In a footnote, Justice Golden stressed the narrowness of the ruling: "Our analysis is expressly limited to the issue before us. Nothing in this opinion should be taken as applying to the recognition of same-sex marriages legally solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction in any context other than divorce. The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before us, is left for another day."

It seems clear from reading the court's decision and considering its analogy to common law marriages that actually there is a good basis to argue that same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere should be more generally recognized as valid in Wyoming for purposes beyond divorce. In a very real sense, of course, the court was being a bit disingenous in stating that the parties "are not seeking to enforce any right incident to the status of being married," since the right to seek a divorce, invoking the powers of the court to make a disposition as to property and debts and parental rights (where applicable), in order to help a married couple to disentangle their relationship, has been highly valued as a "right incident to the status of being married."