Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Nebraska lesbians not allowed to divorce

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I know it’s beside the point, but why not offer them an annulment? It’s obviously not ideal because gay marriage should be recognised as should any subsequent divorce applications. Surely, Nebraska couldn’t argue against annulment proceedings

  2. Dan Filson 8 Feb 2011, 11:21pm

    If there is a procedure for civil partnership, you can be sure there is a procedure for ending it. It just isn’t called divorce. This is another example of what the Equal Love campaign is about.

  3. Staircase2 9 Feb 2011, 2:13am

    what a bunch of Dodos!
    hugely ironic that a state which refuses to allow people to marry will then refuse to allow them to annul too! lol
    thereby keeping the very marriages that they claim not to want alive and on their doorstep

    God Bless America – home of the fearful; land of the caged…

  4. Someone really ought to take this to the US Supreme Court, as it must be arguable under the Fourth Article Of The Constitution (which relates to the rights and responsibilities of individual States to the other States and their citizens) that if a gay couple marries in one state, they should be allowed to divorce in another, even if that States doesn’t recognise gay marriage. Local courts won’t do it as it raises the spectre that if they allow gay people to divorce, it tacitly implies acceptance they were legally married in the first place, which a local court can’t do if it’s against the constitution of that particular State.

    However the US Constitutional statement that ‘Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State’ must carry some weight, which could/should be argued in the Supreme Court. Knowing them, they’d find a reason to toss the case in favour of discriminating States, but it has to be worth arguing as the current situation is ridiculous.

    If nothing else, it would hopefully highlight the actual issues of not recogising equality for gay partnerships, which goes beyond the shrill, blinkered, knee-jerk responses that seems to predominate the argument against gay marriage in the US.

  5. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 10 Feb 2011, 12:56pm

    So true Staircase2!!!!

    The same thing happened in Texas in 2009 – the state refuses to recognize SSM, yet the irony is the conservative lawmakers want them to stay together married????

    America is land of the hypocrites!!!!!!

    Land of the free my arse!!!!

    You are only free in DC, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut!!!!!

    Rhode Island and Maryland will get gay marriage this year because Democrats control all houses and have Governors of the same party (Independent Governor in Rhode Island)!!!!!

    New York will not allow gay marriage because Republicans control the upper house by just 2 seats over the majority!!!!

    Things are not looking good for us gay people because tea-bagging Republicans and Christian Taliban soldiers want to “take-away” marriage for us in New Hampshire, Indiana and Iowa – since they won control of their states.

    An abuse of power if I ever saw it

    But then again I thought Republicans wanted to fix the economy and provide jobs/employment, instead they are OBSESSED with re-introducing sodomy laws and banning gay marriages!!!

    Priorities indeed, they are even stupidly more obsessed about anal sex as I am!!!!

    And they did exactly that in both Maine and California remember a couple of years back and I was OUTRAGED and ANGRY as all of us gays!!!!!

    DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN EVER AGAIN!!!!!!

  6. EnzoInOmaha 13 Feb 2011, 2:25am

    You missed the most interesting aspect of this story: that the judge, while prohibited by state law from issuing a divorce decree, did issue a ruling on a parenting plan, custody and
    child support. Creative.

    http://aksarbent.blogspot.com/search?q=child+custody

  7. If a state doesn’t recognise gay marriage, then according to that states law surely its as if the marriage never took place. So its hard to see the need for divorce.

    Surely the solution is to file for divorce in the state where they were wed?

    I mean I know this sucks and gay marriage needs recognition, but the affront to gay rights here Nebraska’s failure to recognise same-sex marriage, not their failure to offer gay-divorce.

    Its not that they are saying: “You must stay together”, they are saying “we never considered you to be a married couple in the first place.”

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all