PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether Family Court can hear a divorce case involving two Providence women who married in Massachusetts.

Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. yesterday granted a motion posing this question to the state’s high court: “Does the Rhode Island Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings between a same-sex-partner marriage legally entered into in the State of Massachusetts, assuming that all jurisdictional requirements have been met?”

The case involving Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston represents the first time a same-sex couple has sought a divorce in Rhode Island, and it’s believed to mark the first time that any of the 8,000 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts have sought a divorce in another state.

Chambers, 70, and Ormiston, 59, married in Fall River in May 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Rhode Island law does not explicitly prohibit or allow same-sex marriages, so attention has focused on whether Jeremiah would conclude he had jurisdiction to handle the divorce case.

“It isn’t a situation I would choose by any means,” Ormiston said prior to yesterday’s court hearing. “Divorce is hard enough without the added pressure of being the test case.”

Chambers did not attend the hearing. Her lawyer, Louis M. Pulner, asked Jeremiah to bring the jurisdiction question to the Supreme Court. “While this is obviously a unique question with obvious ramifications going forward, nothing is more important than the ramifications of having some finality for my client,” he said.

Pulner said that even if Jeremiah granted a divorce to this couple, in the future another judge might conclude that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear same-sex divorces, and if that ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court Chambers and Ormiston would be left with a void divorce decree.

Ormiston’s lawyer, Nancy Palmisciano, said, “While I appreciate Mr. Pulner’s remarks and certainly share some of his concerns, my feeling is that the Chief Judge certainly has the authority and certainly can determine whether or not he has jurisdiction.”

Palmisciano said that while this case is the first of its kind, Rhode Island statutes “certainly allow this court to entertain this divorce.” She said the statutes refer to “spouses” and do not contain gender-specific language.

Jeremiah told Palmisciano that Family Court is “a statutory court,” saying, “Our powers are given to us from the General Assembly, and, in reviewing the law, there is no indication that we can either hear same-sex marriages or hear same-sex divorces.” He said, “That becomes one of the issues we have to decide in this case.”

Another issue, Jeremiah said, is whether “we can give full faith and credit to the action in Massachusetts.” He mentioned a case in which “a marriage took place in Rhode Island where in New York it was a criminal act if those parties had in fact married.”

He apparently was referring to a 1953 case in which an uncle and niece who lived in New York state traveled to Rhode Island to get married. While New York viewed such marriages as “incestuous and impermissible,” Rhode Island allowed such marriages for adherents of the Jewish faith. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that if the marriage was legal in Rhode Island, New York had to recognize it for purposes of an estate case.

“I personally thought maybe there is a possibility we do have jurisdiction,” Jeremiah told the lawyers. But he said he agreed with Pulner that whatever decision he made could be undercut by a later Supreme Court ruling, so he decided to “certify” the question to the high court.

In a written explanation of his decision, Jeremiah cited state law that says lower courts should certify questions whenever a question of law comes up that is “of such doubt and importance and so affects the merits of the controversy that it ought to be determined by the Supreme Court before further proceedings.”

“The legislature has not provided guidance on the issue,” Jeremiah stated, noting that a same-sex marriage bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote this year.

Jeremiah noted that if he granted jurisdiction, his decision might be voided at a later date. And he said that if he denied jurisdiction, the couple would be “left without a remedy to redress a grievance, in violation of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions.”

Pulner said the Supreme Court does not have to take up the question posed by Jeremiah. “But in this case, I believe it’s in the best interest of all involved that the Supreme Court step in for two reasons: judicial economy and finality for my client,” he said.

Pulner said, “The general public will never get to know whether religion and family values will play a role in this decision. I’m sure the Supreme Court will publish an opinion that only deals with the law of this particular case. However, it would not be inconceivable to think that at some point in their deliberations, the issue of public policy will come into play.”

Pulner noted Rhode Island is heavily Catholic, saying, “It could be a factor in whether finding jurisdiction is repugnant and against public policy.”

Michele E. Granda, staff lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded in a 1904 case that marriages that are valid where they were celebrated are valid in Rhode Island, unless they violate a strong public policy in this state.

And, Granda asked, “What would the public policy be for forcing this couple to stay together when they don’t want to? Why is that in Rhode Island’s interest?”

The 1904 case, titled “Ex parte Chase,” involved a Rhode Island man who was under guardianship when he married in Massachusetts. In Rhode Island, the man would have needed the consent of his guardian. But the Supreme Court followed the principle of comity, in which one state recognizes the laws of another state, Granda said.

“Rhode Island has a long history of recognizing marriages entered into elsewhere, and this will help establish that there is no gay exception to Rhode Island marriage recognition,” Granda said of the current case. “Everyone is looking at this as something earthshaking, but it’s really just an application of existing law to a group of people who have most recently been allowed to marry.”