Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - First Same Sex Divorce (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/63202-first-same-sex-divorce.html)

First Same Sex Divorce

Now they really *are* equal...

LINK

Quote:

Now it's divorce, same-sex style
Split believed to be a Canada first
Separated 5 days after marriage

TRACEY TYLER
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

A Toronto couple is seeking what is believed to be Canada's first same-sex divorce.

The women, known only as M.M. and J.H., tied the knot on June 18, 2003, a week after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage, but separated five days later.

They had been a couple for more than five years, said Julie Hannaford, a lawyer representing J.H.

"This is the first same-sex divorce case in Canada to our knowledge," Martha McCarthy, a Toronto family lawyer, says in a divorce petition filed on behalf of M.M.

The petition, filed in the Superior Court of Justice last month, promises to add a new dimension to the prickly legal debate over same-sex marriage, which is heading to a hearing in the Supreme Court of Canada this fall.

While courts in three provinces and the Yukon have ruled that the freedom of gays and lesbians to marry is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, the Divorce Act hasn't been amended to apply to same sex couples.

But M.M. and J.H. want the same divorce rights other couples have.

"Same-sex couples are entitled to the equal respect, recognition and benefit of the law, including all family-law rights and obligations guaranteed to heterosexual couples," M.M. says in supporting court documents.

She and her lawyer are asking the court to grant the divorce and issue an order that the definition of "spouse" under the Divorce Act is unconstitutional and offensive to their equality rights under the Charter. The act defines "spouse" as "of a man or woman who are married to each other."

Hannaford says her client also wants out of the marriage but will be putting forward different grounds.

M.M. cites separation and says there is no possibility of reconciliation. The couple signed a separation agreement on April 30. Other grounds for divorce in Canada are adultery and cruelty.

Lawyers for the federal government asked the court to defer the case until the Supreme Court rules on its reference involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. But Madam Justice Ruth Mesbur set a strict schedule of trial-management conferences through the summer and listed the divorce motion for Sept. 13.

On June 17, Mesbur also imposed a sweeping publication ban on the identities of M.M. and J.H., ordering no reference be made to their names, ages, occupations, addresses or other identifying characteristics.

M.M. has "serious concerns about embarrassment and emotional distress as a result of the publication of her identity and does not wish for her personal life to become known to her professional colleagues," McCarthy said in court documents.

"There is a certain stigma associated with being ... the first gay or lesbian couple to divorce," the documents said, noting the case "will likely fuel further public debate."

Individuals seeking divorce are normally required to state their names on their court petition, but Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure allow for an exception "when necessary in the interest of justice."

It's necessary in this case because M.M. "will suffer irreparable harm" and be undermined professionally if identified, McCarthy said. J.H. consented to the ban.

Hannaford and McCarthy say their clients didn't set out to reform the law by deliberately entering into a quickie marriage.

"It's a marriage that didn't work out," McCarthy said, "just like marriages of straight people."

Why is this a suprise? Just because you're not straight doesn't mean you're perfect. Not all relationships work out.

Who said it was a suprise?

Kind if a non-issue if you ask me. The media is all over it as it's the first "Gay Divorce" but it's not that big of a deal.

I have to wonder if the anti-gay camp is going to jump on this or just (wisely) keep quiet.

more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce so it was sort of a forgone conclusion that some gay marriages would also end in divorces.

Who honestly cares.... one more couple who got married that shouldn't have... it's the people not their sexual persuasion that caused the divorce..

I agree that this is a non-issue and am not surprised at all.

I think it is newsworthy in its novelty as the first...

I think what makes it newsworthy is how fast it happened. Only 5 days afterword.

A lot of people are going to look at this and try to use it as an example of why they shouldn't be allowed to marry- because they do not take the union as sacred as do others. If they do, it would be a joke- many straight marriages end the same way, some sooner.

Just my thoughts on how people might react to this. This has nothign to do with what I feel, which borders on indifference.

I find it rather ironic that they separated 5 days after marriage...

... after being in a relationship for 5 years

perhaps because they rushed into marriage as soon as it was available to them? (7 days)

If you havent thought through the kind of effect something like marriage will have on a relationship and then you go ahead and do it anyway, you are asking for a disaster like this.

In addition to Rubyee, I think it would be more than a joke. Hetero couples get married for far worse reasons - by and large - than gay couples.

Although I'm still sure someone will enter a homosexual relationship for money through marriage sometime in the future, I can only hope it doesnt get blown out of proportion...

Kinda like this.

