BOSTON, Mass. (AP) – A Superior Court judge ruled on Sept. 29 that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage.

Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts did not apply them. The law prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would not be permitted in their home state, but the couple argued Rhode Island does not specifically ban same-sex marriage.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly agreed.

“No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage,” he ruled.

The ruling has no effect on whether Rhode Island or any other state must allow same-sex marriage.

It was not immediately clear whether the state of Rhode Island will automatically recognize the marriages of Rhode Island same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts.

Michael Maynard, a spokesperson for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri, had no immediate comment.

Michele Granda, an attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented the out-of-state couples, said Rhode Island has already shown some signs it would recognize such marriages, citing a May 2004 ruling by state Attorney General Patrick Lynch.

The ruling said that Rhode Island would recognize any marriage legally performed in another state as long as the marriage was not contrary to public policy. Granda noted that Rhode Island’s General Assembly has not passed any law specifically banning same-sex marriage since Lynch’s ruling.

The suit over the 1913 law involved couples from only six states. In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts could use the 1913 law to bar same-sex couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from marrying here. But the court said it was unclear whether same-sex marriage was specifically banned in New York and Rhode Island, and sent that part of the case back to a lower court for clarification.

In July, New York’s highest court ruled same-sex marriage was forbidden in that state.

State Attorney General Thomas Reilly said he would not appeal Connolly’s ruling. But a spokesperson for Gov. Mitt Romney said the governor was “exploring options” that could include an appeal.

Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom called Connolly’s ruling “completely illogical.”

“I think [Rhode Island] Gov. Carcieri and the people of Rhode Island will be surprised to learn that gay marriage is permissible in their state. If that’s the case, there’s no reason for same-sex couples to come to Massachusetts to get married,” said Fehrnstrom.

Granda said Romney “doesn’t have a role to play here.”

“To the extent he has any role, it is to facilitate the enforcement of this decision. That’s his only option,” she said. “When the courts declare the law, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must follow the law.”

After Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, couples from many other states began lining up to get marriage licenses. But Romney directed municipal clerks not to give licenses to out-of-state couples, citing the 1913 law. The governor’s action triggered the lawsuit filed by couples in six states.

In defending the 1913 law, Reilly’s office had argued that Rhode Island laws’ use of gender-specific terms including both “bride” and “groom” made it clear that the laws’ intent was to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, predicted the ruling will make people in other parts of the country see Massachusetts as “the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

“We think it’s very strange that a judge would say that Rhode Island has nothing to prohibit gay marriage when their statutes define marriage as between a bride and groom,” he said.

Becker and Norton said they were “thrilled” with the ruling.

“There shouldn’t be restrictions on people who love each other and want to get married,” said Becker. “We should want more of those couples to be married, not less.”