One of the nastiest dimensions of the battle over same-sex marriage has been the lack of access to divorce courts for same-sex married couples that reside in non-recognition states. While you might think that anti-gay judges would be thrilled to help these gay couples break up, in fact that is not true. Judges in Texas, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and other states have refused to grant divorces to lesbian or gay couples who went elsewhere to get married or have relocated from the state in which they got married, on the grounds that granting a divorce would constitute a form of official recognition of their marriage. Mind you, most of these couples are not asking a judge to grant them any property or alimony based upon their marriage, since they’ve already settled those issues — they just want to get an order of dissolution. And the couples have good reasons for wanting the court order. Even if they have resolved their financial affairs, they need to get a divorce so they can be free of future liabilities, and so they will be able to marry or legally partner their new romantic interest. The legal origin of these problems stems from what is referred to as the “domicile” rule, which means couples ordinarily can only get divorced in the state in which they reside at the time of their break-up, regardless of where they lived when they got married. The purpose of this rule, which goes back more than a century, is to prevent nasty husbands (or wives) from evading the divorce rules of the state they live in, by simply hopping across the state line to get a divorce in another state. For example, if a husband in New York didn’t like the property rules imposed on him by the New York court, it would be unfair to his wife if he could simply drive a few miles away to a more lenient state and file for divorce there. While these rules may make sense for heterosexual couples who can always get a divorce in whatever state they live in, they wreak havoc for couples who live in states that won’t grant them a divorce under any conditions — even if they’ve reached a property settlement with their spouse. This is a vivid example of where the denial of the right to marry ends up as a denial of the right to get a divorce. Fortunately, the California legislature has just passed a bill (which was signed into law on October 9th by Governor Jerry Brown) that resolves this problem — at least for those who came to California and got married there in 2008. It will also help those who may in the future get married in California, if and when Proposition 8 (which bans same-sex marriages) is repealed or ruled to be unconstitutional. The bill is titled SB (Senate Bill) 651, and the full text can be found here. The new law will go into effect in January 2012. It provides that if a couple got married in California but lives in a state that won’t grant them a divorce (which is presumed if the state doesn’t recognize their marriage), the California court will have jurisdiction to grant them a dissolution. The divorce case will be filed in the county where the couple got married, and the dissolution is supposed to be adjudicated “in accordance with California law.” There is a lot that remains unresolved in this new legislation, especially what it means to adjudicate a divorce in accordance with California law if the spouses are not residents. But for those who have been able to reach their own private settlement agreement, this will enable them at least to obtain a formal dissolution. And, while there is also some uncertainty on the details, chances are the dissolution will be honored in other states, even non-recognition states. This will allow the ex-spouses to enter into contracts as a formerly married person, and to be treated once again as an unmarried person. It’s a long ways from full marriage recognition in every state, but at least the couples that married in California will now be free to get divorced, wherever they live! Go here to read the rest: Frederick Hertz: Same-Sex Divorce Barrier Lifted In CA Courts
Posts Tagged ‘ california ’
Gunman Who Shot Nine in Seal Beach Salon Was Husband of Employee, Salon Worker Says
A man who shot nine people at a salon in Seal Beach this afternoon was the husband of one of the salon’s employees, according to another employee who worked at the salon. Lorainne Bruielle, who works at the salon but was off today, identified the gunman as the husband of one of the employees, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram . more › Link: Gunman Who Shot Nine in Seal Beach Salon Was Husband of Employee, Salon Worker Says
Much to admire about Marcus Stamps
Shooting At Seal Beach: 6 Believed Dead
A shooting at a Seal Beach, California hair salon has claimed the lives of six victims, reports KTLA . A total of nine people have been shot, according to the Associated Press , and Orange County Fire Authority Capt. Marc Stone says that their conditions are “undetermined.” The suspect is already in police custody, according to a tweet from NBCNews . KTLA notes several weapons were found in his car. The shooting took place at Salon Meritage, and Los Alamitos-Seal Beach Patch notes that while most of the victims were found inside the salon, one was inside a car. The entire Seal Beach police department is responding to the scene, according to the Los Angeles Times . Story developing… Read more: Shooting At Seal Beach: 6 Believed Dead
FBI Makes Arrest in Celebrity Hacking Case, Scarlett Johansson Exhales
The FBI has made an arrest in Operation Hackerazzi, the investigation of celebrity phone hacking in Hollywood. Officials have scheduled a news conference later Wednesday morning to release additional information. The break in the case comes several weeks after reports that the cellphone accounts of stars, including the outraged Scarlett Johansson , were hacked more › Read the original here: FBI Makes Arrest in Celebrity Hacking Case, Scarlett Johansson Exhales
Mónica GarcÃa: Hey Alabama, Take A Hint From California
