Gay couple from R.I. wins Mass. ruling

A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may get married in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island's laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages.

Rhode Island officials responded that gay marriages by the state's residents would not be recognized unless the courts or lawmakers there say so.

The ruling by Judge Thomas E. Connolly, a significant victory for gay rights advocates, is the first to find that same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts can marry under the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 ruling that legalized same-sex weddings in the Bay State.

In March, the SJC ruled that Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly had the authority to use a 1913 law to block out-of-state gay couples from marrying here. The law prohibits Massachusetts from granting marriage licenses to out-of-state couples if the marriage would not be legal in their home state. But that ruling left open the possibility of couples from New York and Rhode Island marrying in Massachusetts, because those states did not expressly forbid same-sex marriage.

In July, New York State's highest court ruled that marriage is only between a man and woman, but Rhode Island courts have been silent on the issue.

Wendy Becker, a 45-year-old college teacher, and Mary Norton, a 46-year-old researcher, both of Providence, sued the state of Massachusetts in June 2004, arguing that the 1913 law did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.

In a nine-page ruling, 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 wrote.

Becker and Norton, partners for 19 years and the parents of a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, said they planned to apply for a marriage license in Attleboro next week.

They had gone to Attleboro May 21, 2004, four days after same-sex marriages were permitted in Massachusetts, and received a marriage application, only to be told five days later that they could not receive a license because of the 1913 law. Last night, they planned to toast the victory with cake and drinks in a park near the Rhode Island State House.

``We're pretty much on cloud nine," Becker said at a press conference in Boston. ``Even though it was mentally trying at times, we're totally thrilled. We were always confident that the right decision would be made and we'd be able to get married."

Romney denounced the Superior Court decision, saying that Connolly overstepped his authority. He called on Reilly to appeal the ruling or appoint a special prosecutor to do so.

``It seems that Massachusetts courts are intent on exporting gay marriage to states that don't permit it," said a statement Romney issued. ``A federal marriage amendment may be the best and most reliable way to prevent confusion between the states and preserve the institution of marriage."

President Bush has called for such a constitutional amendment, but Congress has not passed it.

Reilly, who had defended the 1913 law in court, immediately rejected Romney's request.

``Pursuing this matter further in the courts would be a waste of time and resources," said a statement Reilly issued.

The future of the issue is far from certain in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch released a statement saying, ``This ruling does not authorize same-sex marriages in Rhode Island, and it does not mean that Rhode Island will recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts. As I have consistently explained, only the Rhode Island Legislature or a Rhode Island court can decide if a same-sex marriage is valid in Rhode Island."

Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Governor Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, called the ruling irrelevant.

``Rhode Island is not going to be guided by the decisions of courts outside of Rhode Island," Neal said. ``At the end of the day, any interpretation of Rhode Island law must be made by Rhode Island state officials and Rhode Island courts."

Neal said it was not clear what action the governor or the Legislature might take.

In the Rhode Island General Assembly, bills to legalize same-sex marriage have languished for years without a vote, and lawmakers are very divided over the issue, said Larry Berman, a spokesman for House Speaker William J. Murphy. The earliest lawmakers could act is January, he said, when the Assembly returns to session.

State Senator Rhoda E. Perry, a Providence Democrat and a supporter of gay marriage, predicted both sides would seize on the ruling when lawmakers reconvene. Current law in Rhode Island makes references to bride and groom, but does not explicitly define marriage.

``The opponents will see this as a red flag, and they will be trying to go at it again," Perry said. ``But I see it as a very positive, instructive, and educational experience that will motivate the legions of supporters that we have here."

In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates hailed the decision.

``It's always good news when marriage is available to a broader group of couples," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which argued the case.

``Nationwide, it's a small decision, but for Wendy, Mary, and other Rhode Island couples, it's a fabulous and great decision. It means there are more same-sex couples who can legally get married."

Opponents of gay marriage said the ruling should spur Rhode Island's voters to pass an amendment to the state constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

``The citizens of Rhode Island will have to rise up like the people of Massachusetts did with 170,000 citizens signing the petition to bring the matter of marriage to a citizen referendum," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.