BOSTON-
A gay couple from Rhode Island has the right to marry in Massachusetts because laws in their home state do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage, a judge ruled Friday.
Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be permitted in their home state did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly agreed.
“No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage,” he ruled.
Although the ruling allows same-sex couples from Rhode Island to get married in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts court has no power to ensure that Rhode Island recognizes such marriages. No other states are affected.
Michael Maynard, a spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri, had no immediate comment, and a spokeswoman for the state’s attorney general, Patrick Lynch, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented the couples, hailed the decision “as another step toward marriage equality.” Becker and Norton said they were “thrilled.”
“There shouldn’t be restrictions on people who love each other and want to get married,” said Becker. “We should want more of those couples to be married, not less.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly issued a statement saying he would not appeal because it would be a waste of time and money. He added, “This case has always been about respecting the laws of other states.”
A spokesman for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, however, said the governor was “exploring options” that could include an appeal. Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom also called Connolly’s ruling “completely illogical.”
Reilly’s office had argued that Rhode Island laws’ use of gender-specific terms such as “bride” and “groom” make it clear that their intent was to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“I think Gov. Carcieri and the people of Rhode Island will be surprised to learn that gay marriage is permissible in their state,” Fehrnstrom said. “If that’s the case, there’s no reason for same-sex couples to come to Massachusetts to get married.”
Prompted by a ruling from its highest court, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and remains the only state to have done so. Couples from many other states began lining up to get marriage licenses, but Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, directed municipal clerks not to give licenses to out-of-state couples, citing the 1913 law.
Eight couples from six nearby states challenged the law. In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts could use the 1913 law to bar gay couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from marrying here. But the court said the law was unclear in New York and Rhode Island, and sent that part of the case back to a lower court for clarification.
In July, New York state’s highest court said that its state law limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Connolly cited the New York court’s decision in his ruling, saying that state expressly prohibits gay marriage. That left only the Rhode Island couples free to marry in Massachusetts.
Kris Mineau–president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes gay marriage–predicted that people in other parts of the country will see Massachusetts as “the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”
“We think it’s very strange that a judge would say that Rhode Island has nothing to prohibit gay marriage when their statutes define marriage as between a bride and groom,” he said.
——
On the Net:
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
