…well, mostly.
From a wire service story:
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents to marry in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.
If the court had struck down the law, Massachusetts would have been thrown open to gay couples from across the country to get married. Then they could have returned to their home states to fight for legal recognition for those marriages.
Massachusetts “has a significant interest in not meddling in matters in which another state, the one where a couple actually resides, has a paramount interest,” Justice Francis Spina wrote.[...]
However, the ruling did hold out hope for some of the plaintiffs — couples from New York and Rhode Island, which have no specific legislation outlawing gay marriage.
A lower-court judge was ordered to reconsider those specific cases with a view to determining whether same-sex marriages were indeed prohibited in those two states.
What I’d like to know is this — the ruling mentions that Massachusetts has an interest in ensuring that the marriages made by the Commonwealth will be recognized the happy couple’s home state. How does that reconcile with the (admittedly not-legally tested) idea that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution supersedes DOMA laws, or the reality that individuals and/or God (depending on your religious views) make the marriage, and the state’s primary involvement is to officially recognize reality?