Unmoved by clear references to "bride" and "groom" in the law, a judge has ruled that Rhode Island does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage and so couples there can get married in Massachusetts. I would argue that if they can't get married in Rhode Island, then Rhode Island prohibits same-sex marriage.
I wonder if that "expressly" proviso is "expressly" in the 1913 law that governs the situation.
This is just ridiculous if you ask me ... of course, you can't argue that RI didn't have enough time to head such a move off at the pass.
Isn't dike a pejorative term?