Ruling shrinks issue to those from states without explicit ban

The Supreme Judicial Court's decision upholding a 1913 marriage law significantly narrows the battleground over same-sex marriage to a handful of states, lawyers on both sides of the issue said yesterday.

While the ruling touches on multiple legal principles, the nub of it is this: Gay couples from states that explicitly ban same-sex marriage cannot legally wed in Massachusetts. And the court left open the question of whether couples from those few states that do not explicitly ban such marriages can wed here.

The shrinking of the political and legal terrain heartened conservative activists and disappointed gay-marriage advocates. Opponents of same-sex marriage said they will now focus on prohibiting gay marriage in the six states that lack so-called Defense of Marriage statutes or constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

''We see this as a very positive step in the protection of marriage and the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, because the justices ruled according to law, instead of opinion," said Kristian M. Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage.

The six states that lack explicit bans on gay marriage are New Mexico, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts, Mineau said. And he said the law is cloudy in three others: Wyoming, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Efforts to toughen laws against gay marriage in those states will increase, he said.

''People are going to take a second look, because a warning shot has been fired across their bows, a warning shot from the Marshall court that says, 'We think Massachusetts marriages might be recognized in your state,' " Mineau said. He was referring to Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court.

Nationally, conservative activists also said that the ruling would make their fight easier.

''This is a great decision for those who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Mathew D. Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group in Florida. ''What this means is that anyone who travels to Massachusetts and back to their home states and initiates litigation in those states, that litigation has now come to a screeching halt."

He added, ''What you're going to find is these Massachusetts same-sex marriage licenses will come up in various ways -- in property distribution and custody battles -- but people who live in other states who now presently have these certificates are holding worthless pieces of paper."

Gay-marriage advocates highlighted what they called a hopeful side to the ruling. The decision allows gay couples from Rhode Island and New York to argue before the lower court judge who first heard the case, Carol S. Ball, that their states should recognize their marriages.

Michele E. Granda, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston, said her group will immediately appear before Ball to make the case for the Rhode Island and New York couples. ''They've set up the test; we think we can meet that test," she said.

Granda was circumspect about the implications for the national battle over gay marriage.

''We've always known that there is no quick fix to full equality for same-sex couples, and this is just one step in the process, one court case in Massachusetts," Granda said.

Some gay couples from Rhode Island and New York said they look forward to the Superior Court fight.

''We're hopeful that the door has been left open for us," said New Yorker Amy Zimmerman, 33, who married Tanya Wexler, 35, in Somerville two years ago. ''But we're disappointed. We're disappointed for our friends. We've been trying to teach our kids about fairness, and we don't feel this has been fair today."

In upholding the 1913 law, the SJC made clear that it expects city and town clerks to apply it evenhandedly. That means that heterosexual couples who could not legally marry in their own states -- because of age requirements or because they are too closely related -- would have to be denied a license in Massachusetts. GLAD had argued that the law was being used only against gay couples.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.