A lesbian married in Massachusetts has filed for an annulment from her partner in a Buchanan County court, creating a legal challenge in a state that overwhelming voted four years ago that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Charisse Y. Sparks and Janet Y. Peters Mauceri Sparks were married in Boston in April 2005, a little less than a year after Massachusetts became the first and only state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.
Shortly following the ceremony, the women moved to Missouri, and in late 2007 Ms. Sparks entered the court system for a dissolution.
Buchanan County Circuit Judge Daniel Kellogg said the case is being treated as an annulment, not a divorce. Ms. Sparks, in her petition filed in October, does not recognize her marriage.
William Bird, the attorney for Ms. Sparks, asks in court documents that the marriage in Massachusetts be declared invalid from the beginning because Missouri doesn't recognize same-sex couples. The petition also states the marriage is null and void because it violates a Massachusetts law.
Ms. Peters Mauceri Sparks' attorney, Kay Madden, argues the marriage ceremony is legal, as Missouri courts have long held that out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, will be respected in Missouri, even if the marriages couldn't have been performed here.
Mr. Kellogg has taken the rare matter under careful consideration.
The case may be the first same-sex filing in Missouri, and may then set precedent for cases to follow, according to sources on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate and the Missouri attorney general's office.
"I haven't seen it before. It's under advisement right now," Mr. Kellogg said.
Both parties declined to comment on the case, citing an active legal proceeding.
The ruling on the failed marriage between the women could bring back the contentious debate over same-sex marriage.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, recently hailed a decision by the state Supreme Court in Rhode Island to deny a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts a divorce in that state.
Greg Scott, a spokesman for the group, said if Mr. Kellogg was to grant the couple a divorce or annulment, the ruling would "overrule" the will of Missourians, who in 2004 voted overwhelming for a constitutional amendment that prevents same-sex marriages from being conducted or recognized in Missouri.
"These divorce cases are a sneak attack on marriage," he said. "I mean, you can't have a divorce when a marriage doesn't exist."
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, an organization seeking equality in marriage between gay and straight couples, said the Rhode Island ruling in December was a setback for recognition of same-sex marriages.
Increasingly, he said, such cases are popping up in courts across the country, and as they do, will turn public sentiment against the "gay exception" in both marriage and divorce.
"I think people in Missouri are fair, and the more they learn and hear about real couples like this and ask themselves, do they really hate gay relationships so much that they won't let gay people out of them?" Mr. Wolfson said.
Mr. Kellogg is scheduled to hear the case again at 8:30 a.m. April 2.
Ahmad Safi can be reached
at ahmadsafi@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
rush620 says...
I don't see how this matter could be so "perplexing"! Missouri does not recognize same sex marriages, therefore if the couple is wanting to disolve their union, they need to return to the state that did recognize it to have it disolved. What is so perplexing?
March 17, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justonevoice says...
This situation is most definately a double-edged sword. Married in one state, but denied a divorce or annulment in another... it seems that those against same-sex marriages/unions are now finding yet ANOTHER card to play in their fight AGAINST equality. With the dissolution of some of these ground-breaking relationships, they are finding ways to cut these human beings (who have basically done nothing but loved and lost) with both ends of the sword of prejudice and hate. It is a sad, painful, stressful ordeal when a relationship fails, regardless of sexual orientation. Love knows no gender bias, but closed-minded, fearful people do. Unfortunately, the laws of the land are not currently set up to deal with such matters. But the times, they are a'changin'! And hopefully for the better! Although I am merely stating my opinion here, I do hold out hope that the judges who will continue to be faced with these courtroom decisions will do so with what little LAW has been established (or better yet, create some precedents using the principles of FREEDOM and EQUALITY on which this country was established) and not be swayed by their personal or religious bias.
March 17, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Sparks is a doctor for Heartland Health.
Like it matters....
March 17, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
http://www.healthgrades.com/directory...