While Alabama and other states are putting barriers to the education of immigrant children, California celebrates Latino Heritage Month by passing the California Dream Act, which will ensure that all deserving students get the opportunity to pursue higher education and be productive members of society. Alabama’s recent court ruling to uphold significant portions of Alabama’s immigration law seems shamelessly un-American. In light of reports that Latino students are vanishing from public schools in the wake of the ruling, we think it is timely to remind people why we celebrate Latino Heritage Month. Also, as Board members of the Los Angeles Unified School District, we care deeply about the education of all children and feel compelled to remind people why, as Americans, it is our responsibility to educate all children, regardless of immigration status, and why anti-immigrant state laws are un-American. We must educate all children, regardless of immigration status, because it is the law of the land. In the Plyer case nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that every undocumented child must be provided a public education. The Supreme Court said that the state law in question, which denied funding for K-12 education to undocumented children, was “directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control.” While proponents of current anti-immigrant state laws claim the measures do not prohibit undocumented children from attending school, the effect is that it does keep them at home. It does, in effect, deny them their right to a public education. Education officials in Alabama say that scores of immigrant families have withdrawn their children or kept them home after the court ruling. And several districts with large immigrant enrollments reported a sudden exodus of children of Latino parents. Anti-immigrant state laws cannot do indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly: deny undocumented children, many of whom are Latino, a public education. Moreover, any suggestion by state officials in Alabama that their state is only trying to compile immigrant status statistics for benign purposes is naïve at best, disingenuous at worst. Such informational gathering cannot be benign when the law’s findings start by stating that “The State of Alabama finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state…” The findings go onto say that “because the costs incurred by school districts for the public… education” of undocumented children “adversely affect the availability of public education resources” to non-undocumented students, “the State of Alabama determines that there is a compelling need for the State Board of Education to accurately measure and assess the population of students who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States….” Immigration status statistics are not simply being collected for the sake of being collected. The students’ information is being taken because, as the legislation’s findings indicate, there is a presumption that these children are guilty of draining state resources. Thus, the Alabama law is un-American on several levels. It is based on a premise that illegal immigrant students are guilty, until proven innocent, of being a drag on state resources. In America, you are innocent until proven otherwise. In America, all children have a right to public education. The Latino students in Alabama are therefore guilty with little chance of proving their innocence because, while their “costs” are immediate (and their guilt immediately apparent), their benefits do not materialize until long into the future. With the law that just took effect, the chance of these children’s benefits materializing and becoming apparent – and the chance of these students proving their innocence – has just diminished substantially. In fact, the benefits may have turned to costs because, as the Plyer decision stated, denying the undocumented children a proper education would likely contribute to “the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.” The Alabama law is also un-American because it is contrary to what then-Senator Obama said in his July 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention: America is the “Beacon of freedom and opportunity for those that have come here.” For thousands of undocumented Latino immigrant students, the Alabama law does away with the America that made President Obama’s story possible – an America where no children’s dream is impossible and where every child has an opportunity. State anti-immigrant laws make impossible human stories of self-determination, dignity and respect. They make impossible the stories that are only possible in America, such as that of leading U.S. neurosurgeon Dr. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, who made it from being an undocumented California farm worker child to Harvard Medical School and who now directs and leads preeminent brain surgery and research programs at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a leading hospital in the world. Just as President Obama said that “in no other country on Earth is my story even possible,” so, too, only in America would Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa’s story, and those of other Latino immigrant students, be possible. We celebrate Latino Heritage Month to acknowledge opportunity in this country and remind ourselves of our American traits: self-determination, dignity and respect. Celebrate with us Latino Heritage Month by expressing your support for an America where all children have a right to education. We must oppose any attempt to limit or deny children a chance to be productive members of this society. We call on Congress and President Obama to address issues related to the Federal Dream Act immediately. In the spirit of hope. Daughters of Immigrants, Mónica GarcÃa Board President Los Angeles Unified School District Nury Martinez Board Member Los Angeles Unified School District The Los Angeles Unified School District is the second largest school district in the country, with about 665,000 students, 73% of whom are Latino. See the article here: Mónica GarcÃa: Hey Alabama, Take A Hint From California
Man Shot While Sitting in Car on Side of Freeway
A man who pulled his car off to the side of the 210 freeway was shot last night while sitting in the vehicle, reports KTLA . The car was stopped on the right side of the road and was sitting on the shoulder, near the San Bernadino Ave. exit. more › More here: Man Shot While Sitting in Car on Side of Freeway
Sick Leave on the Rise: As more and more municipal and…
As more and more municipal and state governments consider requiring restaurants to offer their employees sick leave, restaurants are faced with logistical hurdles . After all, as one Restaurant Association representative put it, ” People will be able to call in sick on holidays or Friday nights, and there will be nothing an employer can do about it.” Better than sneezing in the soup? [NRN via -EN- ] Excerpt from: Sick Leave on the Rise: As more and more municipal and…
Knoxville a dad again
Actor Johnny Knoxville attends the Venice Family Clinic Silver Circle 2011 Gala at the Beverly Wilshire on February 28, 2011 in Beverly Hills, California. Read the original: Knoxville a dad again
Tighter scrutiny for outpatient surgery centers
Outpatient surgery centers in California that perform Lap-Band operations and other procedures will face new scrutiny under a law signed by Gov. Read the original: Tighter scrutiny for outpatient surgery centers




