I’ve got to admit, this is a pretty novel approach. A lesbian is attempting to make same-sex marriage legal in South Carolina by filing for divorce from her ex.
WYFF4 reports:
Cathy Swicegood, of Mauldin, is seeking a divorce from her female partner of 13 years. But because Swicegood was never legally married, she has no legal protections under South Carolina law.
“It’s just unbelievable that in a country as wonderful as ours, you can be treated this way,” Swicegood told WYFF News 4’s Tim Waller.
But Swicegood’s attorney, John Reckenbeil, believes his client does qualify for protections under South Carolina’s common law statute. According to their lawsuit, Swicegood and her partner “exchanged and wore wedding rings,” “owned property together” and were “in each other’s wills,” which Reckenbeil believes makes them as good as married.
“Common law marriage in South Carolina is two individuals that cohabitate, live together. They hold themselves out to the public in general as spouse and spouse,” Reckenbeil said.
Reckenbeil said not only was Swicegood thrown out of the home she resided in for 13 years, she was kicked off the “supporting domestic partners” company’s group health insurance with no legal remedy. He said that would not have been the case for a divorcing heterosexual couple, whose health coverage would be maintained by law.
“We are seeking the courts to issue an order that says both South Carolina laws that ban same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, not only under the South Carolina constitution, but more importantly under the United States constitution,” he said.
Reckenbeil expects the family court to throw out his client’s “divorce” request, because of the state’s ban on same sex marriage. If that happens, he said he plans to file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the state’s ban.
March 20, 2014 at 4:36 am
I would like to tell that there are many relief methods to reduce the colic from the babies.
Buy Brauer Colic Relief Online
March 20, 2014 at 4:43 am
More than a little confused?
Lemme' ask, did you seek a permission slip from the state when you got your hook up? So now your
asking for a permission slip to leave each other?
Like who the heck cares?
What about the all the screeching for state to stay out of your lives and out of your bedroom?
March 20, 2014 at 5:12 am
It includes also by necessity, any marriage which never existed in the first place (void ab initio) for example where consent of either or both parties was lacking, etc. Marriage, by definition, has criteria that must be satisfied for it to come into existence; the absence of one or more of these criteria mean that the marriage did not come into existence. In some cases, there may be no fault on the part of the parties to the marriage. However, some marriages have a fault, which is such that the marriage is only voidable, rather than necessarily void – this is where the fault or lack in the marriage can be made up for by the parties' intention to remain in the marriage.
March 20, 2014 at 5:14 am
There must be a fault in the marriage itself – which renders it void, or voidable.
March 20, 2014 at 5:17 am
The indissolubility of marriage is dogmatic, and an objective truth of the natural law.
March 20, 2014 at 5:20 am
This is a grave scandal for others, especially the young, in a parish.
March 20, 2014 at 5:21 am
You are abusing the quotation.
March 20, 2014 at 5:24 am
We are also called to avoid occasions of sin – in order that we can reasonably mean that we "will not sin again" and "amend my life". Otherwise, confession is not siincere, hence invalid.
March 20, 2014 at 5:26 am
It is those who go against the deposit of Faith that go into schism, not those who stay true to it.
March 20, 2014 at 5:30 am
What you complain about is the apostasy or heresy so widespread and at high levels in the Church, not the Faith itself, which has objective, unchangeable content. It is a trial to be abandoned by so many evil bishops and priests but we must not abandon the Faith. We are liable to damnation if we knowingly and with full consent renounce the Faith. There is no salvation outside the Church (of which Christ is the Head).
March 20, 2014 at 10:25 am
According to Fathers Trigilio and Brighenti in their book which has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, "Catholicism for Dummies 2nd Edition" on page 82 – Pope Pontian resigned in 235 AD, Pope St. Peter Celestine V resigned to go back to monastic life in 1294 AD, and Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415 AD.
This book was copyrighted in 2012 prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict.
Resignation of Pope Benedict:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio_en.html
March 20, 2014 at 10:59 am
Good question on how each of us personally would react if those continuing to commit adultery on a regular basis could receive Holy Communion.
I would stay close to Jesus word's in a Catholic Bible.
(I like the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition – large print);
and
the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition" # 1646 – 1651.
Jesus was very clear in his teaching against divorce from a valid marriage with remarriage. Mk 10:6-12; and Mt 19:9.
However He also said whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.
Mt 18:18-20.
If the Magisterium (- in which the Pope must agree) changed something major in the 'Apostolic Constitution' which is the way the CCC was promulgated, I would not leave the Church, would be extremely disappointed, and probably would revert to prayer rather than public criticism. Public criticism AFTER the FACT does no good but invites schism.
Until a major change is promulgated, writing to our Diocese Bishop, the US Papal Nuncio, and the Pope is important.
Those who have blog sites can encourage contacting Church leaders and provide contact information.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
March 20, 2014 at 11:06 am
This is true.
That is why we all need to encourage all the literate to read a Catholic Bible, and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition".
Most Catholics do not know their Faith.
March 20, 2014 at 11:18 am
The key is for each of us to contact our Diocese Bishop, the US Papal Nuncio, AND the Pope PRIOR to any Magisterial changes being made.
Respectfully make your position known, and use Church documentation (Bible, CCC, Code of Canon Law, GIRM, or whatever) as appropriate.
Once the Magisterium (which must include the Pope) has formally promulgated a change it is too late, and would cause schism.
In Code of Canon Law under "OBLIGATIONS and RIGHTS of ALL the CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL" – "212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
March 20, 2014 at 11:54 am
Poor, unhappy, lifeless women. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, in a world of light and beauty and color and mountains and sunrises and flowers and children and friends and merriment and trees, all they can find to focus on is their own tiny, dark self-obsession.
March 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm
the real crux of the matter is that all faithful Catholics will need to stay strong in the coming months and years, in spite of everything. The fact is that the Papacy as of today is hostage of a diabolic cabal operating out of the Vatican.
the only thing restraining them is the fear of reaction from the pews (and of course prayers of the faithful who love our Lord Jesus)
March 20, 2014 at 1:27 pm
"And the gates of hell shall not prevail." How is this believing that God can't bring His Purposes out of our messes? God is in control and He Wins. I read the end of the Book.
March 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm
They were never legally married. But if they can prove that they played make believe, that's the same thing. Because reality, after all, is just an individual construct.
March 20, 2014 at 4:38 pm
If a state does not recognize gay marriage surely they can't recognize gay divorce. And the people involved should be aware of that.
March 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm
I can see your point, but I don't think that way of defining traditionalist is really useful, far too much of a "no true Scotsman" argument.
In the case of SSPV, they would say that they are in union with the See of Rome, but the See is actually empty because the man who claims to occupy it is a heretic. As to their "traditional-sounding" elements, they would make the claim that they are in fact traditional and that other interpretations and forms of catechesis are modernist deviations.
A significant (though certainly not a majority) portion of the movement pursuing traditional Catholic praxis falls into heterodox and even heretical theology and ecclesiology. Considering how very difficult it often is to differentiate them from tradition-loving orthodox Catholics, I don't think that a definition that requires a differentiation is altogether useful.
Though I do agree with what is at the heart of the argument: no true traditionalist would go into schism.