Opinion ID: 1436510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Parties' Marriage

Text: The parties, both of whom were domiciled inhabitants of Rhode Island, were married in a ceremony that took place on May 26, 2004, in Fall River, Massachusetts. Civil marriages between two persons of the same sex were authorized in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003). In June 2004, thirteen municipal clerks and eight nonresident same-sex couples from several states, including Rhode Island, challenged the application and enforcement of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 207, §§ 11 and 12. [23] Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350, 844 N.E.2d 623, 631 (2006) (Spina, J., concurring). Before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with Goodridge, the Department of Public Health and the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics had issued forms and guidance that effectively interpreted Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 207, § 11 to bar municipal clerks from issuing marriage licenses to nonresident, same-sex couples. See Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 18 Mass.L.Rptr. 190, 2004 WL 2075557, at  (Mass.Super.Aug. 18, 2004). As a result, the petitioning couples either had been denied marriage licenses or they had been prevented from having their marriages registered in the Commonwealth. Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 2006 WL 3208758, at , 2006 Lexis 670, at  (Mass.Super.Sept.29, 2006). The Massachusetts Superior Court denied petitioners' motion to enjoin enforcement of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 207, § 11 for failing to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Cote-Whitacre, 2004 WL 2075557, at . On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court, by plurality opinion, ruled that same-sex residents of certain states could not marry in Massachusetts but remanded concerning couples residing in New York and Rhode Island for a determination whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those States. Cote-Whitacre, 844 N.E.2d at 631. On remand, a justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court applied the test pronounced by Chief Justice Marshall in her concurring opinion in Cote-Whitacre because, he said, it articulates the narrowest grounds for the judgment of the court. Cote-Whitacre, 2006 WL 3208758, at , 2006 Lexis 670, at . Under that test, Rhode Island same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in Massachusetts unless the Massachusetts Superior Court determined that same-sex marriage is explicitly deemed void or otherwise expressly forbidden by a Rhode Island constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision. Cote-Whitacre, 844 N.E.2d at 653 (Marshall, C.J., concurring). Employing that construction of Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann. ch. 207, §§ 11 and 12, and finding no prohibitory positive law in Rhode Island, the trial justice ordered that a declaratory judgment enter that same-sex marriage    is not prohibited in Rhode Island. Cote-Whitacre, 2006 WL 3208758, at , 2006 Lexis 670, at . The judgment was not appealed. Whether the Massachusetts courts have correctly interpreted Rhode Island law is irrelevant to our analysis. What is germane is the fact the parties are married validly under Massachusetts law, as declared and applied by the Massachusetts courts. See Cote-Whitacre, 2006 WL 3208758, at , 2006 Lexis 670, at . That fact alone should end this Court's inquiry.