Order On Petition For Dissolution of Marriage in Re Marriage of Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism
Order On Petition For Dissolution of Marriage in Re Marriage of Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism
Order On Petition For Dissolution of Marriage in Re Marriage of Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism
and
c- 0 4 20
LARISSA CHISM, lotioRcun cost
catz
Respondent.
Come now the parties, Petitioner Tara Ranzy (hereinafter "Petitioner"), in person and by
counsel, 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 and
orders as follows:
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'
3. The parties seek to have their marriage recognized in Indiana for the sole purpose of
4. To that end, the parties submitted to the Court a Verified Petition for Dissolution of
Marriage followed by a Verified Waiver of Final Hearing and Summary Decree of Dissolution
of 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 the
filing of the dissolution petition. It was not established whether the parties were residents of
8. The parties have appeared for final hearing at least sixty (60) days after the date of filing
12. There has been an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage and it should be dissolved.
16. The question presented is whether the Marion Superior Court may properly recognize, for
the purpose of granting a dissolution petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who
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 in
Indiana 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
courts the authority to dissolve same sex marriages in the same manner as marriages between a
20. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and cannot giant the petition for dissolution.
Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the marriage between the parties is null and VOID.
<-1/14/24nailivistaa
Jeffrey L. Marc al
Master Commissioner
Marion Superior Court
Civil Division, Room Twelve
SO ORDERED
Distribution: