Gay leaders are hoping that the Massachusetts ruling will provide momentum for legislation in Rhode Island.

03:04 PM EST on Wednesday, November 19, 2003

BY EDWARD FITZPATRICK and LIZ ANDERSON
Journal Staff Writers

PROVIDENCE -- Rhode Island gay and lesbian leaders yesterday hailed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the Massachusetts Constitution.

"Today is a historic day, not only for members of the gay community but for all people," said Mayor David N. Cicilline, the city's first openly gay mayor.

While the ruling is specific to same-sex couples, Cicilline said it "affirms the right of all Americans to enjoy the responsibilities and privileges of civil marriage. It is a great victory for all families."

Kate Monteiro, president of the Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, said she thinks the Massachusetts decision will provide momentum for Rhode Island legislation aimed at authorizing same-sex marriages or permitting "civil unions" between same-sex couples.

Gay-marriage bills have been introduced in Rhode Island in each of the past five years, and civil-union bills have been introduced in each of the last three years, Monteiro said. But many of those bills have languished in the House Judiciary Committee without votes being taken, and none of the bills has become law, she said.

Journal photo / Connie Grosch Gay and lesbian leaders, including Kate Monteiro, president of the Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights hail the Bay State ruling.

"I think the legislation will pass at some point," Monteiro said. And, she said, "Now is the time. They can't keep putting it off and pretending that if they don't deal with it, it will go away. We are not going away."

About 40 people rallied outside the State House last night to celebrate the court's ruling, gathering in front of a large rainbow flag draped between two speakers and down the building's steps.

"I'm absolutely thrilled that the world has become so smart," said Myra Shays, president of the Greater Providence chapter of the support and advocacy group Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG). Shays, who has a lesbian daughter, compared the prohibitions on gay marriage to now-abandoned forms of discrimination against blacks and Jews.

Shays said she knows one male couple who have been together 27 years and had been planning to go to Canada to wed. One jokes to the other, "You'll make an honest man of me yet," she said.

The Rev. Richelle Russell, of Providence's First Unitarian Church, told the crowd she performs weddings but hasn't been able to enjoy the same privilege with her partner of 14 years. She called the ruling "a fine day for families in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and a happy day for the God I pray to every day and every week."

David L. Yas, editor of the Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly newspaper, said the Massachusetts decision is bound to have a big impact on Rhode Island. "The reverberations on Rhode Island are undeniable," he said.

Rhode Island is a border state, Yas noted, so same-sex couples here could easily establish residency in Massachusetts in order to get married or take part in a civil union -- depending on what comes of the court ruling. (The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Massachusetts legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.")

"Now when they move back to Rhode Island, the real question becomes whether Rhode Island will recognize that marriage," Yas said. "That question is up in the air and likely subject to a court battle."

Yas said same-sex couples married in Massachusetts would no doubt argue that the marriage is valid in Rhode Island, citing the "full faith and credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that states have to recognize laws of other states.

But "the twist" is that the Clinton administration approved a 1996 law saying that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Yas said.

So Rhode Island could end up facing three options, Yas said. First, it could pass a law recognizing same-sex marriages. But, Yas said, "I don't know how likely that would be. That would be ground-breaking."

Also, Rhode Island could pass a so-called "defense of marriage act," which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and declare that Rhode Island will not recognize same-sex marriages done in other states.

Paul J. Martinek, national editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, said 37 states have passed that type of legislation, and Rhode Island is one of 13 states that has not. In New England, only Maine has passed such a law, he said.

As a third option, Yas said, Rhode Island could amend its Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and woman. Only two states -- Alaska and Hawaii -- have taken that step, which involves a lengthier process than passing a bill, he said.

If Rhode Island legislators do adopt a "defense of marriage" law, "they have to be prepared to defend it in court because it would almost certainly be challenged," Martinek said. "It would face a constitutional challenge when someone moves from Massachusetts to Rhode Island."

And that is the type of case that could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, Martinek said. The Massachusetts ruling won't go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it doesn't involve a question of federal law -- it involves an interpretation of that state's Constitution, he said.