Man Ordered to pay Alimony to Ex-wife who is in a Domestic Partnership

  This almost seems like a set-up to me. San Francisco has a domestic partner law that provides equal rights to gay couples as marriage. The court of appeals upheld a ban on gay marriage because it ruled the domestic partnerships provided the same rights as real marriage. Now we have a man ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife even though she is now married to another woman.

   Before I even get into the whole gay angle of this, isn’t alimony in general an antiquated idea? Why is a man still required to pay to support his ex-wife in a time when women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves? Child support I can understand, every man should support his children, it shouldn’t take a court order to have him take responsibility.

  Marriage has been cheapened in more ways than one. Gay marriage is just the latest example. In today’s culture of no consequences divorce has become too easy to obtain. A man and woman used to have to consider carefully whether they were ready to, or in the right relationship to marry. Now, in today’s culture it is perfectly acceptable to have a sort of trial and error marriage. If it doesn’t work out, oh well, it’s time to move on with no committment to trying to work things out. Just move on to the next marriage.

  Anyway, let me now get back on point.

A judge ordered an Orange County man to continue paying $1,250 a month in alimony to his former wife — even though she’s in a registered domestic partnership with another woman.

State marriage laws say that alimony ends when a former spouse remarries. So Ron Garber thought he was off the hook for the payments when he learned his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood, registered her new relationship under the state’s domestic partnership law.

  The court of appeals already ruled that gay couples had the same rights as breeders, so why would this judge rule against the ex-husband in this case? I believe the judge to be an activist who wants marriage to be re-defined and doesn’t think domestic partnerships are enough. He or she is using his or her position to further an agenda. My oint I belive is reaffirmed here:

The case, which Garber said he plans to appeal, highlights gaps between the legal status of domestic partners and married couples, an issue the California Supreme Court is considering as it ponders whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

  There is no gap here, except the one seen by the judge. The woman is re-married  so Garber should not be required to pay alimony. Are you trying to tell me that women can never support themselves? If so, then two women should not be allowed to marry if they need a man to support them.

  Here is the agenda summed up:

Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriage are watching the Orange County case and say they will cite it to the state high court as an argument for uniting gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

  That’s the objective here, gays will not be happy until they receive the term marriage. This is not about gay rights, it’s about semantics. They want to trivialize marriage more than it has already been. They are in the process of destroying one of the fabrics that our country was founded on. They are gaining the rights, but they want the word.