I don't see how this matter could be so "perplexing"! Missouri does not recognize same sex marriages, therefore if the couple is wanting to disolve their union, they need to return to the state that did recognize it to have it disolved. What is so perplexing?

This situation is most definately a double-edged sword. Married in one state, but denied a divorce or annulment in another... it seems that those against same-sex marriages/unions are now finding yet ANOTHER card to play in their fight AGAINST equality. With the dissolution of some of these ground-breaking relationships, they are finding ways to cut these human beings (who have basically done nothing but loved and lost) with both ends of the sword of prejudice and hate. It is a sad, painful, stressful ordeal when a relationship fails, regardless of sexual orientation. Love knows no gender bias, but closed-minded, fearful people do. Unfortunately, the laws of the land are not currently set up to deal with such matters. But the times, they are a'changin'! And hopefully for the better! Although I am merely stating my opinion here, I do hold out hope that the judges who will continue to be faced with these courtroom decisions will do so with what little LAW has been established (or better yet, create some precedents using the principles of FREEDOM and EQUALITY on which this country was established) and not be swayed by their personal or religious bias.

Sparks is a doctor for Heartland Health.

Like it matters....

http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/Physician/Profiles/dr-md-reports/Dr-Charisse-Sparks-MD-7F438650.cfm

Probably a good Doctor.

I'd have no problem's with her.

Hate the sin, not the sinner......

It didn't take long for the word 'hate' to appear. Thus, the sword keeps swinging. So sad.

Missouri law recognizes all marriages from other states whether or not they can be performed here or not. This is why there is a problem as same-sex marriage is "illegal" in the state of Missouri. So under the law, their marriage would be considered valid. It will be interesting to see if this case will change the law in Missouri.

Did someone mention love?

Marriage is a committment and if there truly was love, this would not be ending is divorce.

Where are these people roots, they should be fighting to make this marriage work, as marriage is a lifelong commitment -

And it does not matter what sex they are from that perspective - although it does seem the rights of those that believe the bible have been trampled for decades.

Could this be part of an agenda, as it seems like it could be.

Nothing new, maybe new in this part of the country, but not nationally.

Any divorce is bad, and far too easy.

Hate, yes, hate the sin, not the sinner.

Compassion for the individual, nothing wrong with that.

The sword cuts, and it cuts deep.

Rightfully so in many cases.

Missouri does NOT recognize ALL marriages performed in other states. It does NOT recognize same sex marriages.

People, people. "trampling on the rights of those that believe in the bible"? What a ridiculous statement. So, it's okay for those that read the bible to trample on the rights of those that don't? How are your rights being trampled? You're still allowed to marry, divorce, procreate, buy a hooker, -- sorry about that. I got a little ahead of myself there. How come the majority of scandals are committed by "christians"? I'll tell you why, because the majority of christians think that they belong to an exclusive club and that if they follow certain rules they'll have some hunky dory afterlife. They don't try to do the right thing simply because they should, they do because they want something in return. And if they fall off the track they can just ask for forgiveness and everythings allll better.

If same-sex couples want the headache of marriage, what's the big deal. It's no more sacred than two people pledging themselves to one another. If a church doesn't want to perform the marriage, it doesn't have to.

Legal marriage is more a perk financially - sometimes. It helps with taxes, it also helps when emergency decisions are needed.

I know more same-sex couples than straight couples who've been together beyond the decade mark. That's saying something.

And has anyone ever thought what good it might do the ECONOMY??? Hellooooo, more weddings, more money flowing; more divorces, more money flowing....

Did any of you read this article closely? Did you miss the part that says C. Sparks herself wants the marriage declared not a marriage because Missouri does not recognize it? Seems to me she is twisting it for her own benefit. Missouri's law was a terrible thing when she wanted to get married and now that she wants out of it she is all for Missouri not recognizing it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Missouri does not recognize same sex marriages so it does not fall into the statement "Missouri courts have long held that out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, will be respected in Missouri, even if the marriages couldn’t have been performed here". In Missouri this is NOT a marriage. They went to antoher state to get married, go back there to get divorced. Or is it just that C. Sparks doesn't want to put up a settlement for the divorce? And StJoeMoe, why did you even bring up where Dr. Sparks works, who cares where either of them work? It has no bearing on this. Your "like it matters, probably a good doctor, I'd have no problem with her" comment does not erase the fact that you were trying to stir the pot.

