stating that “it appears” that Rhode Island positive law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage
How later courts described this case
- stating that “it appears” that Rhode Island positive law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage
- noting that Chief Justice Marshall “disagree(s) only with Justice Spina’s overly broad construction of G.L.c. 207, §12”
- provisions of particular chapter in General Laws are to be construed, where possible, as harmonious whole consistent with legislative purpose, and therefore particular sections in chapter must be read together
- municipal clerks had no standing in official capacity to raise claim alleging unconstitutional selective enforcement of statutory scheme, but did have standing in individual capacity to raise such claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
By the Court.
The orders denying the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction in these cases are affirmed. A majority of the Justices also agree that, as to the plaintiffs who reside in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, a judgment for the defendants shall enter in the Superior Court because same-sex marriage is prohibited in those States. As to the New York and Rhode Island plaintiffs, their cases shall proceed in the Superior Court, on an expedited basis, for a determination whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those States.
So ordered.