Man to pay alimony to wife who is in Domestic Partnership

[DeathBeforeDenial]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflif ... newssearch

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

there are so many judges out there that i'd love to place before a firing squad and have them work their way up slowly from the feet.

[Sonic#]

Poor guy.

It's an interesting quirk to the state not recognizing a same-sex marriage (which I would prefer them to do, if they're to recognize marriage at all). I wouldn't have predicted this happening though.

[ilovemyguitar]

This is why I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership will never have all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

This is why I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership will never have all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

that's a strong statement. why are you so certain that they'd NEVER have all of them?

[phyco126]

Alimony is crap anyway. Why should I have to send a check to a person who cheated on me, took my house and car, and then divorced me?

[Kizyr]

Alimony is crap anyway. Why should I have to send a check to a person who cheated on me, took my house and car, and then divorced me?

What about if you're the one who cheated and then initiated divorce? It works both ways.

This is why a sensible prenup should be a requirement prior to marriage... KF

[DeathBeforeDenial]

Alimony was created for a good purpose, it was there to help support women who really couldn't support themselves in the society in which is was created, yet now it is a horribly antiquated practice. It's like legally mandated gender roles telling men they need to work to support someone, and women are incappable of taking care of themselves.

Certainly there are some men that I think should be paying alimony till they die because of some of their disgusting treatment of their wives/mistresses. Yet, the laws are antiquated and sexist, there needs to be more equality in both the alimony, as well as guardianship of children after a divorce.

[phyco126]

What about if you're the one who cheated and then initiated divorce? It works both ways.

This is why a sensible prenup should be a requirement prior to marriage... KF

Then she shouldn't have to send me a check.

Prenups can be gotten around if they have a good enough lawyer, I heard of it being done before unfortunately.

[ilovemyguitar]

This is why I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership will never have all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

that's a strong statement. why are you so certain that they'd NEVER have all of them?

Because separate isn't equal. Give it a different title, and people (like this judge) will treat it like it's something different.

[JWL]

This woman is abusing a loophole in the law in order to get more money out of her ex-husband. She would probably be doing the same exact thing if she was living with another man.

Though the effort to use this to say that we need gay marriage is pretty laughable. People don't even know what "marriage" is anymore, nor do they really care. It's really pathetic. Sometimes it just makes me want to throw up my hands and say to hell with it, because our civilization is probably doomed anyway.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

This is why I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership will never have all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

that's a strong statement. why are you so certain that they'd NEVER have all of them?

Because separate isn't equal. Give it a different title, and people (like this judge) will treat it like it's something different.

i suppose i agree with that. i really don't see why the average christians behave as if God is obligated to recognise the U.S. government.

[phyco126]

Though the effort to use this to say that we need gay marriage is pretty laughable. People don't even know what "marriage" is anymore, nor do they really care. It's really pathetic. Sometimes it just makes me want to throw up my hands and say to hell with it, because our civilization is probably doomed anyway.

And people who think that "marriage" is only based on what someone says it should be is pretty retarded too. It isn't isolated to religion, I mean this world wide. You get married in one country and come to the US and your marriage isn't recongized as legal. And why should I get permission from a government body to get married? Why do I need someone to tell me who I can or can't marry?

To me, marriage is a sacred bond between two PEOPLE. Whether it's a man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, doesn't matter to me.

And JWL, why do you care about giving up? If you are religious as you say you are, then you should KNOW, not guess, that the world is doomed. After all, no matter what we do, the so called Anti-christ is supposed to come and reign over the Earth leading up to Armaggedon (not the movie.)

[ilovemyguitar]

Though the effort to use this to say that we need gay marriage is pretty laughable. People don't even know what "marriage" is anymore, nor do they really care. It's really pathetic. Sometimes it just makes me want to throw up my hands and say to hell with it, because our civilization is probably doomed anyway.

I'm not saying that this is the #1 reason why gay marriage should be legalized. This just happens to be an unfortunate situation that would be averted if gay marriage was legal. It's one more reason to add to the list.

You do bring up a good point, though. I've always been bothered by the way polititians have used the term "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to describe an anti-gay marriage political stance. If the so-called sanctity of marriage was really at the forefront of this political ideology, they'd be attacking things like quickie weddings in Vegas instead of gay people who want to get married.