Probably a good Doctor.
I'd have no problem's with her.
Hate the sin, not the sinner......
March 17, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justonevoice says...
It didn't take long for the word 'hate' to appear. Thus, the sword keeps swinging. So sad.
March 17, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fightforyourrights says...
Missouri law recognizes all marriages from other states whether or not they can be performed here or not. This is why there is a problem as same-sex marriage is "illegal" in the state of Missouri. So under the law, their marriage would be considered valid. It will be interesting to see if this case will change the law in Missouri.
March 18, 2008 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Did someone mention love?
Marriage is a committment and if there truly was love, this would not be ending is divorce.
Where are these people roots, they should be fighting to make this marriage work, as marriage is a lifelong commitment -
And it does not matter what sex they are from that perspective - although it does seem the rights of those that believe the bible have been trampled for decades.
Could this be part of an agenda, as it seems like it could be.
Nothing new, maybe new in this part of the country, but not nationally.
Any divorce is bad, and far too easy.
Hate, yes, hate the sin, not the sinner.
Compassion for the individual, nothing wrong with that.
The sword cuts, and it cuts deep.
Rightfully so in many cases.
March 18, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rush620 says...
Missouri does NOT recognize ALL marriages performed in other states. It does NOT recognize same sex marriages.
March 18, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Faerie says...
People, people. "trampling on the rights of those that believe in the bible"? What a ridiculous statement. So, it's okay for those that read the bible to trample on the rights of those that don't? How are your rights being trampled? You're still allowed to marry, divorce, procreate, buy a hooker, -- sorry about that. I got a little ahead of myself there. How come the majority of scandals are committed by "christians"? I'll tell you why, because the majority of christians think that they belong to an exclusive club and that if they follow certain rules they'll have some hunky dory afterlife. They don't try to do the right thing simply because they should, they do because they want something in return. And if they fall off the track they can just ask for forgiveness and everythings allll better.
If same-sex couples want the headache of marriage, what's the big deal. It's no more sacred than two people pledging themselves to one another. If a church doesn't want to perform the marriage, it doesn't have to.
Legal marriage is more a perk financially - sometimes. It helps with taxes, it also helps when emergency decisions are needed.
I know more same-sex couples than straight couples who've been together beyond the decade mark. That's saying something.
And has anyone ever thought what good it might do the ECONOMY??? Hellooooo, more weddings, more money flowing; more divorces, more money flowing....
March 18, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
4wildones says...
Did any of you read this article closely? Did you miss the part that says C. Sparks herself wants the marriage declared not a marriage because Missouri does not recognize it? Seems to me she is twisting it for her own benefit. Missouri's law was a terrible thing when she wanted to get married and now that she wants out of it she is all for Missouri not recognizing it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Missouri does not recognize same sex marriages so it does not fall into the statement "Missouri courts have long held that out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, will be respected in Missouri, even if the marriages couldn't have been performed here". In Missouri this is NOT a marriage. They went to antoher state to get married, go back there to get divorced. Or is it just that C. Sparks doesn't want to put up a settlement for the divorce? And StJoeMoe, why did you even bring up where Dr. Sparks works, who cares where either of them work? It has no bearing on this. Your "like it matters, probably a good doctor, I'd have no problem with her" comment does not erase the fact that you were trying to stir the pot.
March 18, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Seems every other paper/article in the State brought up where the person worked and I found it extremely strange that ours did not.
Does anyone else find that strange? What was our local paper trying to hide? Anything?
Oh, and I'm more than a little tired of people continally beating up Christians.
But, that is exactly what the Bible said would be happening, exactly.
Most of the Christians I have met are good people. A high percentage, in fact. Seems likes whenever there is one that slips, the anti-religious freaks jump all over it like they are on a trampoline.
Funny sometimes. Wind 'em up and watch 'em go.....
