Massachusetts
court decision leaves nonresident couples in limbo

Massachusetts's highest court, which in 2003 legalized same-sex marriage, has put some out-of-state couples who married there in legal limbo by upholding a 1913 state law that bars nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their union would not be permitted in their home state. But Christopher McCary and John Sullivan, one of the first gay couples married in Massachusetts, said they still consider themselves married, even if Thursday's ruling means they're just two guys living in the same house in Alabama, which does not recognize their union. "It really doesn't change anything," said McCary, an attorney in Anniston, Ala. "We're like everybody else. He has two jobs, I have one, and we both work all the time." The ruling left more uncertainty for Amy Zimmerman and Tanya Wexler, who are from New York. The court sent their case and the case of two couples from Rhode Island back to a lower court, saying it was unclear whether their home states prohibit same-sex marriage. "We do consider ourselves still married," Zimmerman, 33. "There is a limbo element to it." Eight gay couples from surrounding states had challenged the law in a case watched closely across the country. Five of those eight couples actually received marriage licenses in Massachusetts before the governor ordered the 1913 law be enforced. In Thursday's ruling Justice Francis Spina wrote that Massachusetts "has a significant interest in not meddling in matters in which another state, the one where a couple actually resides, has a paramount interest." The state "can reasonably believe that nonresident same-sex couples primarily are coming to this commonwealth to marry because they want to evade the marriage laws of their home states, and that Massachusetts should not be encouraging such evasion," the ruling said. Michele Granda, an attorney for the couples, said couples from states where same-sex marriage isn't explicitly prohibited can now argue their states wouldn't prohibit their marriages in Massachusetts. "The court identified two states where [same-sex] marriage is an option, but there may be more," she said. New York's top officials have said same-sex marriage is illegal there, although that interpretation of state law is being challenged. The New York court of appeals is scheduled to hear arguments on the case on May 31. The law in Rhode Island is silent on whether such unions are permissible. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney applauded Thursday's ruling. "We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney said. "It's important that other states have the right to make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that our supreme judicial court put us on." In oral arguments before the high court in October, a lawyer for the couples argued that the 1913 law had been unused for decades, until it was "dusted off" by Romney in an attempt to discriminate against same-sex couples. He ordered city and town clerks to enforce that law after the first same-sex marriages were performed in Massachusetts in May 2004. Attorneys for the state argued that Massachusetts risked a backlash if it ignored the laws of other states by letting same-sex couples marry in the state when their own states prohibited such unions. Massachusetts does not track how many out-of-state couples have been given licenses. According to the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, 7,341 gay couples tied the knot in Massachusetts between May 2004 and December 2005. The legality of the marriages of out-of-state couples who did get Massachusetts licenses would have to be determined in their home states on a case-by-case basis, according to Atty. Gen. Tom Reilly, who said he agreed with the court's decision. "What the court did today is really to recognize that it's up to each state to decide what their laws will be," he said. Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage, said the ruling shows the need for a federal marriage amendment that would specifically ban same-sex marriage nationwide. Massachusetts opponents of same-sex marriage are working to put a question on the state's November 2008 ballot that would define marriage strictly as the union of a man and a woman. In the meantime, McCary said he and Sullivan are considering moving to Massachusetts from Alabama, a change they were contemplating even before their marriage and the supreme judicial court ruling. "We have been looking for real estate in Massachusetts," he said. "I wonder if we moved there, would our marriage be legal." (AP)