[AlasdairPalemoon]

As far as gay marriage goes. I used to be more passionate about it but now I'm not so much. I'm still for it, whatever they want to call it legally, but I don't follow the issue and I fall in more with the often-quoted joke of "They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us." ^^ You can see I'm a romantic. I do think true love is out there and a marriage works not only through that, but also trust, honesty, communication, and financial security (sorry, but it's true), just not enough people wait for it and instead rush themselves into relationships that turn out bad for them. Anyways, I'm rambling.

As far as this goes, I don't know the details. Maybe the ex and her partner are poor, are bums, or they might be getting by well enough but they want the extra money. I don't know what the circumstances of the alimony are, if she has kids or what, so I can't make a judgement there. But this definitely seems like a loophole that could either help or hurt the pro-gay marriage side. It doesn't matter what walk of life it is, there will always be folks trying to take advantage of things, I feel.

[JWL]

And people who think that "marriage" is only based on what someone says it should be is pretty retarded too.

Rock, I declare that you cease to be a rock, and in my human arrogance, I will pretend that my words have made it so that you are no longer a rock.

It isn't isolated to religion, I mean this world wide. You get married in one country and come to the US and your marriage isn't recongized as legal. And why should I get permission from a government body to get married? Why do I need someone to tell me who I can or can't marry?

You don't. Anybody can marry anybody they want right now. But that doesn't mean the government has to recognize it. You can go into a hall or whatever right now and "marry" anyone you want. Nobody is going to stop you.

To me, marriage is a sacred bond between two PEOPLE. Whether it's a man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, doesn't matter to me.

So two five year olds can get married. Oh wait, then you'll say it's two adults. Then I'll say, how dare you attempt to define who is or who isn't an adult? And I'll also say, why does marriage need to be binary if there are more than two genders? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? I could go on and on about how your statement is "forcing" a particular moral code on society. Of course it isn't really forcing anything; it's just the government saying what it will or will not officially recognize. The libertarian position should be that it doesn't matter what the government recognizes; that I'll just do whatever I want regardless.

And JWL, why do you care about giving up? If you are religious as you say you are, then you should KNOW, not guess, that the world is doomed. After all, no matter what we do, the so called Anti-christ is supposed to come and reign over the Earth leading up to Armaggedon (not the movie.)

Why don't you ask a Protestant, because what you just described is Protestant theology. Catholics don't read the Book of Revelation literally.

You do bring up a good point, though. I've always been bothered by the way polititians have used the term "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to describe an anti-gay marriage political stance. If the so-called sanctity of marriage was really at the forefront of this political ideology, they'd be attacking things like quickie weddings in Vegas instead of gay people who want to get married.

I agree that a politician who opposes gay marriage should also speak out against other attacks on marriage, which are often far more pervasive and devastating to society. The abuse of the institution of marriage by heterosexuals is far worse than anything homosexuals have done.

[phyco126]

And people who think that "marriage" is only based on what someone says it should be is pretty retarded too.

Rock, I declare that you cease to be a rock, and in my human arrogance, I will pretend that my words have made it so that you are no longer a rock.

It isn't isolated to religion, I mean this world wide. You get married in one country and come to the US and your marriage isn't recongized as legal. And why should I get permission from a government body to get married? Why do I need someone to tell me who I can or can't marry?

You don't. Anybody can marry anybody they want right now. But that doesn't mean the government has to recognize it. You can go into a hall or whatever right now and "marry" anyone you want. Nobody is going to stop you.

To me, marriage is a sacred bond between two PEOPLE. Whether it's a man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, doesn't matter to me.

So two five year olds can get married. Oh wait, then you'll say it's two adults. Then I'll say, how dare you attempt to define who is or who isn't an adult? And I'll also say, why does marriage need to be binary if there are more than two genders? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? I could go on and on about how your statement is "forcing" a particular moral code on society. Of course it isn't really forcing anything; it's just the government saying what it will or will not officially recognize. The libertarian position should be that it doesn't matter what the government recognizes; that I'll just do whatever I want regardless.

And JWL, why do you care about giving up? If you are religious as you say you are, then you should KNOW, not guess, that the world is doomed. After all, no matter what we do, the so called Anti-christ is supposed to come and reign over the Earth leading up to Armaggedon (not the movie.)

Why don't you ask a Protestant, because what you just described is Protestant theology. Catholics don't read the Book of Revelation literally.

You do bring up a good point, though. I've always been bothered by the way polititians have used the term "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to describe an anti-gay marriage political stance. If the so-called sanctity of marriage was really at the forefront of this political ideology, they'd be attacking things like quickie weddings in Vegas instead of gay people who want to get married.