Accuse me of stirring the pot, sure, go for it, remember, while you point that finger at me, you've got a few of your own pointing directly back at you......
Bottom line, people should not get married unless they are prepared for a lifetime commitment.
March 18, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
"I know more same-sex couples than straight couples who've been together beyond the decade mark. That's saying something."
All that says is that you hang around with a higher percentage of gays than most people do.
Simple, eh?
March 18, 2008 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
idrivemetrobug says...
In repsonse to Justonevoice's first post at the very top:
I must aggree that this may seem a double edged sword for Judge Kellogg. One State recognizes a standard and another does not. But what will happen if all states begin regognizing other state's decitions? These individual decisions, such as the 2004 vote to maintain traditional marriage, are what make each individual state a "state", a specific public power within a sovereign political entity. Each state looks through it's own pair of glasses,if you will, different prescriptions fitting different needs of the specific populace within. Should California conform their state system to the generally more conservative Missouri system any more than Missouri should conform to Massachusett's? I think not. It goes both ways people. It suddenly becomes a huge mess if we apply the Kay Madden methodology.
This two-way methodology not only applies to legal philosophy, but also to JUSTONEVOICE'S poor analysis of the homosexual-marriage debate. Apparently "closed minded, fearful" people express "gender bias", but love doesn't. Well, both the prosecutor and defendent would have to dissagree with this statement, seeing as they are filing for a DIVORCE. This does not entirely prove my point, I understand, but beyond a case that weekens JUSTONEVOICE'S claim tremendously, there remains little if any evidence in support of the fact that love can or can't discriminate. Last time I checked, love was not some indipendent being that floated arround and decided to infect humans; it is a contious decition or rather a string of contious decisions a person makes in dealing with another. I love my dog, but not because love chose me to love it.
Further, "Freedom" and "Equality" are cited as supreme and even idealistic concepts for our country in support of gay-marriage, but to what extent? If freedom is not limited, then why do we have a justice system that punishes child molestors and murderer's that are simply expressing their freedom? Nothing. We can easily then come to the conclution that freedom is never freedom if it has no ends, it becomes vice. Our job is not to expand the uses of freedom indefinitely, but rather to cyphen out the good and bad uses of it and decide which should be supplanted in society. To say that limitation of gay marriage is due to lack of freedom is skipping the real question. The real question isn't "would it make them more free?", it is "Will this freedom benefit or decay society?"
March 20, 2008 at 1:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rush620 says...
This is going to be way off topic but in response to Stjoemo's comment about Christians. I have yet to meet a Christian who does not sin. I think there was only one of those. If you know more than that please let us all in on your knowledge. I think if you'll open your bible, you'll find that God does not recognize sin in degrees. In other words, no sin is greater than another, and will be judged accordingly. Judging is not for us to do here on earth. God will definately take care of that.
One thing I have learned over the years and through many heated discussions, you either get it or you don't. If you are trying to rationalize and justify your actions, that go against what the Bible teaches, then you don't get it. If you are trying to live a good life, and try to live according to what the Bible teaches, then you do get it. Believe me when I say, I am a Christian, but I stumble daily. My comfort comes from knowing Christ will forgive me and help guide me through.
March 20, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
If someone continues to repeat the same sin over and over and over, I'm not sure they will be forgiven.
That God I do not have to make that call!
We all stumble, there is a huge difference between a stumble and a sin.
No need to rationalize that to anyone, especially ourselves.
Hope to see you all in Church this weekend.
And next, and the one after that -
Nothing makes me happier than seeing people walking the walk after they leave the Church.
Those are the religious people I have the most respect for.
My love goes out to you all.
March 22, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Docwillyd says...
Saint Joseph is lucky to have such a talented Doctor as Dr.Sparks. We should all be glad take she would not spend an extra minute thinking about our orientations before she went to work to save our lives in a trauma situation.I hope the community and the paper does not make such an issue of this that she no longer feels comfortable with living there. Some day we all are going answer to our maker. I am afraid alot of us may find out we have alot more issues than we realize. A big one may be judging others.
