Celebrity Divorces and New Gay Marriage Case

On behalf of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Divorce on Wednesday, July 30, 2014.

A wealthy celebrity divorce is always juicy news. Michael Moore’s is no exception. Not surprisingly, his divorce reveals that the couple fought over (what else?) their enormous wealth.

As the Washington Post reports, for the neighbors of Traverse City who boat past Moore’s home, tongues wagging, the $2 million, 10,000 square-foot property has been a symbol of Moore’s “do as I say, not as I do” lifestyle.

Back in 2009, a morning show invited Moore on the broadcast to bash Wall Street executives. Moore ranted against business leaders living in “gated communities” and “castles with motes around them.”

This lavish display of wealth hasn’t been lost on the couple’s neighbors. “He is not a common man. No way,” one neighbor told The Detroit News.

Moore and Glynn own nine properties in Michigan and New York, including a Manhattan condo that once was three apartments. His wealth is pegged at around $50 million.

New Same-Sex Marriage from the 4th Circuit Court

A federal appellate court just invalidated Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban. The 4th Circuit is the second federal appellate court, after the 10th Circuit, to strike down an exclusion of gay couples from marriage.

The Fourth Circuit held that the ban violated gay couples’ fundamental right to marry and placed heavy reliance on both Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas as establishing the equal validity of gay couples’ intimate and relational choices:

Lawrence and Windsor indicate that the choices that individuals make in the context of same-sex relationships enjoy the same constitutional protection as the choices accompanying opposite-sex relationships. We therefore have no reason to suspect that the Supreme Court would accord the choice to marry someone of the same sex any less respect than the choice to marry an opposite-sex individual who is of different race, owes child support, or is imprisoned. Accordingly, we decline the Proponents’ invitation to characterize the right at issue in this case as the right to same-sex marriage rather than simply the right to marry.

The opinion used the word “segregation” in striking the law:

Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

The federal case of Bostic v. Schaefer can be read here.