PROVIDENCE — Faced with question of how a lower court should proceed with a divorce case, the State Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about whether a same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in Rhode Island.

The case involves two Providence women — Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston — who married in Fall River in May 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Rhode Island law does not explicitly prohibit or allow same-sex marriages.

In December, Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. asked the Supreme Court whether his court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce case. The Supreme Court sent the case back to Family Court in January to answer a series of factual questions and to clarify the question of law that the high court was being asked to consider.

The question is now worded this way: “May the Family Court properly recognize, for the purpose of entertaining a divorce petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who were purportedly married in another state?”

In a two-page order entered Monday, the Supreme Court assigned that “certified question” to the regular calendar for full briefing and oral argument. The court also invited the governor, the attorney general, the House speaker, the Senate president “and all interested persons and/or organizations” to weigh in with friend-of-the-court briefs.

In February, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued a legal opinion saying the state will recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts. The opinion came in response to a question from the Board of Governors for Higher Education, after three state employees married same-sex partners and asked that their personnel files be changed to reflect their marriage status. Lynch noted his non-binding opinion did not mean that same-sex couples could marry in Rhode Island.

Governor Carcieri, House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano are opposed to a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

In the divorce case, the Supreme Court called for legal briefs to address three issues: “whether or not this case presents an actual case or controversy,” “whether or not the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution is relevant to this case,” and “whether or not the Defense of Marriage Act” is relevant to the case.

Lawyers for Chambers and Ormiston have argued that the full faith and credit clause and the Defense of Marriage Act are irrelevant to this case. They say the case should hinge instead on principles of comity, in which states respect the laws and judicial decisions of other states.

All briefs must be filed by Aug. 1. Briefs responding to the initial round of briefs must be filed by Aug. 15, and briefs responding to the second round must be filed by Aug. 31. Once all the briefs are in, the court will pick a date for oral argument.

Louis M. Pulner, the lawyer representing Chambers, said, “My client is grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to entertain full briefing and full oral argument because this is indicative of their intent to resolve this question one way or the other.”

Nancy A. Palmisciano, the lawyer representing Ormiston, said, “Our clients will at least get some type of day in court, and I’m very happy about that. I’m glad we will be able to address them directly on the issues.”

Palmisciano said inviting legislative leaders to submit legal briefs is “quite appropriate because we have not had any guidelines on this legislatively.”

efitzpat@projo.com