WWTBAM Bored

This one from a Tennessee judge.

He's refused to give a contested divorce citing, among many other reasons, the Obergefell v Hodges ruling favoring gay marriage.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/loca ... ia/323201/

[Judge] Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.

Now, at first blush, there are other issues involved in this divorce (it's contested, after all, although not granting a divorce when both parties want it is likely unusual). But using the Oberfefell ruling as a crutch sound spiteful, petty, or otherwise mean-spirited.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:This one from a Tennessee judge.

He's refused to give a contested divorce citing, among many other reasons, the Obergefell v Hodges ruling favoring gay marriage.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/loca ... ia/323201/

[Judge] Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.

Now, at first blush, there are other issues involved in this divorce (it's contested, after all, although not granting a divorce when both parties want it is likely unusual). But using the Oberfefell ruling as a crutch sound spiteful, petty, or otherwise mean-spirited.

I guess the courts in Tennessee have far less to do with their time than they do here in Georgia, so that this judge can waste four days of court, attorney, party, and witness time (and money) to make a political statement.

silverscreenselect wrote:I guess the courts in Tennessee have far less to do with their time than they do here in Georgia, so that this judge can waste four days of court, attorney, party, and witness time (and money) to make a political statement.

I agree with the political statement, but I don't begrudge any judge who has to deal with a contested divorce.

I used to be Controller at a small family-owned business when the owner and wife split. Of course, the business was the largest marital asset, and she seemed more interested in making life difficult for him than anything else; it got so bad, I left the company 18 months into proceedings (as Controller, I was the one who got deposed -- repeatedly -- over financial matters of the company). He favorite trick was right as it got close to wrapping up, she'd fire her lawyer (often on the courthouse steps) and the judge would kind of start over three months later. After she fired herfifth lawyer (after four years of litigation), the judge told her that he was ruling anyway and granted the divorce with the terms negotiated by her prior lawyer.