High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Fth
D
c-
0 4 20
l
otioRcun
cost
catz
STATE OF INDIANA
))
COUNTY OF MARION )
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
TARA RANZY,Petitioner,and
LARISSA CHISM,
Respondent.
IN THE MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
SS: CIVIL DIVISION, ROOM NO 12
CAUSE NO. 49D12-0903-DR-014654
ORDER ON PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Come now the parties, Petitioner Tara Ranzy (hereinafter "Petitioner"), in person and bycounsel, and Larissa Chism (hereinafter "Respondent"),
pro se,
for hearing on August 28, 2009.Upon receipt of testimony and having taken the matter under advisement, the Court finds andorders as follows:
I.
The Petitioner and Respondent are both female.
2.The parties were legally married in Toronto, Canada on January 21, 2005. The Canadian
province of Ontario formally recognized same sex marriage prior to the date the parties'
marriage was solemnized.3.
The parties seek to have their marriage recognized in Indiana for the sole purpose ofobtaining dissolution of said marriage.
4.
To that end, the parties submitted to the Court a
Verified Petition for Dissolution ofMarriage
followed by a
Verified Waiver of Final Hearing and Summary Decree of Dissolutionof Marriage.
5.
The Court declined to approve the dissolution decree and set the matter for hearing.
6.
The parties were residents of the State of Indiana for at least six (6) months prior to thefiling of the dissolution petition. It was not established whether the parties were residents ofIndiana at the time of their marriage in Canada.
7.
The parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Marion Superior Court.
8.The parties have appeared for final hearing at least sixty (60) days after the date of filing
of the dissolution petition.
9.
There were no children born of the marriage.
10.
Petitioner and Respondent are not now pregnant.
11.
Neither party is a member of the military.
12.
There has been an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage and it should be dissolved.
13.
There is no real property to divide.
14.
The parties have previously divided their personal property.
15.
There are no joint financial accounts or debts to divide.
16.
The question presented is whether the Marion Superior Court may properly recognize, forthe purpose of granting a dissolution petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who
were legally married outside the State of Indiana.17.A same sex marriage is prohibited in Indiana. See
Morrison v. Sadler,
821 N.E.2d 15
(hid. Ct. App. 2005). Further, laj marriage between persons of the same gender is void inIndiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized." Ind. Code § 31-1 1-1-
1.
18.
As the State of Indiana has chosen to prohibit same sex marriage as a matter of public
policy, it might logically follow that Indiana would have a policy interest in granting same sex
divorce. However, the General Assembly has not enacted a statute which confers upon the
Add a Comment