Seems every other paper/article in the State brought up where the person worked and I found it extremely strange that ours did not.

Does anyone else find that strange? What was our local paper trying to hide? Anything?

Oh, and I'm more than a little tired of people continally beating up Christians.

But, that is exactly what the Bible said would be happening, exactly.

Most of the Christians I have met are good people. A high percentage, in fact. Seems likes whenever there is one that slips, the anti-religious freaks jump all over it like they are on a trampoline.

Funny sometimes. Wind 'em up and watch 'em go.....

Accuse me of stirring the pot, sure, go for it, remember, while you point that finger at me, you've got a few of your own pointing directly back at you......

Bottom line, people should not get married unless they are prepared for a lifetime commitment.

"I know more same-sex couples than straight couples who've been together beyond the decade mark. That's saying something."

All that says is that you hang around with a higher percentage of gays than most people do.

Simple, eh?

In repsonse to Justonevoice's first post at the very top:

I must aggree that this may seem a double edged sword for Judge Kellogg. One State recognizes a standard and another does not. But what will happen if all states begin regognizing other state's decitions? These individual decisions, such as the 2004 vote to maintain traditional marriage, are what make each individual state a "state", a specific public power within a sovereign political entity. Each state looks through it's own pair of glasses,if you will, different prescriptions fitting different needs of the specific populace within. Should California conform their state system to the generally more conservative Missouri system any more than Missouri should conform to Massachusett's? I think not. It goes both ways people. It suddenly becomes a huge mess if we apply the Kay Madden methodology.

This two-way methodology not only applies to legal philosophy, but also to JUSTONEVOICE'S poor analysis of the homosexual-marriage debate. Apparently "closed minded, fearful" people express "gender bias", but love doesn't. Well, both the prosecutor and defendent would have to dissagree with this statement, seeing as they are filing for a DIVORCE. This does not entirely prove my point, I understand, but beyond a case that weekens JUSTONEVOICE'S claim tremendously, there remains little if any evidence in support of the fact that love can or can't discriminate. Last time I checked, love was not some indipendent being that floated arround and decided to infect humans; it is a contious decition or rather a string of contious decisions a person makes in dealing with another. I love my dog, but not because love chose me to love it.

Further, "Freedom" and "Equality" are cited as supreme and even idealistic concepts for our country in support of gay-marriage, but to what extent? If freedom is not limited, then why do we have a justice system that punishes child molestors and murderer's that are simply expressing their freedom? Nothing. We can easily then come to the conclution that freedom is never freedom if it has no ends, it becomes vice. Our job is not to expand the uses of freedom indefinitely, but rather to cyphen out the good and bad uses of it and decide which should be supplanted in society. To say that limitation of gay marriage is due to lack of freedom is skipping the real question. The real question isn't "would it make them more free?", it is "Will this freedom benefit or decay society?"

This is going to be way off topic but in response to Stjoemo's comment about Christians. I have yet to meet a Christian who does not sin. I think there was only one of those. If you know more than that please let us all in on your knowledge. I think if you'll open your bible, you'll find that God does not recognize sin in degrees. In other words, no sin is greater than another, and will be judged accordingly. Judging is not for us to do here on earth. God will definately take care of that.

One thing I have learned over the years and through many heated discussions, you either get it or you don't. If you are trying to rationalize and justify your actions, that go against what the Bible teaches, then you don't get it. If you are trying to live a good life, and try to live according to what the Bible teaches, then you do get it. Believe me when I say, I am a Christian, but I stumble daily. My comfort comes from knowing Christ will forgive me and help guide me through.

If someone continues to repeat the same sin over and over and over, I'm not sure they will be forgiven.

That God I do not have to make that call!

We all stumble, there is a huge difference between a stumble and a sin.

No need to rationalize that to anyone, especially ourselves.

Hope to see you all in Church this weekend.

And next, and the one after that -

Nothing makes me happier than seeing people walking the walk after they leave the Church.

Those are the religious people I have the most respect for.

My love goes out to you all.

Saint Joseph is lucky to have such a talented Doctor as Dr.Sparks. We should all be glad take she would not spend an extra minute thinking about our orientations before she went to work to save our lives in a trauma situation.I hope the community and the paper does not make such an issue of this that she no longer feels comfortable with living there. Some day we all are going answer to our maker. I am afraid alot of us may find out we have alot more issues than we realize. A big one may be judging others.

