Rhode Island court won't let gay couple from Massachusetts divorce.

Some people have to try to "rock the boat" and possibly destroy things for everyone else.

In a split decision, Rhode Island's top court said yesterday that it will not allow a lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts to get a divorce in the Ocean State.

The 3-to-2 ruling was viewed by advocates of gay marriage as a setback and by those who oppose the recognition of same-sex unions as an act of wisdom.

The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.

Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples.

"There have been people throughout history who have been discriminated against," said Ormiston, 60. "And they have fought the good fight and prevailed. It will be the case with my minority as well."

"It won't stand," she said.

Louis Pulner, the lawyer for Chambers, said his 70-year-old client has stayed out of public view during the high-profile litigation triggered by her failed marriage.

In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling.

"I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."

But Rhode Island's attorney general, Patrick Lynch, and the Boston group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders criticized the ruling. "It is unfair to the couple in question and other couples similarly situated," because they cannot legally end their marriages, Lynch said in the statement. He said the ruling does not affect the status of same-sex marriages of Rhode Island couples not seeking divorce.

Aliens face gay union 'bias' in U.S.

Tom Richardson and Salvador Valenzuela first marked their commitment to each other with a city domestic partnership in Seattle. When Massachusetts became the first US state to allow same-sex marriage, they married there, and hyphenated their last names.

Now back in Washington state, the Richardson-Valenzuelas plan to register for a state domestic partnership, taking advantage of a new state law giving same-sex couples some of the benefits that married heterosexual couples have. The only problem is that by doing so, they risk getting Salvador, who is from Mexico, deported, because registering could jeopardise the temporary tourist visa he uses to enter the US.

Only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and a handful of other states recognise civil unions or domestic partnerships. Civil unions and same-sex marriage are unrecognised at the federal level, which means Valenzuala cannot get legal resident status through a domestic partnership or gay marriage.

“When it comes to gay and lesbian issues, change is coming at the state level,” said state Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of the domestic partnership law and one of five openly gay lawmakers in the state Legislature.

“It's really important for our relationship to be recognised,” said Tom Richardson-Valenzuela, who said they both realise that the immigration laws may catch up with them. Because immigration law does not recognise same-sex couples, an American citizen would not be able to sponsor his or her partner if her or she is on a temporary visa.