Would Mass. gay-marriage move spark wedding rush?

NEW YORK—Thousands of gay couples from New York and other Northeastern states are expected to marry in Massachusetts if the state follows through on a move toward letting them wed.

But many others don't see any need to pack their bags and rush to the altar. They believe the expected change in Massachusetts will fuel momentum for legalizing gay unions in their own states. Both advocates and critics see the move as knocking down another important barrier for gay couples, emboldening efforts elsewhere to allow gay marriage.

For same-sex marriage supporters, "it's certainly a step in the right direction. It does show how society is evolving," said Rick Trombley, a gay activist and former Democratic state senator in New Hampshire.

Massachusetts is becoming the latest proving ground in the enduring fight over same-sex marriage -- a conflict that is changing shape as various laws for gay relationships emerge in different states.

Massachusetts' state Senate voted Tuesday to lift a 95-year-old ban on any wedding that would be illegal in a couple's home state. The law has been invoked to stop out-of-state gay couples from tying the knot in Massachusetts since the state's top court declared same-sex marriage legal in 2003.

The Massachusetts House's leaders and Gov. Deval Patrick, all Democrats, support repealing the law.

The move comes a month after California began allowing same-sex marriages, without any residency requirements. In New York, Gov. David Paterson told state agencies in May to recognize gay marriages legally performed elsewhere, although the state's highest court has said same-sex marriage is not legal in New York.

More than 51,000 gay couples live in New York State, according to census figures. More than 21,000 of them would marry in Massachusetts within three years if they could, according to a study commissioned by Massachusetts' Office of Housing and Economic Development. Nearly 11,000 more couples would come from Connecticut, New Jersey and other states, adding up to a $111 million economic boost for Massachusetts, the report found.

Professionally, Alan Van Cappelle is elated at that prospect. He's the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a prominent gay-rights group that recently helped enumerate some 1,324 rights and duties that come with marriage in New York state. They are as broad as protections against having to testify against a spouse and as specific as public housing priority for veterans' widows.

But personally, Van Cappelle wants to wed his partner of six years in their home state.

"I don't feel I should have to go to another state to get legal protection in this state," Van Cappelle said.

He thinks this week's developments in Massachusetts can only heighten attention to his cause. So do his opponents.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund already has sued to try to block Paterson's order on out-of-state gay marriages, and the vision of a Massachusetts wedding rush only heightens the case's urgency, said litigation counsel Jim Campbell.

Others are galvanizing to fight any new push to legalize gay marriage in New York.

"Massachusetts is going in the wrong direction, and they're creating problems for other states," said the Rev. Duane Motley, founder of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which represents evangelical Christians on religion-related policy issues.

Gay marriage opponents in Connecticut took on the issue during the last state legislative session, helping stall a proposal to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Connecticut and some other nearby states, including New Jersey and New Hampshire, allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.

They offer same-sex couples many of the legal advantages -- but not the name -- of marriage. Some gay advocates say the distinction is crucial and unfair.

"People appreciate the legal protections that civil unions bring, but, quite frankly, separate is not equal," said New Hampshire state Rep. Mo Baxley, D-Andover, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition. "Civil unions are not the same as being married."

She predicted many same-sex couples would choose a Massachusetts marriage over a civil union in their home state. But other advocates expect most couples to hold off in hopes of being able to marry soon in their own states.

"If marriage equality were nowhere near on the horizon in New Jersey, I think there would be a massive, massive move" of couples traveling to Massachusetts to wed, said Steven Goldstein, chairman of the New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality. But he is hopeful the horizon could be only a year or so away.

After 32 years together, Janet Peck and Carol Conklin are eager to marry, but they're not racing to a Massachusetts altar. The Colchester, Conn., women are plaintiffs in a Connecticut Supreme Court case that could decide whether barring gay marriages violates couples' constitutional rights.

"We're waiting for our court case to be settled," Peck said Thursday.

------

Associated Press writers Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, N.J.; and Clare Trapasso in Concord, N.H., contributed to this report.