BlogWonks

Ah, the joys of marriage under feminisms goals of harming men.

For those willing to learn a life lesson here, this is called “working cross purposes”.

Now, the laws that were intended to go one way, are going to be worked to go another way. Whether they succeed in this case, is not the issue. The issue is that they used inequality in application of the law to create punitive and hurtful adjudications, now it will be applied equally. Does anyone see a problem in using the venom of one group who hates another group to put laws into place that end up visiting that hatred and pain on EVERYONE.

Be nice if they could figure out how to leverage away such things, and make a better place for us all, but we are on the ideological wacky train ride to living hell, and there is no leaving till the ride is over.

Gay heir sues ‘wife’; ‘marriage’ gives me divorcee’s rights, ex says

They were woman and “wife” - a couple who wore commitment rings, opened joint bank accounts and owned an upper West Side co-op during a 14-year relationship.

Now the breakup between opera-singing heiress Halina Avery and her real estate agent ex, Molly Caldwell, is playing out in a stinging legal fight that could lead to splintered same-sex couples being treated no differently by the courts than a husband and wife going through a divorce.

“I considered Halina my spouse,” Caldwell said. “We had everything that married couples had. Our families considered us married.”

The two women met while students in 1992 at the University of Texas and moved in together in 1994 while Avery pursued a master’s degree in vocal performance at Yale.

One friend of the couple described them in court papers as a “family in every sense of the word.”

They called it quits in 2006 after Caldwell admitted kissing another woman in a bar.

And now the break is the subject of a nasty fight that started in 2006 in Manhattan Supreme Court, when Avery sued Caldwell to have her dropped from a life insurance policy and banished from the co-op.

“They basically cut me off at the waist,” Caldwell said.

Caldwell, 37, is battling to get spousal support and an equitable distribution of the money she used to share with the woman she called her wife.

Avery, 39, is an heir to the massive Avery Dennison office products company, a Fortune 500 firm founded by her grandfather.

“This was, for all intents and purposes, a marriage,” said Caldwell’s lawyer Aaron Goodman. “They should be treated no differently than the parties in a divorce.”

Lawyers for Avery contend their client made provisions for her former partner - and that the two signed what was a prenup of sorts. Caldwell is trying to apply the terms of marriage to the relationship when, legally, they don’t apply, Avery’s camp contends.

“They never entered into, nor intended to enter into, a marriage,” said Yetta Kurland, a lawyer for Avery. “If they had intended to marry, or file as domestic partners in New York City, then they would have done so.”

Instead, Avery wants Caldwell to stick to the terms of their 1995 living-together agreement, which states neither woman would make a claim for support, money or property in case of a breakup.

“Any rights she could have had would have been waived in the agreement,” Kurland said. “She’s asking the court to ignore that living-together agreement.”

Caldwell wants the case handled just like a divorce. A ruling from Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse is expected shortly.

“What this is, is a divorce,” Goodman said.

Not so, says Avery’s lawyer.

“This former relationship was significant in time and commitment, but it was not a marriage,” Kurland said.

Caldwell, who now lives in Brooklyn, said she remains scarred by the breakup.

“What I really would just like is for myself and others like me to be treated fairly,” she said.

Ultimately unless the judge wants to make a name for themselves sitting in the middle of a major issue, the judge is going to take the easy way out and just dismiss it and not apply it as its applied between heterosexual couples.

Even though, this is just the start of many of such cases that will ultimately make marraige between gays even MORE of a minefield than marraige between heterosexual couples.

Let the games begin. Sigh.