BOSTON — Elated and in some cases incredulous at making history, gays and lesbians by the dozens exchanged vows and were pronounced "partners for life" Monday as Massachusetts became the first state to let same-sex couples marry.
The nuptials ranged from quick city-hall ceremonies to ornate weddings in downtown Boston churches, complete with champagne and fancy cakes. Among the touches: matching orange bow ties, rainbow flags and confetti, the Boston Gay Men's Chorus singing "Marry Us," and a special rendition of "Here Come the Brides."
"When everybody wakes up tomorrow and sees nothing bad happened — it's the same world it was the day before, there are only more people that are equal to them — they're going to see there was nothing to fear," Sheldon Goldstein said after obtaining a marriage license.
It's unlikely the Massachusetts marriages will have much, if any, impact in Utah. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature overwhelmingly supported legislation defining marriage here as between a man and a woman, in effect, banning same-sex unions. And in November, Utah voters will decide whether they want to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Michael Mitchell, director of Equality Utah, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political advocacy group, said he doubts if many Utah couples will make the trek to Massachusetts to get married. Apart from the cost of the trip, "there's still a concern the marriage license would be purely symbolic," he said.
Some Utah gay and lesbian couples tied the knot in San Francisco, when such marriages were briefly performed there earlier this year, but their marriages aren't recognized under Utah law.
The sponsor of Utah's proposed amendment, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said what's happening in Massachusetts "is sad, and it's tragic, and it's flawed legally, but it shouldn't have any effect" on Utah.
"If Massachusetts decides that that's the values of Massachusetts and they want to open their doors for that, then that's within the purview of Massachusetts law," Christensen said. "But in Utah, it just shows all the more reason why Utahns feel strongly they need to amend their own constitution to give ourselves greater protection against this type of erosion."
Mitchell said he is not sure how the situation in Massachusetts will affect voters' support for the Utah amendment. A poll earlier this year showed 65 percent of Utahns favor changing the constitution to ban gay marriage.
"We'll wait until tomorrow to see for sure, but Massachusetts hasn't fallen into the ocean yet. . . . I think all the doomsday prognosticators are wrong," Mitchell said.
Fewer than a half-dozen countries allow same-sex couples to marry.
Only a few protesters bothered to show up in Massachusetts, but some conservative leaders expressed outrage, and President Bush renewed his call for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages nationwide.
"The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top, but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage," said James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian lobbying group Focus on the Family.
For all the jubilation, the hundreds of couples who received licenses still confront uncertainty, perhaps lasting years.
Massachusetts lawmakers have taken initial steps toward letting voters decide in 2006 whether to ban same-sex marriages and instead define such partnerships as civil unions. It is not known how the marriages that occur between now and 2006 will be recognized if the ban occurs.
And even though the proposed federal amendment is considered a long shot, many states are trying to ensure — in the face of expected lawsuits — that they will not have to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts or any other state.
Among the first to marry, under a rainbow flag at a Boston church with the Boston Gay Men's Chorus, were Robert Compton and David Wilson. They were one of the seven couples whose lawsuit prompted the state high court to rule in favor of gay marriage in its landmark November decision.
Compton called it "a journey that seems like a million miles with a million speed bumps."
On Boston's Beacon Hill, Julie and Hillary Goodridge — the lead plaintiffs in the landmark lawsuit — were married by a Unitarian Universalist minister in the presence of ecstatic supporters and their 8-year-old daughter, Annie, who served as ring-bearer and flower girl.
"This isn't changing marriage. This is just opening the door," said Hillary Goodridge, 48.
The decision by the Supreme Judicial Court prompted months of bitter political debate in the Massachusetts Legislature and in statehouses nationwide, even spilling into the presidential race and into congressional politics. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts both oppose gay marriage, but Kerry supports civil unions.
Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican opposed to same-sex marriage, had instructed Massachusetts town clerks to deny marriage licenses to all nonresident couples. However, officials in three municipalities said they would issue licenses to any couples who attested they knew of no impediment to their marriage.
In Provincetown, a gay tourist spot at the tip of Cape Cod, two Anniston, Ala., men were first in line outside the town hall. "This is the most important day of my life," said Chris McCary, 43.
The Massachusetts couples are now entitled to hundreds of rights under state law, such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights. But couples still lack federal rights because federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces are among the only other places in the world where gays can marry.
Contributing: Jennifer Peter, Martin Finucane, Ken Maguire, Trudy Tynan and Matt Pitta