PROVIDENCE — In a 3 to 2 decision, the state Supreme Court yesterday ruled that two Providence women who married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island.

Nancy Palmisciano, right, reads the ruling from the Supreme Court with Cassandra Ormiston.

The Providence Journal / Kathy Borchers

The court’s majority concluded that Family Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a divorce to Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston because under the law that lets Family Court handle divorces, the word “marriage” means just one thing: the union of a man and a woman.

“It is possible that today’s members of the General Assembly might have an understanding of the term ‘marriage’ that differs from the understanding of those legislators who enacted [that law] in 1961, but our role is to interpret what was enacted and not to speculate as to what some other not-yet-enacted statute might say or mean,” Justice William P. Robinson III wrote for the majority.

“There is absolutely no reason to believe that, when the act creating the Family Court became law in 1961, the legislators understood the word marriage to refer to any state other than ‘the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex,’ ” Robinson wrote, citing definitions of marriage from 1961 dictionaries.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams and Justice Francis X. Flaherty joined Robinson in the majority while Justices Paul A. Suttell and Maureen McKenna Goldberg dissented.

Suttell said he and Goldberg saw no need to consult 46-year-old dictionaries to answer the legal question before the court. “A brief survey of current dictionaries reveals that the same definition of the word ‘marriage’ predominates today as it did when the Family Court Act was enacted in 1961,” he wrote.

“Nevertheless, the majority, in our opinion, overlooks the one central and unassailable fact upon which the certified question is predicated,” Suttell wrote. “On May 26, 2004, Ms. Chambers and Ms. Ormiston were lawfully married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” And Family Court can grant divorces whether or not a marriage is considered legally valid in Rhode Island, he said.

Chambers and Ormiston married in Fall River shortly after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Their case received national attention because it is believed to mark the first time that any of the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts have sought a divorce in another state.

The Supreme Court addressed this question: “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?”

Robinson said even if it thought the law’s meaning of the word “marriage” was ambiguous, the majority would have reached the same conclusion by analyzing the broader context of the law.

“Many provisions in the General Laws that relate to marriage reflect an unspoken assumption on the part of the General Assembly that the status called ‘marriage’ consists of the union of a man and a woman,” Robinson wrote. For example, the law refers to the “female party” and the “male party” in the context of applications for marriage.

The majority also emphasized that the judiciary’s role does not involve making policy, saying the General Assembly may “enact divorce legislation that it might possibly deem more appropriate.”

“WE KNOW that sometimes our decisions result in palpable hardship to the persons affected by them,” Robinson wrote. “It is, however, a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that a court has no power to grant relief in the absence of jurisdiction.”

In dissent, Suttell agreed that recognition of same-sex marriages is a policy question “more appropriately determined by the General Assembly.” And he said that, if asked, courts must resolve disputes about the validity of such marriages.

But in this case, neither woman contested the validity of their marriage, Suttell noted. Lawyers for the women say they met the requirements that would apply to heterosexual couples seeking a divorce: they lived in Rhode Island for a year and presented a marriage certificate. Suttell said that should be enough to allow Family Court to entertain their divorce petitions.

“The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Family Court does not turn on the gender of the parties; rather it turns on their status as a married couple,” Suttell wrote.

The legal question was “extremely narrow in scope,” dealing only with whether to recognize the marriage for a divorce petition — and not with whether to recognize their marriage for other purposes or to allow other same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island, Suttell said.

Also, the dissenters said, “It would have been quite extraordinary indeed, if the original drafters of the act had anticipated or even contemplated same-sex marriages. Such a concept would have been as foreign to the General Assembly in 1961 as would have been the advent of the Internet to the drafters of the ‘commerce clause’ of the United States Constitution.”

Ormiston said she was “astonished” by the ruling. “Three judges of the Supreme Court have discriminated against me. Shame on them,” she said. “Those who do not support my right to be married have gotten exactly what they don’t want — I will be married forever. Ironic, huh?”

Lawyers have said Ormiston and Chambers could get divorced if one moved to Massachusetts and lived there for a year. But Ormiston said she won’t move and she doubts Chambers will, either. “This is my home,” she said. “To move to Massachusetts when I own a home here is an unfair and unreasonable burden that no other citizen has to bear.”

Ormiston’s lawyer, Nancy A. Palmisciano, said, “These people are entitled to a forum. They haven’t gotten it. It’s a violation of their civil rights.”

Chambers’ lawyer, Louis M. Pulner, “Clearly, I’m dismayed.” He said, “My hope is that after seeing this decision, the legislature takes a look at allowing same-sex couples to get divorced in Rhode Island, regardless of whether they want them to get married.”

Governor Carcieri said, “I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law. It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage — and therefore divorce — only between a man and a woman. Carcieri, a Republican, said any change in policy involving same-sex marriages should be made in a public referendum because “altering our marriage laws is such an important question.”

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said, “I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion because it is unfair to the couple in question and other couples similarly situated, leaving them in ‘a virtual legal limbo.’ ” Lynch, a Democrat, said, “I also am concerned because it is inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on same-sex relationships and because it could well be applied more broadly than is intended.”

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin said the ruling “affirms the basic nature of matrimony as it’s been in Rhode Island since the beginning — between a man and a woman.” Tobin said, “I don’t think it’s discrimination at all. The people involved are starting down the road of social experimentation. And when we tinker with an institution as fundamental as marriage, there will be consequences.”

efitzpat@projo.com