At Suffolk Law, same-sex ruling means queries, clients

The budding lawyers in Kindregan's upper-level course were already looking ahead yesterday, not to marital ties, but to the legal knots that same-sex marriage will create. And, of course, to potential clients.

"We're going to need lots of good lawyers to sort this out," Kindregan, laughing, told his class of 100 students yesterday morning.

Just down the hill from the State House, where some legislators were scrambling to find ways to circumvent the court ruling, the second- and third-year law students probed Kindregan about the finer points of same-sex marriage.

Over the sound of clicking laptop keys, students in baseball caps and Suffolk Law sweatshirts peppered their professor with questions.

Some were basic: "Why did they pick Massachusetts to push for this?" asked Tony Sculimbrene, 25, a third-year student from Newton who wants to be a labor lawyer. "Is it because we're such a liberal state?"

Others wanted to know about the legal implications.

"Will gay couples no longer be required to testify against each other in court?" asked a woman in the front row.

"What about immigration cases and Social Security?" asked a woman wearing a Red Sox baseball cap.

"Is there really any difference between civil unions and marriage, or are they the same thing, and people are just uncomfortable calling it marriage?" demanded Jared Olanoff, 24, a third-year law student from Boston. That one touched off a lengthy monologue from Kindregan.

Alas, Kindregan had no simple answers. But the discussion sketched a roadmap of what the professor called the "legal minefield" ahead if gay marriage becomes legal practice in Massachusetts six months from now.

His class also opened a window into the buzz the decision spawned in legal circles. One-third of the class raised their hands when the professor asked who had read the full 34-page decision.

Among their friends, they were the sought-after legal minds.

"Everyone who knows I'm in law school wanted to know what I thought about the case," Olanoff said.

During class, Olanoff also wanted to know what would happen if the state passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage after the SJC's decision had taken effect.

Kindregan responded with a flurry of rhetorical questions: "What's the status of the same-sex people who are already married? The state can't take away their marriage. What happens when Massachusetts amends its constitution when the court says marriage is a fundamental right? Does that open the door to the court striking down a constitutional amendment?"

Roaming the classroom with a microphone in hand, Kindregan addressed his students' other legal questions in turn. While the state would grant married same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples under the terms that the SJC outlined, he explained, the US Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from doing the same.

So, gay couples would be legally entitled to file joint state income tax returns in Massachusetts, but could not file joint federal returns.

"That's just one of the legal train wrecks waiting to happen," Kindregan said.

Similarly, a same-sex spouse under state guidelines might qualify for Medicaid benefits, but as a joint federal and state program, it's unclear whether Medicaid would be bound by the federal law banning recognition of gay marriage.

That could set up a court challenge to determine whether a same-sex spouse qualified for Medicaid benefits.

The legal quandaries appear endless, and endlessly compelling to the attorneys-in-training.

"I think it makes family law a much more interesting area to go into," said Suzanne Chiaffone, 34, a second-year law student from Natick.

To say in this crowd the ruling was eagerly awaited is an extreme understatement. When the SJC handed down its decision at 10 a.m. Tuesday, a colleague walked into Kindregan's family law class and whispered the news to him, which he promptly announced to the students.

Kindregan ended the 75-minute class by reminding his students that despite the hoopla, the historic decision boiled down to something simple: more marriages, more divorces, and more litigation.

"There will be divorce, child custody, alimony," said Kindregan.

Thanassis Cambanis can be reached at tcambanis@globe.com.