A Superior Court judge has refused to hear the divorce case of a lesbian couple, but questioned whether the law that barred the women from ending their marriage unconstitutionally denied them a right enjoyed by heterosexual Rhode Islanders.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year ruled that the state’s family court could not grant a divorce to Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, who wed in 2004 in Massachusetts soon after same-sex marriage became legal in that state.

The justices said the state statute that created the family court recognized marriage as between only a man and a woman and the court, therefore, could not divorce a same-sex couple.

Chambers then sought a divorce in Superior Court. Judge Patricia Hurst denied that claim on Wednesday, saying her court does not have jurisdiction to handle divorce.

But she also questioned the constitutionality of the statute relied on last year by the Supreme Court.
“It seems to me that this is a matter needing immediate attention and one that very plainly belongs in the hands of the legislature and the executive branch,” Hurst said.
She said the law could be challenged in family court and ultimately ruled on by the Supreme Court.
The couple, both from Rhode Island, filed for divorce in Rhode Island in 2006, citing irreconcilable differences. Ormiston has been renting a room in Massachusetts, where she must live for a year for the couple to get divorced there.
Louis Pulner, a lawyer for Chambers, said he was disappointed with Hurst’s decision and his client would pursue other options to end her marriage.
But, he added, “Interestingly enough, the judge finds it disdainful that these parties cannot get the relief they seek and suggested the parties here were likely denied equal protection.”

Source: National News Brief