Yes shes a doctor..Yes she works at Heartland...If it means that much then to all the people that shes worked on you should of asked before she fixed your problem. But you didnt care then did ya? You just wanted help, someone that knew what they were doing. You got it and you got the best Heartland has ever had. If shes leaves because of this then its the Paper and News channels faults. The problem with St. Joe is that we talk big and try to be as big as Kansas City but deep down we are still a little town where everyone has to know everyones business. Nothing is secret anymore. Your business is everyone elses. I know this is a ground breaking event for our court system. But our paper and news went over board naming names, where they live, where they work, and showing Dr. Sparks picture. That made it too personal..Now saying all of that..my opinion is I think the wife of DR. Sparks should take it back to Boston to get divorced. She wants a divorce so she can get half..Sparks wants to keep it here and say it aint valid so she dont have to..Cant blame her there! She makes a ton! But fair is fair and she is married legally in Boston so she should have to divide the stuff. Again just my opinion.

I agree that she should of simply taken it back to Boston, none of this would of even come up if she had.....

That is what concerns me, about a possible agenda of sorts.

The divorce takes place where the parties are domicile which means that it would have to be done in Missouri. If you read into some Family Law, Missouri recognizes marriages that are performed in other states and I don't believe that there is any case law on this topic so it could possibly change the laws of same-sex marriage in MO.

Why is everyone still treating this as a religious argument?
Christian bashing is wrong!
Gay bashing is wrong!
Taking away anothers Constitutional rights based your PERSONAL religious beliefs is wrong!
The right to marry, and the basic amenities that come with it (like insurance, medical decisions, and child rearing) are a Constitutional issue. Many religions say it is ok, many say it is not. But our first amendment promises us a "Freedom of Religion". And to make your personal religious beliefs a law is taking away others freedom to choose thier own religion.
So if you love your country, love your freedom to worship God the way your religion chooses to do so, then to vote against a basic right like the legal union of two consenting adults you are acting AGAINST the very Constitution which gave you those rights. Not all marriages in America are religious ceremonies, even if the parties themselves are religious. No one is asking for the right to have a religious marriage in your church, they simply want the legal rights afforded every other American.

They have the legal rights afforded to every other American, just not husband and wifes who are in a male and female marriage. Missouri is not a common law marriage state, even for a male and a female, how could it be that for two men or two women. What you are asking for is special privileges.

I'm sorry; I missed something!! If the marriage is not reconized by the state then IT IS NOT LEGAL!!!! This has nothing to do with religion. It is the will for the people of the state. I wonder how many of the marriages are challanging other states. Smells to me like it is an agenda to challange to law. Tell it for what it is.

Yeah the whole religion thing on gay marriage is BS. Stop bringing it up please. If gay people want to get married or divorced, let them. Why the heck does everybody care so much. It's not your life. DUH!!! Mind your own business.

This does present an interesting legal question.

As stated in the article, Missouri recognizes out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, even if the marriages couldn’t have been performed here. For example, in Mississippi the age of consent (without a parent's/judge's approval) for marriage is 17 for a male and 15 for a female. However, in Missouri it is 18. A 17 and 15 year-old couple married in MS can move to MO. If they file for divorce, the MO courts would recognize that marriage and move forward with the divorce proceedings, even though that marriage would not have been allowed in MO.

It seems that if the marriage was valid in Massachusetts, then MO courts would have to recognize that. However, the article does say that there may have been a problem with the MA marriage from the start. If that is the case and it was not a valid marriage, then MO has no obligation to recognize it.

While the Defense of Marriage of Act says that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, there is a real question whether that violates the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit clauses of the US Constitution. As far as I know, the Act has never been challenged on those grounds.

I see a number of people posting here who are obviously against same-sex marriage. I'm curious why?

At its core, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Sure, that contract is generally entered into because of love, but if only love were involved, two people who love each other can simply cohabitate.

The marriage contract confers rights/responsibilities on the parties regarding inheritance, child custody and support, spousal support, eligibility for special tax treatment, dealing with medical issues, and numerous others. If the state is going to confer these rights, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

If the objection is on religious grounds (as most of the posts seem to suggest), that is no reason to legally impose that viewpoint on those who do not hold that view.

Just because a state recognizes same-sex marriages, does not mean that a church would have to perform such marriages. If a particular church or religion objected, there is nothing requiring that church to participate or sanction the marriage.

If there is some other valid/legal reason for banning same-sex marriage, I would be interested to hear it.