Citing SJC ruling, judge dissolves gay civil union

In a decision built on the Supreme Judicial Court's historic rulings allowing gay marriage, a Massachusetts probate court judge has legally dissolved the union of a gay couple joined in a Vermont civil union two years ago.

The ruling, apparently the first of its kind in Massachusetts and one of the first in the country, came from an Essex Probate and Family Court judge who found that the companion decisions by the SJC gave him the authority to end the civil union of two gay men.

"A careful reading of [the two decisions] provides that same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as those of opposite-sex married couples," wrote Judge John P. Cronin. "Opposite sex couples who marry are afforded the opportunity to extinguish their legal relationship through the mechanism of divorce. Reasoning follows therefrom that same-sex couples who enter into legal relationships should also be allowed to dissolve their legal relationships."

For David B. Salucco of Danvers, the court battle to end his relationship with Patrick W. Alldredge lasted a year and a half.

"It was a relief," he said. "At this point, I can finally put closure to that chapter in my life and move on with a clean slate."

Because the decision was issued by a lower court judge and will probably not be appealed to a higher court, since both men wanted the civil union dissolved, other judges are not bound by Cronin's decision. Still, other lawyers seeking to dissolve civil unions could cite the ruling.

"It's certainly the right result and a fair result," said Mary Bonauto, lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who argued for same-sex marriage before the SJC. "The court understood that this was a legal commitment and needed to be severed."

But Chester Darling, a lawyer who has written friend-of-the-court briefs for groups opposing gay marriage, argues that the judge did not have the jurisdiction to end a civil union from another state.

"He treated it like a marriage," Darling said. "You can't apply the laws of marriage to a civil union."

Darling also suggested that the office of Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, which had urged the SJC not to allow gay marriage, should have intervened in this case. Reilly's office had no comment on the decision yesterday.

Cronin justified his ruling by drawing on his power of "general equity jurisdiction," which gives judges broad and flexible powers to right perceived wrongs not specifically addressed by the law. Another probate court judge granted visitation rights to a lesbian who had helped raise her former partner's child under the same legal doctrine, a ruling that was later upheld by the SJC.

Cronin pointed out that because Salucco and Alldredge could not be legally married, divorce laws did not apply to them.

"However, in accord with the decision [by the SJC] and the public policy of Massachusetts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this matter should be afforded all of the responsibilities and rights that flow from a civil union, including a legal remedy for the dissolution of their legal relationship," Cronin wrote.

Non-Vermonters who travel to the state to join in civil unions have found themselves in a legal predicament if they want to end their relationship. While outsiders can be joined in civil unions in Vermont, only residents can get them dissolved in state courts.

So far, 6,780 civil unions have been granted in Vermont in the past three years, including 967 to Vermonters. Thirty of those couples have dissolved their civil unions in Vermont.

"We were never arguing that we wanted Massachusetts to accept it as a civil union," said Salucco's lawyer, Stephen Glines Jr. "We were asking [the court] to give them the only recourse they can get."

Judges in a few other states have grappled with the legal question of whether they can end civil unions granted in Vermont. In Texas last year, a judge agreed to grant a divorce to a couple who had gone to Vermont for a civil union. But after the state's attorney general intervened, the judge reversed his decision.

In December, an Iowa judge also granted a divorce to two women who had obtained a Vermont civil union. He later changed his ruling to a termination of the civil union.

Salucco and Alldredge, who lived in Arkansas but was in Boston on business, met at a party in March 2002.

"We just clicked," Salucco said.

After two months of long-distance dating, he said, Alldredge proposed. The computer company where Salucco worked had gone out of business, and he planned to move to Arkansas to be with Alldredge.

Their civil union took place on May 18, 2002, at a park in Brattleboro before family and a few close friends. The couple stayed in Vermont for four more days on a honeymoon.

They had talked about the difficulty of severing a civil union from Vermont for nonresidents, but were more focused on joining their lives together.

"I was thinking about a new chapter in my life and a future with somebody I wanted to spend the rest of my life with," said Salucco, 39.

But three months after their civil union ceremony, the relationship was in trouble. The two men had "irreconcilable differences," Salucco said.

After they broke up, Salucco wanted to end their legal relationship as well. He didn't want to worry that if his civil union survived, Alldredge might someday argue that Salucco owed him money.

In his decision, Cronin noted that unless the civil union were dissolved, neither man could enter into another civil union or a marriage.

Elaine Epstein, a family law attorney, said she expects the courts to see more cases requesting dissolution of civil unions.

"Civil unions are relatively new," she said. "You've got to give people time not to get along."

Kathleen Burge can be reached at kburge@globe.com/