Paying alimony is so... gay?

Via Justin, I found a story about something I've previously discussed hypothetically -- gay alimony:

Oakland attorney Frederick Hertz, author of Living Together: A Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples, says he's fielded many calls from people upset and surprised that they have to go to court to break up. Same-sex couples are often caught off guard, he says, because there's no culture of divorce in the gay and lesbian world, and it never occurs to them that they might have to, gulp, pay alimony. "The outrage most painfully is felt by the one who has to pay the money, share the community property, pay the alimony," Hertz says. "They have the same kind of outrage that high-earning husbands have been having a hundred years: 'Wait a minute, I support you for twenty years, you leave me, and now I have to keep supporting you?'"

Something like that came up in a nasty divorce filed in Alameda County Superior Court earlier this year involving an Oakland lesbian couple -- one woman was a real-estate agent, the other an animal-control officer. Things got so contentious that the warring couple, who lived as domestic partners for less than three years, even fought over who had the right to attend a specific twelve-step meeting they both cherished.

Personally, I'd concede the 12 step meeting, but then I'm a wimp where it comes to such things.

There's more:

Anyway, the real-estate agent, the couple's breadwinner who pulled in $265,000 in commissions last year, flipped when her ex demanded spousal support. In court papers, she claimed her partner had assured her before they registered that she would never come after her for money if they broke up. "So I felt betrayed by her retaining a lawyer and asserting that she was going to take half of everything I have," she wrote in a sworn declaration.

The Realtor fought her former girlfriend with an argument Hertz says has been used in more than one domestic-partner divorce: She accused her of being a domestic-partner bigamist, alleging that she never had terminated a prior domestic partnership. If that were true, their partnership would never have been valid and the breadwinner wouldn't owe any alimony. The case ultimately settled before going to trial.

If you're planning not to marry someone, it's always a good idea to ask: Are you now, or have you ever been, a domestic partner bigamist?

There's a serious side to this. Marriage is not a thing to be entered into lightly, and people should think twice before entering into "domestic partnerships." What has long worried me about same sex marriage is that "rights" can become burdensome responsibilities, which can be imposed on people who never really wanted them, and might not need them. Especially people who might have thought they'd opted out of the whole heterosexual "system" under the belief the government would leave them alone.

This is not to say that the people who declare domestic partnerships and file certificates certifying that fact should not have inheritance or visitation rights. But the obligation of alimony strikes me as an insane thing to impose on two people who have lived together. And once family court obtains jurisdiction, the foot's in the door for more, and aliminony leads to palimony.

posted by Eric on 10.14.06 at 09:33 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4117






Comments

I've thought for years that this is the "dark side" of gay marriage and the formalization of gay relationships.

It would be nice if we could have a real debate -- as opposed to back and forth name-calling -- on the issue of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. This absolutely is a foreseeable and predicatble part of the bargain of the increasing formalization and legalization afforded gay relationships. Is it worth the trade-off? Maybe. Maybe not. But it would be nice to be able to discuss it like intelligent adults.

(In places other than the classicalvalues.com comments page, when intelligent adult conversation is always in fashion.)

As an aside: regarding that the dissolution of gay relationships has heretofore generally avoided alimony and other forms of spousal support, I tend to think of that as, to quote the instapundit, a feature, not a bug.

Rhodium Heart   ·  October 15, 2006 03:02 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits