Rhode Island Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex Divorce

Two women who wed in Massachusetts in 2004 now wish to be divorced – in Rhode Island, a state that remains silent on the legality of same-sex marriage, unlike Massachusetts. Unable to certify their marriage, Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers face a fundamental obstacle in their quest for divorce. 

Because Rhode Island neither allows nor prohibits couples of the same sex to marry in the state, as of 2006 Massachusetts welcomes gay couples, including those from Rhode Island, to wed within its borders. Still, Rhode Island has yet to acknowledge the Massachusetts ruling in its legislature.

The couple and their counsel recently asked Rhode Island’s highest court to consider accepting same-sex marriage from another state for the mere purpose of granting divorce – careful not to involve their cause for legal marriage too.

Louis Pulner, an attorney for Chambers, insists that “same-sex marriage is not what is before the court at this time,” and therefore, he emphasizes that his client’s divorce has no bearing on the right to gay marriage in Rhode Island.

The women have an option to return to Massachusetts to obtain their divorce, but must live in the state for at least one year before doing so. Even then, they must prove that they changed residency for reasons other than their wanted divorce.

Of course, Ormiston and Chambers have another alternative: to walk away from one another, without the divorce or legal headache, and move on as individuals – married by law but not in lifestyle.

But divorce provides more than physical separation. It offers financial security, child custody arrangements (if the couple shares children), and a state-sanctioned termination to the relationship. Pulner says that without the ability to obtain divorce, “the impact would be devastating.” Two married people of the same sex deserve the opportunity to “take care of the equitable distribution of assets and property,” he says. He notes that if one of the parties stumbles upon an inheritance or snatches a winning lottery ticket, her spouse has a right to a portion of that money so long as the couple is married. “They’re entitled to the same protections as anyone else,” he says.

Beyond the financial implications, without the right to divorce, gay married couples cannot escape the emotional burden of their unwanted, lifelong, legally-bound partnership. Furthermore, they may never remarry.

In Rhode Island’s first same-sex divorce case, two women argue not only for equal rights but for a conclusion.