Straight Couple in Brooklyn Challenges Legality of Opposite-Sex Marriage

[Are_grits_groceries]

From Daily Kos-
commonmass's diary :: ::

Matthew and Rachel D'Olimpio are mad as Hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. The "straight" couple, both 29 years old, who have one child and currently reside in Brooklyn are planning to sue the State of New York to have their 2007 New York civil marriage annulled in "the name of equality".

Married in 2007 in a civil ceremony in order to "facilitate certain benefits and certain rights" in case of illness or death according to Matthew D'Olimpio as quoted in the Fulton article, the couple is outraged at the fact that same-gender couples are not afforded the same rights and access to marriage as they are in the state of New York. Starting their public campaign on Facebook, the couple has engaged legal council to help them seek an annulment of their civil marriage on the grounds that their marriage contract with the state of New York is unconstitutional because it is inherently discriminatory.

Why not divorce? Matthew explains that annulment is the only "...truly no-fault void of a marriage on the grounds that the circumstances involving the marriage prevent it from being a valid contract". The circumstances? That same-sex couples do not have access to the same legal contract with New York that they do by virtue of their opposite gender. According to the Phoenix article, they have engaged legal council who have agreed to work pro-bono.

Apparently, the number of folks following this on their Facebook page has doubled since they began their action after the vote last week in the New York State Assembly.

This is grass-roots at its best. A "Straight" couple from New York City trying to challenge the very legal basis for marriage in the service of marriage equality for all.

I think this couple may be the the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. Challenging marriage as inherently discriminatory and seeking to void a contract with a state on this basis is huge. I wish them well. What say you?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/14/814217/-Straight-Couple-in-Brooklyn-Challenges-Legality-of-Opposite-Sex-Marriage

Should be fun....

[BR_Parkway]

1. So if they prevailed - would it annul everyone in NY? or just theirs?

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. They are saying that the marriage

is unconstitutional. If the ruling was in their favor, I guess it would cover the marriages by NY state.

[BR_Parkway]

4. Won't they have to prove that they are harmed by this somehow?

I love the concept, just not sure it's going to last more than a few moments in court if a judge says that they have no standing and tosses it out

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I have no idea.

I don't know the law that well.

[Mari333]

2. actually thats a brilliant tactic!

will be fun to watch the head scratching as this goes into proceedings.

[struggle4progress]

6. I suppose it's OK as a gesture of solidarity -- but I can't see the suit going anywhere

The courts generally won't be terribly receptive to people who are trying to make a political statement, since there are enough real disputes floating around to keep the bench busy. In particular, the courts are unlikely to carve out new areas in annulment law for someone making a political statement. And the courts usually don't want litigant X pursuing a claim indirectly for party Y, as the interests of party Y will best be pursued by party Y. So I'd expect the first court they try to drop-kick their case out of chambers

[shirlden]

7. A political statement?

I thought the constitution had something to do with law, now politics. I learn something new everyday here on DU.
But, in all sanity, I don't see the suit going anywhere either. Depends on the judge they get.

[struggle4progress]

8. I can't imagine how this would depend on the judge they get. They themselves

are not materially harmed by the disgraceful fact that same-sex couples cannot wed, so no material issue exists to give them standing. The argument that they have been allowed to enter into a contract unavailable to others will not be read by the bench as an argument with any bearing on the validity of their contract: it is a discrimination claim that could only be raised by parties who are materially harmed

And if they won, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for the cause of gay marriage. New York doesn't have no fault divorce, and New Yorkers have to jump through various hoops to divorce. If anyone could immediately get an annulment on grounds of discriminatory contract, there would be many people who would like to take advantage of that as an alternative to divorce: this would create a constituency that wanted to oppose gay marriage so as not to lose the possibility of annulment on grounds of discriminatory contract