March 23, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
I agree that she should of simply taken it back to Boston, none of this would of even come up if she had.....
That is what concerns me, about a possible agenda of sorts.
March 24, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fightforyourrights says...
The divorce takes place where the parties are domicile which means that it would have to be done in Missouri. If you read into some Family Law, Missouri recognizes marriages that are performed in other states and I don't believe that there is any case law on this topic so it could possibly change the laws of same-sex marriage in MO.
April 29, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kisses4wywy says...
Why is everyone still treating this as a religious argument?
Christian bashing is wrong!
Gay bashing is wrong!
Taking away anothers Constitutional rights based your PERSONAL religious beliefs is wrong!
The right to marry, and the basic amenities that come with it (like insurance, medical decisions, and child rearing) are a Constitutional issue. Many religions say it is ok, many say it is not. But our first amendment promises us a "Freedom of Religion". And to make your personal religious beliefs a law is taking away others freedom to choose thier own religion.
So if you love your country, love your freedom to worship God the way your religion chooses to do so, then to vote against a basic right like the legal union of two consenting adults you are acting AGAINST the very Constitution which gave you those rights. Not all marriages in America are religious ceremonies, even if the parties themselves are religious. No one is asking for the right to have a religious marriage in your church, they simply want the legal rights afforded every other American.
July 22, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
babyblue says...
They have the legal rights afforded to every other American, just not husband and wifes who are in a male and female marriage. Missouri is not a common law marriage state, even for a male and a female, how could it be that for two men or two women. What you are asking for is special privileges.
October 1, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
azmaggie says...
I'm sorry; I missed something!! If the marriage is not reconized by the state then IT IS NOT LEGAL!!!! This has nothing to do with religion. It is the will for the people of the state. I wonder how many of the marriages are challanging other states. Smells to me like it is an agenda to challange to law. Tell it for what it is.
October 1, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
devinbroncs123 says...
Yeah the whole religion thing on gay marriage is BS. Stop bringing it up please. If gay people want to get married or divorced, let them. Why the heck does everybody care so much. It's not your life. DUH!!! Mind your own business.
October 1, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rockchalk says...
This does present an interesting legal question.
As stated in the article, Missouri recognizes out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, even if the marriages couldn't have been performed here. For example, in Mississippi the age of consent (without a parent's/judge's approval) for marriage is 17 for a male and 15 for a female. However, in Missouri it is 18. A 17 and 15 year-old couple married in MS can move to MO. If they file for divorce, the MO courts would recognize that marriage and move forward with the divorce proceedings, even though that marriage would not have been allowed in MO.
It seems that if the marriage was valid in Massachusetts, then MO courts would have to recognize that. However, the article does say that there may have been a problem with the MA marriage from the start. If that is the case and it was not a valid marriage, then MO has no obligation to recognize it.
While the Defense of Marriage of Act says that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, there is a real question whether that violates the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit clauses of the US Constitution. As far as I know, the Act has never been challenged on those grounds.
I see a number of people posting here who are obviously against same-sex marriage. I'm curious why?
At its core, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Sure, that contract is generally entered into because of love, but if only love were involved, two people who love each other can simply cohabitate.
The marriage contract confers rights/responsibilities on the parties regarding inheritance, child custody and support, spousal support, eligibility for special tax treatment, dealing with medical issues, and numerous others. If the state is going to confer these rights, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.
If the objection is on religious grounds (as most of the posts seem to suggest), that is no reason to legally impose that viewpoint on those who do not hold that view.
Just because a state recognizes same-sex marriages, does not mean that a church would have to perform such marriages. If a particular church or religion objected, there is nothing requiring that church to participate or sanction the marriage.
If there is some other valid/legal reason for banning same-sex marriage, I would be interested to hear it.
October 1, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )