MARRIAGE Rhode Islanders (Not Vermonters) May Marry in Mass. ' BY BETH ROBINSON Provincetown merchants can brace for a new wave of newly- weds in the wake of a Massachu- T setts court decision that clears the way for same-sex couples from Rhode Island to legally ma.rry in Massachusetts. The September 29 decision in Cote—Whitacre 1). De- partment of Public Health, repre- sents a welcome step forward in the march for full civil rights for same-sex couples, after a summer of disappointing rulings. The Cote—Wh'£tacre case, filed by Verrnont’s own Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre, and seven other same-sex couples from throughout New England, ‘challenged Massachusetts’ .re— fusal to allow out—of-state sarne— sex couples to marry. After the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision ordering that state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the State of Massachusetts invoked a long-dormant 1913 law to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples from other states. That 1913 law said that a Massachusetts clerk should not issue a marriage license to nonresidents who are prohib- ited from marrying by the laws of their own state. In March ofthis year, the Mas- sachusetts Supreme Court upheld the state’s use of the. 1913 statute. The court left the door open to plaintiffs from Rhode Island and New York to show in further pro- ceedings at the trial court level that the 1913 statute doesn’t apply to them because same-sex mar- riage is not “expressly prohibited” in their home states. The Court concluded that the other states in question do formally prohibit samesex marriage. Back in the trial court, after analyzing Rhode Island law in great detail, Judge Thomas Con- nelly concluded m a September 29 opinion that Rhode Island law does not expressly prohibit same- sex marriage, and therefore .the 1913 statute does not apply to gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders seekingto marry in Massachu- setts. In the wake of the New York Court of Appeals’ recent de- cision upholding that state’s dis- criminatory marriage laws, the court concluded that gay New Yorkers were barred from mar- rying in Massachusetts. The Mas- sachusetts Attorney General has announced that the state will not appeal the trial court’s ruling, so thedecision will stand, and gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders can start planning their nuptials. ' GLAD attorney Michele Gran- da, who represented the plaintiffs in Cote-Whitacre, celebrated the’ court’s ruling, explaining, “Loving, committed Rhode Island couples can now affirm their relationships in the most public and respected way our society knows.” Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, the Rhode Island plaintiffs in the case, were thrilled to have the option of marrying after 19 years together. They noted, “As the parents of two wonderful young children, our desire to marry has always been with them ir1 mind. We want them to feel their family is as ‘Worthy as any other.” So why wasn’t Vermont included in the trial court proceedings? In its March decision in Cote-Whitacre, the Massachusetts Supreme Court wro y concluded that Vermont, like several other New England states, expressly forbids same-sex *' marriage. Although Vermont does not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (neither does Rhode Island), Vermont law (like Rhode Island law) does not “ex- ' pressly forbid” such marriages, or “explicitly deem [them] void,” a legal distinction that’s critically important with respect to this pariicular issue. Unfortunately, at- least for now, the Massachusetts high court is the final authority on the application of the 1913 statute, so Vermonters seeking to follow Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre’s footsteps to the Massachusetts altar have little recourse. Like the Cote—Whitacres, they can continue working here ir1 Vermont toward the day when gay and lesbian Ver- monters share all the rights of citi- zenship, including the freedom to marry, without having to leave the state they call home.V Beth Robinson was co- counsel to the Plaintiffs in Baker v. Vermont, and is currently chair of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. VERMONT EQUAL MARRIAGE ADVOCATES HAIL IN NEW JERSEY 6 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 Justice Albin, all seven justices of the New Jersey Court recog- nized that gays and lesbians are “our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends," and that there is no “legitimate public need for an unequal legal scheme of benefits and privileges that disadvantages committed same-sex couples.” However, a slim mai ority of the seven-justice court stopped short of requiring New Jersey to issue marriage licenses to samesex couples," instead turning to the leg- islature to figure out how to imple- ment its decision, and opening the door to a separate legal category for same-sex couples. Writing for the three dissenters, Chief Justice Poritz decried the possibility of such a separate legal status “Labels are used to perpetu- ate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the‘ law. Ultimately, the message [of a civil-union style law] is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser re- lationships cannot have the name of marriage.” ‘ Robinson echoed the dissent’s criticism. “One of the things we've learned in Vermont is that being ‘married’ is important to a lot of people, gay and straight” she said. “No newfangled term invented by a legislature in 2000 can carry the cultural meaning, dignity, and weight of ‘marriage.”’ Noting that Massachusetts and Canada allow same-sex couples to marry, Robinson stated, “The sky hasn’t fallen in Massachusetts, nor in Canada, and it won’t fall in New Jersey if the legislature follows Massachusetts’ lead." Turning back to Vermont, she noted, “We look forward to the day when Vermont treats all fam- ilies fairly, as genuine equals, and eliminates unnecessary exclu- sion and separation in our mar- riage laws."V Press release from the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. For more information, contact Beth Robinson at 803-388-6356.