Sometimes things just sneak up on you, like a boogey man. Or, in the case of Rhode Island's Supreme Court, like a lesbian divorce. You're probably thinking, "Huh? But gay marriage isn't even legal in Rhode Island. What gives?"

Here's what gives: two young women by the names of Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston were passionately in love. They were so in love that they drove all the way from Rhode Island to Massachusetts for a little 2004 gay marriage action. Bound by their heartfelt emotion - not to mention law - the women travelled back to Rhode Island to live happily ever after. Psyche!

We don't know the gory details, but the women have decided to part ways. Sad, right? Well, what's sadder is that the women can't find a court to divorce them! It was easy enough getting married, but who will set them free? It can't be Massachusetts, because the ladies live in Rhode Island.

Massachusett's Governor Mitt Romney's law saying Massachusett's weddings are invalid in states that don't have gay marriage rights, another judge had a different perpective:
CNN reported:

In September, a Massachusetts judge decided that nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned gay marriage and said Rhode Island couples could legally marry there.

A family court, meanwhile, doesn't know if it can legally dissolve the divorce, essentially forcing the Supreme Court to make a ruling. 365 Gay quotes Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. as saying, "There's no indication that we can either hear same-sex marriages or same-sex divorces."

So, the ladies are stuck with eachother (legally, at least) until the Supreme Court either gets it done themselves or just has Jeremiah do it his damn self. Either way you cut it, they'll be recognizing the divorce. If they recognize a divorce, they're tacitly endorsing marriage. You can't get divorced without being married first, right? So, does this mean that by the laws of judicial relativity, gay marriage will then become legal in Rhode Island?