Boston adopts stricter stand on gay outsiders

In a move that could thwart out-of-state gay couples who plan to get marriage licenses in Boston City Hall next week, city officials announced yesterday that they will not accept marriage applications from gay couples who live outside Massachusetts or don’t intend to move to the state. But the city will accept a couple’s word, and not require proof of residency, officials said.

The decision from Merita Hopkins, Boston’s corporation counsel, marks a shift in tone for Boston, where Mayor Thomas M. Menino has voiced strong support for gay marriage, and plans to be on hand in City Hall on Monday as the first licenses are handed out.

Earlier this month, Menino strongly signaled that he was willing to allow out-of-state applications, saying he might instruct Boston clerks not to ask for proof of residency, in defiance of Governor Mitt Romney’s directive at the time. He said he would move ahead if city lawyers could justify the city’s position.

But yesterday, Boston’s chief lawyer issued a one-sentence statement through a spokesman. The city will accept marriage applications “from everyone except partners who do not reside in Massachusetts, and neither one of which intends to reside in Massachusetts,” Hopkins said in the statement.

The decision effectively means out-of-state gay couples will be able to obtain marriage licenses in Boston only if they fill out a form saying they intend to move to Massachusetts and sign the form under penalty of perjury. It also adds a new layer of confusion to a process that has seen weeks of legal wrangling and ever-changing rules.

And it hews to the wishes of Romney, who has instructed city and town clerks to enforce a 1913 law that prohibits Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriages would be illegal in their home states. Romney originally said clerks would have to produce documents such as tax returns or utility bills to prove their residency. The administration later eased off that position, saying clerks could rely on couples' pledges.

Yesterday, Menino's spokesman, Seth Gitell, would not elaborate on the city's position, referring a reporter to Hopkins's statement. A spokeswoman for Romney declined yesterday to comment on the decision.

But some city and town officials pointed out yesterday that, in Boston and elsewhere, clerks will have to rely on out-of-state couples to report their residences truthfully. The issue, some said, comes down to a new line on the state marriage application, which was revised by Romney administration officials after last fall's state Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage: "If not a Massachusetts resident, I intend to reside in --------."

Officials in both Worcester and Provincetown have stated plans to defy Romney. In Provincetown, clerk Douglas Johnstone said he will not require that the question be answered. He said he will allow couples to leave that line blank, saying town leaders believe they have a defensible case if the issue goes to court.

"We're not trying to put same-sex couples into the position of lying to get a marriage license," he said. "Anybody can say they're intending to move to Massachusetts, because intention is not something you can evaluate and judge."

But lawyer Mary Bonauto, who as legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued the case that led to the SJC decision legalizing gay marriage, said she and the organization have instructed gay couples not to misrepresent themselves in any way, "let alone on a form signed under oath."

And a handbook distributed to city and town clerks during a gay-marriage training session last week says that, on the application, "All fields are mandatory, except those `not applicable.' "

According to state law, perjury on the marriage application form carries a penalty of "a fine of not more than $100." The form also notes that marriages will be "null and void" if a couple does not live in Massachusetts and continues to reside in a state where the marriage would be void.

Bonauto did not criticize Boston officials for their decision, saying it was Romney who threatened to punish clerks who did not enforce the 1913 law.

"I understand the difficult position in which the governor has placed city and town leaders," she said. "He has now, from our perspective, dusted off this old law that hasn't been in use for decades" and "is placing the most extreme interpretation possible upon it."

Johnstone, too, said Romney is to blame for recent confusion over the process of issuing marriage licenses, saying the SJC decision left the state with six months to alter the application process as necessary.

"The governor's office has completely squandered the 180-day stay that was designed to answer these questions," Johnstone said.

Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone said city officials are still determining if same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses can leave blank where they intend to reside. Normally, couples have to fill out the entire form, he said. Curtatone said he is discussing the matter with legal counsel and the city clerk, and he plans to make a decision tomorrow. However, he said that couples who sign the affidavit stating that there are no legal impediments to their marriages will be issued certificates. Also, he said the city will not heighten scrutiny for same-sex couples on May 17.

"I respect the governor's position. I disagree with it," Curtatone said. "It's not a time for personal politics to be an impediment to equity and fairness."

Meanwhile, Romney has been invited to Washington to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States," which had been set for May 18.

"He was invited to go but because of scheduling he is unable to attend next week," said Shawn Feddeman, his spokeswoman.

Senate sources said the hearing has been postponed, however.

Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Matthew Rodriguez contributed to this report.