up is hard to do.
Divorce double take. (Court).
Redefining family: some say marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, but others say marriage can be between couples of the same sex and is...
Waiting at the altar: if the excitement of the Massachusetts marriage ruling didn't leave you light-headed, waiting another 138 days (from the date...
Life after gay marriage: what happens now that gay and lesbian couples can get hitched in San Francisco and Massachusetts? The political backlash has...
The tipping point: beginning May 17 in Massachusetts, gay and lesbian couples will be able to obtain fully legal marriage licenses for the first time...
My Vermont (begin strikethrough)civil union(end strikethrough) divorce.
Will New Jersey stop at civil unions? The state supreme court says gay couples deserve equality in marriage, but it gave the legislature 180 days to...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters