Gay marriage: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave

Remember back when Massachusetts brought same sex marriage to the U.S. and everyone worried about whether courts in other states were going to be forced through the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution to recognize these marriages even though they have lots of homophobic language in their state constitutions?

Well, that hasn't so much happened yet. Massachusetts allows gay couples from other states to get married in the Commonwealth, but there has not been a rash of other state courts enforcing the legal effect of those marriages. Instead, when people from other states who married in Massachusetts now try to get a divorce, they're finding that they cannot legally pursue divorce proceedings anywhere but Massachusetts because their states do not allow dissolution of marriages they do not legally recognize. Now, gay couples are finding that they will need to establish residency in Massachusetts--by living there for at least one year--before they will be able to file for divorce in the only state in the country that recognizes gay marriages.

For heterosexual marriages, either spouse can usually file in whatever state they or their spouse presently lives in, since that is most likely where the marital property to be distributed is located. But as an added impediment to the refusal to recognize same sex marriages in other states, the requirement that at least one spouse must live in Massachusetts for a full year before they can file for divorce is a serious roadblock and one that I am guessing many of those couples did not think about or appreciate when they decided to take advantage of the right of legal marriage only afforded in one state.

Of course, if other states actually enforced the full faith and credit clause then they would presumably be able to provide the right of divorce even without providing the right of marriage of same sex couples in their state. I believe that some states that do not recognize common law marriages established within their borders will still provide a mechanism for dissolution of such a marriage if it was legally entered into in a state that does recognize common law marriage. Why should this be any different?

There is some sick irony that the effect of the hard line position of the religious right on fighting gay marriage is to force people to stay in gay marriages that they would love to dissolve. I doubt the fundies will appreciate the irony, however.