PROVIDENCE — In a legal opinion issued yesterday, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said the state will recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts — making Rhode Island the first state to take that step.

Lynch’s opinion comes in response to a request from the state Board of Governors for Higher Education. Three state employees who married same-sex partners in Massachusetts had asked that their personnel files be changed to reflect their marriage status, board spokesman Steve Maurano said.

While many states prohibit same-sex marriages and several states allow civil unions, Rhode Island law does not explicitly prohibit or allow same-sex marriages.

Lynch noted that his opinion does not mean same-sex couples can marry in Rhode Island, and he said his opinion is not binding. But he said same-sex couples could use the opinion in future legal cases and he said he felt compelled to issue an opinion that dealt with “basic human rights.”

“Couples were presenting themselves who had been married validly in Massachusetts and were trying to live and work and prosper in Rhode Island,” Lynch said in an interview. “I felt I had a duty and obligation to respond and to not sit idly by while basic human rights are denied that are available to any other couple in Rhode Island. Nothing in law, policy or the Constitution denies that.”

Lynch’s analysis hinged on a 1904 state Supreme Court ruling that said Rhode Island considers a marriage performed in another state to be valid unless that marriage is “odious by the common consent of nations, or if its influence is thought dangerous to the fabric of society, so that it is strongly against the public policy of the jurisdiction.”

That has proved to be a “fairly narrow” exception, Lynch said. “The only marriages declared contrary to public policy [and void] in Rhode Island are bigamous marriages, incestuous marriages and marriages between two mentally incompetent persons.”

Lynch noted Rhode Island has not banned same-sex marriage, although about three years have passed since neighboring Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

And, he said, “While Rhode Island law does not affirmatively recognize same-sex marriages, it does state an affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in, among other areas, public accommodations, employment, credit, housing and home health care.”

Lynch said state courts have recognized the “de facto parental status” for same-sex partners and allowed them to adopt children. And he said the General Assembly has passed legislation extending health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees.

“Taken together, these favorable conditions support the argument that Rhode Island does not have a strong public policy against homosexuals or same-sex relationships,” Lynch concluded. “It is our opinion, based on all of the foregoing, that whether based on Full Faith and Credit or on principles of comity, Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island.”

In the interview, Lynch acknowledged the issue might end up in the courts because of the broad precedent it sets.

Emily Sack, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University’s law school, said Lynch’s opinion could help shape public policy in several states such as Rhode Island that don’t have a clear law on the subject.

“Rhode Island’s on the front line now,” Sack said, but the issue will become more prevalent in other states in the coming years as same-sex couples married in Massachusetts move to other regions. When that happens, she said, the states will likely turn to legal precedent, such as Lynch’s opinion, which is the first of its kind, for guidance.

Sack said that while Lynch’s opinion is not binding, the Board of Governors for Higher Education and other state agencies should follow it. Maurano said the Board of Governors plans to change the three employees’ files to reflect their married status.

Michele E. Granda, staff lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a legal-rights group active throughout New England, hailed Lynch’s opinion, saying, “It’s always good news when there is no gay exception to fairness.”

Granda said the opinion is not a surprise because in 2004, Lynch told the state’s general treasurer that an employee who married someone of the same sex in Massachusetts was entitled to “spouse’s benefits” under Rhode Island General Laws.

Granda acknowledged that the courts and the legislature can always weigh in on the state’s public policy on this issue. But, she said, “The attorney general catalogues that policy now and it’s all in favor of treating same-sex couples like heterosexual couples. If anything, the legislature is moving toward equality, not against it.”

Granda said Lynch found no good reason to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. “And I haven’t seen a credible reason for denying recognition — other than ‘I don’t like same-sex couples’ — which could run afoul of the state’s nondiscrimination laws.”

Lynch’s opinion came on the same day that Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. responded to the Supreme Court in the state’s first same-sex divorce case. Jeremiah has asked the high court whether his court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Yesterday, Jeremiah answered factual questions about the case, which involves two Providence women who married in Fall River. And in response to questions from the Supreme Court, he said the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause is relevant to the case, while the relevance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is “minimal at best.”

When asked what impact Lynch’s opinion might have on the same-sex divorce case, Granda said, “The Supreme Court is going to have to address this question on its own, but the attorney general’s legal opinion is persuasive authority.”

Jenn Steinfeld, director of Marriage Equality RI, praised Lynch’s opinion. She estimated the decision will affect dozens of couples. “I’m feeling really excited,” she said. “We certainly applaud [Lynch’s] stance here. We applaud him going through Rhode Island law and ... recognizing that there is no strong public policy against recognizing same-sex marriages.”

Governor Carcieri had no comment on yesterday’s opinion. His spokesman, Michael Maynard, said the governor learned of the ruling “just like everyone else” when Lynch’s office issued a statement. “And the governor has asked his legal counsel to review the opinion and brief him.”

efitzpat@projo.com