The place to make this complaint is in the Supreme Judicial Court and the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

They created this "marriage" knowing that it might not be recognized elsewhere and therefore might not be capable of dissolution elsewhere.

So go to Mass. and say, "look, even though we're not residents here, you gotta let us divorce here because you allowed us to marry here knowing that we might not be able to divorce elsewhere."

Uh, Justin, it is a "marriage". You accuse Fox of distorting the issue then ignore that they entered into a legal marriage in Massachusetts. Whether the RI courts will recognize that marriage for purposes of granting a divorce is a separate issue. But to say that there is no marriage is a lie.

If we're not going to recognize Massachusetts marriages, is Massachusetts under any obligation to recognize Rhode Island driver's licenses?
Let's just remove the "full faith and credit" clause from the constitution while we're at it.

>>If we're not going to recognize Massachusetts marriages, is Massachusetts under any obligation to recognize Rhode Island driver's licenses? Let's just remove the "full faith and credit" clause from the constitution while we're at it.

If you want to start playing that game ...

Well then, shouldn't RI and MA then also recognize Florida (etc.) concealed carry (pistol) permits?

DUI blood alcohol levels?

Let's ask Sen. Thurmond what he thinks.
We'll have to do something about those anti-miscegenation laws he fought so hard to protect, though.

... or Robert Byrd.

Gordon Fox
House Majority Leader with 85% majority
and we are the only state in New England
without a civil union bill.

No, Pragmatist, Rhode Island law is clear that the relationship of marriage denotes a coupling of a male and a female. In Rhode Island, that is to say, there is no need to divorce from a marriage that was never a marriage according to the law.

Indeed, my point is that the objective of those supporting same-sex marriage is to win the legal, political, and philosophical argument by forcing their conclusion into the assumptions.

I think the same-sex issue creates a point of contention,so let's ask this:if a 24 year old marries a 16 year old legally in State A and they move to State B where the age of consent is 18,is the marriage valid?And does the 24 year old face a statutory rape charge?I'm not trying to be cute-I really don't know the answer.
I watched the committee hearing and I was disturbed by the idea that the schools in Lexington can teach about same-sex couples to kindergartners without the parents being able to opt out or even be notified.No one can convince me that this is a subject for grade school.It should be broaached when sex education is introduced.I would think that generally happens in middle school.

Justin you are the one forcing conclusions here. They were married in Massachusetts according to that state's law. To deny that there is a "marriage" is simply not factual.

The average gay AIDS patient has had 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. That's what you get when you drive gays underground. Gay marriage might bring some stability to a community that desperately needs it, and pay dividends to society. Gays are treated in a disgraceful manner. Our society should be kinder and more loving to gays, in the true spirit of Judaism and Christianity.

"Justin you are the one forcing conclusions here. They were married in Massachusetts according to that state's law."

I remain emphatically ambiguous about gay marriage. But specific to the above point, no one is forcing anyone. They were married by Mass law; they can be divorced by it. The law requires one year of residency in the commonwealth following upon which, a divorce can be granted.