PROVIDENCE — The two women who sought Rhode Island’s first same-sex divorce agree that they want to end their marriage, but they disagree about how to do it.

Margaret R. Chambers is seeking a divorce in Superior Court, while Cassandra B. Ormiston is now living in Massachusetts, waiting for a year to pass before she can get divorced there.

“They will get divorced. There’s no question,” Ormiston’s lawyer, Julie A. Lynch, said yesterday. “It’s just a matter of where.”

In December, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce to the Providence couple, who married in Fall River in 2004 shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The case attracted national attention because it marked the first time any of the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts had sought a divorce in another state.

Less than a week after the Supreme Court ruling, Chambers’ lawyer filed for divorce in Rhode Island’s main trial court, Superior Court. Lawyer Louis M. Pulner then filed a motion, seeking to have the Supreme Court weigh in on whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to grant the divorce.

In a legal brief filed May 22, Pulner said the Supreme Court never denied the existence or the validity of the marriage between Ormiston and Chambers, and the high court never said there was no forum in the state for them to obtain a divorce.

“Their silence on these issues is deafening,” Pulner wrote. “The Superior Court is, in fact, the appropriate forum, if not the last forum, for plaintiff and defendant to obtain their divorce.”

Pulner emphasized that the Superior Court has broader jurisdiction than the Family Court. “Recognizing that a lawfully married couple is entitled to access to the courts for relief sought, it would seem not only appropriate but clear that the Superior Court of the state of Rhode Island is the appropriate forum for pursuing their divorce petition,” he wrote.

But this week, Ormiston’s lawyer filed a legal brief opposing Chambers’ motion.

“Although the Superior Court has broader jurisdiction than that of the Family Court, it does not have jurisdiction to grant same-sex or opposite-sex couples a divorce,” Lynch wrote.

While Superior Court has jurisdiction over everything from motions for new trials to probate matters, it cannot grant divorces, the brief said. The Superior Court lost that ability when Family Court was created in 1961, the brief said.

Lynch contended that the Supreme Court ruling “was not silent” and did not leave open the possibility of another forum to hear the divorce in Rhode Island. She noted that the Supreme Court said, “Ours is not a policy making branch of government” and “if there is to be a remedy to this predicament, fashioning such a remedy would fall within the province of the General Assembly.”

While Pulner said the Supreme Court should “determine this issue once and for all,” Lynch said the high court has already done that, and “it need not revisit the issue over and over again.”

“If the Supreme Court deemed that an appropriate remedy would be to pursue the divorce petition in Superior Court, it may have suggested the parties remove the action to that court,” Lynch wrote. “However, the court stated that it is up to the legislature to decide whether or not it will redefine the word ‘marriage’ to refer to any state other than ‘the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex.’ ”

In an interview, Lynch said Ormiston wants to get divorced. “But she can no longer financially sustain a case to try to change the law, push the envelope,” she said. “In my opinion, it’s not going to happen for awhile. She wants to get divorced. And it’s clear that in Massachusetts she can get a divorce if she is living there for one year.”

Ormiston, who owns a house in Providence, recently began living with a friend in Cambridge, Mass., so the clock has started ticking toward the one-year mark when she will be able to file for divorce in Massachusetts, Lynch said.

Meanwhile, Ormiston will continue to advocate for legislation that would explicitly allow same-sex marriage and divorce in Rhode Island, Lynch said. “She’s going to fight,” she said. “But not on her dime.”

In an interview yesterday, Pulner said: “I fully respect opposing counsel’s position on this matter. However, I feel that it is incumbent upon the courts of this state to grant relief to its citizens and, toward that end, I will pursue jurisdiction in the state of Rhode Island on behalf of Ms. Chambers until all avenues have been exhausted.”

The Superior Court must have jurisdiction, Pulner said. “I believe the courts of the state of Rhode Island are going to grant relief to its citizens,” he said. “If I’m wrong, the Supreme Court will tell me so. But in doing so, they would be absolutely denying relief to two of their own, which seems to me unfathomable.”

Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Hurst had asked both sides to file legal briefs before she decides whether to ask the Supreme Court if the Superior Court has jurisdiction to grant the divorce. Another hearing is scheduled for June 12.

efitzpat@projo.com