gregorygarver.com

lisab · Joined: 09 Jun 2003 Posts: 6

An Orange county man and his wife were married for 18 years until their divorce in 2004. During this time, they owned and managed a real estate company together. 18 years and 2 children later, the husband has accepted his former wife as a lesbian, and that she was moving in with her new lover. In the process of the divorce, he agreed to pay $1,250 per month in alimony. She did not, however, reveal that she and her new lover were now registered as domestic partners.Should this man still have to pay alimony?Is this a case of the wife wanting her $1,250 per month cake and GETTING to eat it, too?Do you think it has an impact on the gay rights/marriage issues when a person enters a same-sex relationship while still reaping rewards of their marriage?Regards,Rock E. Horrorkayer_fire: So, you stance is that as long as congress is against gay marriage, the husband (in this case) should have to be financially held accountable for their decision, even though HE IS accepting of his ex- wife's new relationship?This took place in Orange County here in Southern California; one of the few states to recognize same-sex relationships on ANY level.LOL... No. I'm not the husband.

JenS · Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 6

As long as she's not allowed to marry the woman she loves then ha that's what men will have to deal with. Maybe this will change some minds in congress huh?

MizD · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 4

No - the alimony should have ended upon entering into a somestic partnership (in my opinion).

ill_c_u_deported · Joined: 28 Aug 2005 Posts: 7

Not at all! Thats BS - I don't think it's gonna have an impact because is could happen in a straight relationship but she is a greedy heffer

JeffreyW · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 4

Just one of many, many, many messy questions that will need to be answered by the courts.

jtdx14 · Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Posts: 2

No. He should not have to pay alimony.

joes · Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 4

If the state in which this took place legally recognizes same sex domestic partnerships, i would say she is no longer elibible to receive spousal support.This will be interesting to see how it plays out in the court system and what impact it may have on couples in states that do not recognize SSPs. For example, if I am divorced in Alabama, and my ex enters a register domestic partnership in WA, I would still have to pay her spousal support pursuant to the Alabama court decree. Alabama not only doesn't allow SSPs, their law strictly forbids State recognition of SSPs from other states. So in the eyes of the Alabama Court, she is still single and therefore entitled to spousal support.

brwzx · Joined: 21 Mar 2006 Posts: 10

Well it sucks that this greedy lesbian has to set such a crappy example. However- if she were to live with her boyfriend, she would still get alimony. I know many, many women who have done this, and it is perfectly legal unless they get married to their live in lover- so they just keep boyfriends AND the alimony. My point is- even if she could get married to a woman- she might just take her ex for everything he's got and stay unmarried." we want pre-nup, we want pre-nup!!"Just goes to show that there are greedy biza ches on both sides of the fence!I think alimony is just baaaad. But here in TX we just split everything with an axe down the middle... : )

babygirlree · Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posts: 7

Kayer, you say that with such malice... there is no reason to want to subject that man to something like that. I'm sure it wasn't easy on him, either. Married for 18 years, just to find out your wife was never truly happy with you... that's got to be devastating. And there's no way this would change minds in the Congress... I don't know where you came up with that idea. If anything, the people who are already against us would just end up saying something along the lines of "look at how greedy they are!" And needless to say, that would not be good.As for the question, my answer is no. I don't think she should be able to continue to collect alimony.I think it could be used as a weapon by anti-gay marriage activists, but (I would hope) the only people who would listen to such a ridiculous argument would have to be fundamentalists. Or just so opposed to the idea of us getting married that they would believe anything that anyone said, so long as it was against us.

Rantagonist · Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 3

Well Rock, I feel for ya man. That sucks! This is a tricky question. While she should be entitled to the money because you both owned the real estate company, she is now technically married. Dude, you need a good lawyer who knows what he is doing.

JohnnyRocker89 · Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 8

Got to love the issues that spawn when we create a patchwork quilt of laws and try to create "Separate but Equal" legislation.Yes she should get the money since that is what the courts decided. The courts, the legislation and the voting public have decided that domestic partnerships don't equal marriage therefor they now have to live with that decision, that means alimony payments continue in spite of domestic partnership registries.When the people decide to repeal AB 22, DOMA and heterosexual politicians decides to stop vetoing gay marriage bills then this problem will go away.Separate is not equal. And here is your proof, but as long as the people vote, legislate and rule that gay marriage must be a separate institution, so must the law decide.I'd also like to add that this illustrates the problem of many fence sitters on this issue. "Separate but equal" is all great and good till it effects them. Now that "strait" people have discovered that their check book can be hurt by "Separate but Equal" laws, they are suddenly screaming for equality.

theocor · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 5

I do not think it is fair, although if the law was not crafted properly it might allow for such a thing. ♂♂

KP · Joined: 24 Nov 2006 Posts: 5

I think it's ridiculous if the husband is still paying alimony, that is completely unfair to him. I hope that ends soon. I don't think this case should have any impact on the issue of gay marriage. This is one case of a greedy, and thoughtless, person trying to take advantage of the system. That has nothing to do with the issue as a whole. If you know the husband, or are him, I hope you or he fights this, its very unfair.I have to say, Kith D has a pretty good point. If things were actually equal, this wouldn't happen. While I don't think this should be happening at all, it is the fault of the courts and legislature.

PATRICIAMS3377 · Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Posts: 5

NO!!! Absolutely not!!! He should not have to support her and her lover. That's another reason why gay marriage should be legal all over!!!

Ruthie · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

kayer_fire: What exactly is it that the husband did to warrent such anger? SHE is the one who left the relationship. It was HER decision to leave. It was SHE who did not even mention that she was registering DP with her lover. I'm not saying that she should not be with whomever makes her happy, but what is it that HE did wrong that you seem to think he deserves some kind of punishment and "ha that's what men will have to deal with."They BOTH own the company. Together. Equal. Why should HE have to pay out more?Let's turn this around. Would you feel the same way if SHE had to pay out the alimony? Hey... It happens.Warm, Purple, Fuzzy HugsBruce Monster