E-Mail This Article to a Friend State of matrimony (continued)

THERE’S LITTLE doubt that the governor and attorney general’s hostile tactics have stemmed the tide of out-of-state gay couples flowing into Massachusetts. Over the past three weeks, mere dozens of nonresident same-sex couples have come here for marriage licenses — a far cry from the hundreds of non-California residents who got married during the month of same-sex nuptials in San Francisco earlier this year. (The California Supreme Court ordered a halt to the ceremonies until it could rule on whether they were legal under the California Constitution.) Even in those Massachusetts cities and towns that openly defied Romney, very few nonresident applicants claimed they had no intention of moving to this state. (Out-of-state couples who plan to relocate here would have a valid Massachusetts marriage license under the 1913 statute.)

By the time Reilly cracked down on Worcester, on May 21, only 10 of the 72 marriage licenses issued by the city had gone to nonresident same-sex couples. Somerville granted licenses to 62 same-sex couples from May 17 to May 21. Of those, 18 went to people who plan to remain outside Massachusetts. And while Provincetown issued the largest number of marriage licenses to same-sex couples — 217 during the first week of legal gay marriage alone — only 14 of them were for nonresidents who plan to stay put. All told, 48 marriage licenses issued in these three municipalities will be withheld by the state, thanks to Reilly’s draconian interpretation of the 1913 law. By contrast, the three communities issued marriage licenses for a total of 63 same-sex couples who plan to move here.

It’s not that out-of-state gay couples don’t want to get married. But in light of Romney’s crusade, many of them don’t see the point of wasting time and money traveling to Massachusetts if they’re going to be turned away at the altar. Liz Bradbury and Patricia Sullivan, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, for example, believe as much. The couple of 16 years decided to get married here as soon as they learned of the Goodridge ruling last November.

"We said, ‘Let’s go,’" recalls Bradbury, 46, a self-described "professional political activist." She and her partner, a 59-year-old retired hospital administrator, worry about their financial future without such marital benefits as survivorship rights and asset protection. Their desire to marry comes down to what Bradbury calls "a very practical reason."

She and Sullivan had ironed out the logistics for a May trip to apply for a Massachusetts marriage license. They had downloaded forms on the blood work required by the state. They had checked the Internet for maps. Then they read a posting on GLAD’s Web site urging out-of-state gay couples to stay home. "There was no point in coming," Bradbury says, adding that they still haven’t gotten over the disappointment. "I’m happy for all those couples in Massachusetts now legally wed. But I’m envious and sad that thousands of us around the country cannot."

Not all out-of-state same-sex couples have been discouraged. Joe Gilbody and Hugh Guerin tried for a Massachusetts marriage license even though they would never consider leaving their home in Johnston, Rhode Island. A couple for 28 years, Gilbody and Guerin applied for a license in Attleboro — and were wed there by a justice of the peace on June 1 — because they want what the document would provide for their relationship: "Security," says Gilbody, 54, a nurse. He and his 62-year-old partner had more to lose by doing nothing than by taking the risk and driving the 10 miles from their house to Attleboro City Hall.

"We figured we’d just go for it," he says. "If they took our application, fine. If they didn’t, well, we tried."

Other couples have tried to circumvent the 1913 statute altogether. Trey Watts and Darin Moore of Oklahoma City, a couple of five years, were planning a "unity" ceremony when the Goodridge ruling came down in November. Naturally, they wanted to make their union official. They contacted Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), which hooked them up with Massachusetts allies. Last month, one supporter offered them a chance to get around the residency issue. As Moore, a 36-year-old stylist, cryptically explains, "We had an angel call us. A lady from Northampton called us and asked us if we would like to have residency in Massachusetts, and we said, ‘Yes.’ "

On May 19, the two signed a sub-lease agreement for a Northampton apartment. They then flew to Logan Airport, rented a car, and headed for Somerville City Hall, where they applied for a marriage license by listing their newly rented apartment as a dual residence. Now, the couple is considering a permanent move to Boston. Says Watts, 30, a business student, "If by some twist of fate the governor revoked our marriage license, it wouldn’t matter too much because we would move to Massachusetts."

"Yeah," Moore interjects. "We’d say, ‘Right back at you, Romney.’"

Romney has said that the administration will refuse to record the marriages of out-of-staters who have stated on their application that they have no intention of moving here. Feddeman, Romney’s spokesperson, explains that the governor hasn’t been able to follow through on his word yet; in fact, the state’s Registry of Vital Records and Statistics won’t receive copies of marriage licenses issued in May until July 10. "We won’t have the complete information until then," she says, although she is quick to reiterate Romney’s pledge. "We will not record any marriages performed outside the law."

If the state refuses to record contested licenses, Romney will have made things even more difficult for out-of-staters. By not recording the licenses, the state would be essentially denying that those marriages exist — something that legal experts say has never happened before. According to Ken Choe, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Lesbian/Gay Rights Project, in New York, Romney is creating "a cloud of uncertainty" over out-of-state gay couples that will likely prevent them from claiming any marital benefits. While the 12 states without a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) barring same-sex couples from marrying could recognize Massachusetts gay marriages, the vast majority aren’t likely to do so without a court order. A "null and void" marriage license would constitute yet another obstacle for couples. "It gives those [states] unwilling to respect these marriages the ability to say that the State of Massachusetts isn’t even registering them," Choe observes.

GLAD’s Bonauto says it more succinctly: "It puts these couples in a pickle."

ROMNEY AND REILLY have erected real barriers for out-of-state gay couples, but before too long, the law on which those barriers are based is bound to be challenged in court. The governor’s strategy rests on a broad interpretation of the 1913 statute forbidding couples to marry in Massachusetts if their marriages would be "void" in their home states. On April 29, the Romney administration sent letters to the attorneys general of 49 states explaining its view that "same-sex marriage is not permitted under the laws of any other state in the nation." Therefore, the letter continues, nonresident gay couples would not receive Massachusetts marriage licenses "unless we receive an authoritative statement to the contrary from you."