|
The New York Times
Man Must Pay
Partnered Ex - Wife Alimony
By AP from
nytimes.com from the Web, July 23, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- 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. Gerber plans to appeal.
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships,
an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether
same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on
same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling
that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling
in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples
under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart,
chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex
couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't
provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows ''the irrationality of having a separate, unequal
scheme'' for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the
alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state
as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
''This is not about gay or lesbian,'' Garber said. ''This is about the law
being fair.''
Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of
whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married.
He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his
right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.
Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
''If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except
marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would
be null and void,'' Hulsy said.
|