Given Britney Spears can have a marriage that lasts less than 24 hours, I don't really see the big deal here. How long is it gonna be before gay marriage is as unremarkable to the media as it is to me?

I think it's great as an example of my personal belief:

the media will report anything, and make it seem like it's important.

This thread got me to thinking about a few things.

I am not married, nor have I ever been, but I know that in our quest to find equality of the sexes, divorce courts in no way practice in the equality of a man and woman when it comes to splitting up. You all hear the stories of how a man loses his house and has to pay more than his fair share of support for the woman. Not saying this is true in all cases, but in general, men have had the short end of the stick.

Now, what happens with same sex marraiges? This brings up a whole new set of rules that need to be applied when a couple splits up, or new rules if they have adopted and one party is seeking custody of said child. It seems kind of ironic to me that the only equality that can be reached in a divorce court is because a same sex marraige is ending. I dunno, just rambling now.....

Traditionally "Men get the short end of the stick" because in "traditional" marriages men are the greater bread-winner.

Women's roles as housemaker and child rearer have a value that the court recognizes and they are compensated accordingly... Some men think this is a rip-off because they worked hard for their money and posessions and all the woman did was sit at home...

As for same sex divorce... I would expect it would play out like any seperation without a prenuptual... 50/50 split of the assets.

I was thinking the same thing about the speed of the seperation, 5 days, and how this might be used against the cause... In the end, there are a lot of straight couples who do the same. If anything this just underscores that Same Sex Marriages are no different than Straight Marriages...

People are the same wherever you go.

The whole thing is not newsworthy IMHO. Anyhow, isn't it technically an annulment not a divorce?

This is just more proof that homosexuals have no respect for the sanctity or marriage! Unlike we the straight community who give it the respect it deserves!

please note sarcasm

Just a matter of time.

Who will keep the children?

I may be really cynical but....

it just seems like two people who wanted their 15 minutes of fame.. and decided to get it by demanding the Divorce Act be changed. For a couple that's together for five years, why would they divorce after 5 days? Seems a bit odd (although yeah, I'm sure it can happen for true reasons). I dunno.. just sounds like someone thought 'hey, this gay marriage thing is making a lot of news, lets be the first to start the gay divorce issue'.

I can't pull out any facts that completely back that up (the lawyer's comments kinda help, though).. it's just a feeling I got reading it.

Quote:

Originally posted by water_boy1999
This thread got me to thinking about a few things.

I am not married, nor have I ever been, but I know that in our quest to find equality of the sexes, divorce courts in no way practice in the equality of a man and woman when it comes to splitting up. You all hear the stories of how a man loses his house and has to pay more than his fair share of support for the woman. Not saying this is true in all cases, but in general, men have had the short end of the stick.

Now, what happens with same sex marraiges? This brings up a whole new set of rules that need to be applied when a couple splits up, or new rules if they have adopted and one party is seeking custody of said child. It seems kind of ironic to me that the only equality that can be reached in a divorce court is because a same sex marraige is ending. I dunno, just rambling now.....

very good point...

I could be wrong, I'm just typing as I think but I think the reason that men get the short end of the stick is because men are just tired of it all and want out, women, being masters of manipulating men, take advantage of this.

"why go and ruin a perfectly good relationship by getting married?" -Joe Rogan

How did I know that when you said "Same sex divorce" that it would be two women breaking it off?

I think it just goes to show you that there are greater threats to marriage and the family than gay marriage. I think Bush has his head so far up his ass on this gay marriage thing that he can probably taste his tonsils. And I voted for the man.

Commence the booing and hissing...wait for it…now.

The part that peeves me is that although I support gay unions, partnerships, marriages, whatever,... is that these people seemingly have the right of privacy that normally isn't accorded to others in traditional marriages.

If I am someone of some notoriety and am in the midst of a divorce, I highly doubt that my identity would be protected in the media. So why is theirs? Because they are gay? Big fucking deal. These people fight to be treated as equal to everyone else then yet are shielded because of what? Their gayness? So much for equality.

The reason men usually get the short end of the stick in divorces is because a lot of people think that a child's rightful place is with his mother. If the mother is deemed unfit, however, the mother has to pay child support and the father takes the children.
It doesn't have anything to do with lazy men wanting out or the manipulative ways of women :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally posted by Trisk
The reason men usually get the short end of the stick in divorces is because a lot of people think that a child's rightful place is with his mother. If the mother is deemed unfit, however, the mother has to pay child support and the father takes the children.
It doesn't have anything to do with lazy men wanting out or the manipulative ways of women :rolleyes:

why is the childs rightfull place with the mother...? that doesnt seem to make sense to me...