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 5:01 pm
Of course it is. But my question still remains, why even bring up the topic of schism in a piece about a hypothetical response to a speculated course of action that actually does not change the objective truth of marriage even if it might obscure it?
March 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm
I'm not. It goes with another: "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
If we would not want our private sins to be judged by outside appearance and incomplete knowledge of the details of our situation, then we should not do it to others.
For those who "remarry" without an annulment, the sin is adultery against their actual spouse. So, we on the outside would need to know a lot of very private information about the state of their marriage and their sex life (and it must be very current, since brother-sister arrangements do exist even if they are not common) before we can pass judgement.
We don't have to compromise one bit on the gravity of sin that most civilly "remarried" Catholics are committing in order to say, "I don't know for sure this applies to this specific couple, so I will not make myself their judge."
March 20, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Gossip and calumny are also a scandal.
I'm not saying there isn't a serious problem. There is a crisis of marriage in our culture that extends to the Church. Those who approach Communion unworthily put their own souls in danger and risk leading others into sin.
But I am saying that unless we know for certain, unless we are privy to private details or they have unambiguously made their private sins public, we should not assume that others are sinning based on outward appearances and incomplete knowledge.
March 20, 2014 at 6:56 pm
am sorry to say it but Rome is going down like Jerusalem did in 70 AD, unless the present Roman Curia repents of its plans to further liberalize church teachings on sexual morality, particularly, teachings concerning homosexuality.
March 20, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Evil seeks always to destroy the good – hence the attack on the fundamental goods of marriage and the family based on it, moral institutions for the good of the person and the common good in accordance with God's plan for us.
March 21, 2014 at 12:55 am
Everyone here who is more Catholic than the pope, raise your hands (mine is down).
March 21, 2014 at 1:22 am
Same thing happened in Maryland two years ago: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/us/maryland-same-sex-couple/index.html.
It's the right side of history, you know.
March 21, 2014 at 3:10 am
Oh, boo hoo. They have been living a mirage. That's as close as they can get to marriage.
March 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm
A man can never have a husband and a woman can never have a wife. Marriage is between one husband and one wife. A person cannot lie in a court of law. It is called perjury. A woman who claims her partner is a wife is a liar. If the partner is not a wife, there is no legal precedent for divorcing a partner, if they were not husband and wife.
March 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm
This truth does not mean the Church won't be destroyed in many places and billions of souls lost. We have been given free will so that we can choose to do good and fight evil. Our duty remains.
March 21, 2014 at 5:12 pm
It would render it subjective and arbitrary, rather than objective and universal. It's a reality – a man and woman were either married or were not. It's not an arbitrary matter. Otherwise, marriage would be rendered meaningless, stripped of all objective truth, rational and spiritual.
March 22, 2014 at 2:02 am
Marriage and cohabitation are public knowledge. They are recognised and the latter even given official status these days by many state agencies. Apparent cohabitation is presumptive of fornication. When Canon 915 refers to obstinate manifest and grave sin, it includes cohabitation, even though presumably the couple involved does not explicitly announce to the parish that they engage in sexual relations. It's a matter of reason. Scandal is involved in public sin, and this is compounded by the public sacrilege of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
March 22, 2014 at 2:08 am
The saints and many good people have certainly been "more Catholic" than some of the Popes. Being a pope does not necessarily mean one is a good Catholic or a good person (sadly).
March 22, 2014 at 6:05 pm
There's one escape clause, but I'd rather not have to consider that possibility. It'd be 1378 all over again.
March 23, 2014 at 8:20 pm
What's wrong with reacting? That's what living things do, isn't it?
March 24, 2014 at 5:14 pm
"Marriage and cohabitation are public knowledge."
Not always. Can you really say that the marital and annulment status of every couple in the parish is public knowledge? There are certainly some couples where it is, but most it is not.
My only point here is that we should not condemn couples for a sin unless we actually know that they are committing it, and that we should be careful about conclusions based on what "everybody knows" or "reasonable conclusions." It's not really a subversive idea.
March 24, 2014 at 7:49 pm
The alleged marriage is called a "putative" marriage–that is, an attempt at marriage which was invalid, but which seemed real and valid to all concerned parties.
March 24, 2014 at 7:54 pm
As an aside: a schism is usually underpinned by a doctrinal difference, true… but it need not be. A schism, in this (Catholic) case, is defined as a refusal to submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Theoretically, a bishop could go into schism not out of a rejection of doctrine, but because he simply didn't like the pope in question.
March 24, 2014 at 8:02 pm
With all due respect, wineinthewater, you're not using that quotation properly. We are certainly called not to judge the subjective state of someone else's soul (i.e. how culpable they are for any given wrongdoing)–but we *MUST* just ACTIONS… or else it would make nonsense out of Scriptures such as "When you see your brother sinning, tell him his fault between the two of you… [Matthew 18:15]", or "let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" [James 5:20]. "Judge not [etc.]" was never meant to be a fig leaf to provide cover for sinners to keep sinning, or for us to abandon our absolute DUTY to be our brother's keeper and "admonish the sinner" (a spiritual work of mercy).
March 24, 2014 at 8:20 pm
But that's not how I'm using it. Catholics who civilly divorce and remarry are committing serial adultery. And this is a significant problem in the Church.
All I am saying is, if you don't know *for a fact* that a couple is guilty of this sin, don't judge them for it. If someone has decided to make their private sin public, that is one thing. But that is very different from judgment grounded in gossip or even "reasonable conclusion." A couple who was civilly divorced from their spouses and civilly remarried, who had children, and who later decided to return to their faith and are struggling to live as brother ans sister but who doesn't feel like justifying their private lives in the public sphere doesn't need the added burden of their parish judging them.
We can speak quite clearly on the sin of civil remarriage. We can rebuke our brothers and sisters who commit that sin and flaunt it in the public sphere. But when we don't know, for a fact – and knowing for a fact requires some pretty intimate knowledge – that a couple is actually guilty of that sin, we should keep our mouths shut. We should judge not lest we be judged.