I agree that a politician who opposes gay marriage should also speak out against other attacks on marriage, which are often far more pervasive and devastating to society. The abuse of the institution of marriage by heterosexuals is far worse than anything homosexuals have done.

1. Thanks, now I'm a grand tree that provides shade to the young ones to enjoy.
2. I'm not talking about people stopping me, I'm talking about someone not recongizing your marriage as valid.
3. I never limited my post to adults. I just wasn't going to take the time to keep listing the possibilities. Two 5 year olds can get married, it happens a lot in other countries. Two 16 year olds can get married, why not? There are moral limitations in my opinion. A 19 year old shouldn't be able to marry a 13 year old. There should be a limitation on ages for younger people. A 19 year old and a 16 year old, meh, might as well, they are gonna -Fatal Hopper- each other anyway. A sane person marrying a non-abled person, such as a vegitable, or a legal retarded person, as neither can give true consent.
4. Yeah, believe what you want there. I myself have several theories about the end days. Most of them dramatically different than the other.

[JWL]

1. Thanks, now I'm a grand tree that provides shade to the young ones to enjoy.

1337.

2. I'm not talking about people stopping me, I'm talking about someone not recongizing your marriage as valid.

So if someone doesn't recognize a marriage... so what? Do we need thought police to force us all to recognize every kind of "marriage"?

3. I never limited my post to adults. I just wasn't going to take the time to keep listing the possibilities. Two 5 year olds can get married, it happens a lot in other countries. Two 16 year olds can get married, why not? There are moral limitations in my opinion. A 19 year old shouldn't be able to marry a 13 year old. There should be a limitation on ages for younger people. A 19 year old and a 16 year old, meh, might as well, they are gonna -Fatal Hopper- each other anyway. A sane person marrying a non-abled person, such as a vegitable, or a legal retarded person, as neither can give true consent.

So you have a moral code which you would "force" on others.

4. Yeah, believe what you want there. I myself have several theories about the end days. Most of them dramatically different than the other.

Well, I would think that we could all agree that the world is eventually going to come to en end (the Sun going red giant will do that), but I fail to see how our tearing down society with our arrogant, selfish nonsense is going to help matters.

[phyco126]

3. I never limited my post to adults. I just wasn't going to take the time to keep listing the possibilities. Two 5 year olds can get married, it happens a lot in other countries. Two 16 year olds can get married, why not? There are moral limitations in my opinion. A 19 year old shouldn't be able to marry a 13 year old. There should be a limitation on ages for younger people. A 19 year old and a 16 year old, meh, might as well, they are gonna -Fatal Hopper- each other anyway. A sane person marrying a non-abled person, such as a vegitable, or a legal retarded person, as neither can give true consent.

So you have a moral code which you would "force" on others.

Yes, in the sense that marrying a mentally disabled person or minor that is many years younger than you. Those actually make sense on why it shouldn't happen. I've yet to see a real legit reason on why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other.

[ilovemyguitar]

2. I'm not talking about people stopping me, I'm talking about someone not recongizing your marriage as valid.

So if someone doesn't recognize a marriage... so what? Do we need thought police to force us all to recognize every kind of "marriage"?

That's not the point. Marriage isn't just an idea. It's a legal institution that carries with it many benefits that cohabitation alone can't provide. One specific case in point is an older employer of mine. He had a partner whom he lived with for many years, and they would have married if they could. His partner passed away about a year and a half ago, and my employer was stuck with thousands of dollars in expenses that he wouldn't have had to deal with if they had been legally married, because the system is set up to take care of a grieving spouse, but not a roommate, which is all these two were from a legal standpoint. And yeah, you can try to make the argument that we can have civil unions that will bestow all these protections to couples, but this news article is a pretty clear piece of evidence that civil unions will not be treated with the same weight and relevance as marriage by governing institutions.

And there are other issues, foremost in my mind being the possibility of having children eventually. I definately want to have children, but whatever route taken to do this (adoption, a surrogate, whatever), it's a huge legal mess when you consider things like legal parentage and such.

My point is that this isn't just about arguing for people on the street to consider my "marriage" to be valid. It's about me and my hypothetical partner wanting to be able to have the same options and opportunities that heterosexual couples already receive.

I'll have more points to make on this subject later, but right now I'm just going to walk away and cool off.