BOSTON (AP) – A Superior Court judge declined to halt enforcement of a 1913 state law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, despite a concern that the statute violates the spirit of the state’s landmark same-sex marriage decision.

The law prohibits marriages that would not be legal in the couple’s home state. In what is likely to be the first of several phases in the case, Superior Court Judge Carol Ball denied a request by eight out-of-state same-sex couples for a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing the residency requirement.

One of the plaintiffs, Mark Pearsall of Lebanon, Conn., said he was disappointed but not overly surprised by the judge’s decision.

“It’s a little bit discouraging to think they’re not going to do anything immediately. It would be nice,” he said. “But there was a degree that we suspected they wouldn’t agree to that right away.”

Pearsall and his partner of 15 years, Paul Trubey, are one of two Connecticut couples involved in the lawsuit. An attorney for the couples said they would appeal the judge’s decision.

Pearsall, a high school teacher, said he believes in the long run the plaintiffs will prevail on the argument that the 1913 Massachusetts law being used to prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from getting married is discriminatory.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said they are pursuing several possible avenues of appeal, and believe the case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Judicial Court.

“We think this is going to go up the ladder,” said Michele Granda, an attorney with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “We always knew this was really just round one and round two will be at the appellate court.”

After the SJC’s November ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health paved the way for the nation’s first same-sex weddings, the fate of out-of-state couples became the next legal frontier for gay rights advocates.

At the behest of Gov. Mitt Romney, city and town clerks across Massachusetts turned away nonresident couples seeking licenses in the weeks after same-sex marriage became legal on May 17. The eight couples – from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York – sued, claiming the law was inherently discriminatory.

In her decision, Ball said she sympathized with the plaintiff couples and was “troubled” by the state’s decision to suddenly begin enforcing the law after the Goodridge decision.

But Ball said the 1913 law, as currently enforced, is being applied equally to all nonresidents. “Clerks were instructed to do so for all couples and all impediments, not just for same-sex couples,” Ball wrote.

The law, enacted when some states had laws prohibiting interracial unions, had in the past been applied to couples that didn’t meet their states’ age requirement for marriage, and for weddings between blood relatives and couples of different races.

But Ball said the law was not discriminatory because the state has a rational reason to ensure that marriages approved in Massachusetts have validity in other states.

“Safeguarding the benefits, obligations and protections of the parties, including the children of a marriage that the Commonwealth has helped create, is a legitimate governmental objective,” Ball wrote.

A spokesperson for Attorney General Tom Reilly welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s decision supports the principle that, under the Goodridge decision, Massachusetts has a legitimate interest to respect the rights of other states to determine their own marriage laws,” said spokesperson Corey Welford.

The plaintiffs now have several options. They could allow the case to run its course at the Superior Court level – though Ball indicated she is unlikely to overturn the law – then appeal to the state Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. Or they can take their request for an injunction directly to the Appeals Court.

But legal experts said Ball’s decision does not hold out much hope that the plaintiffs can prevail.

“Judge Ball is obviously expressing sympathy for the plaintiffs, but ultimately she concludes that the statute is facially valid and she doesn’t seem to see any evidence that there is anything wrong with what the state is doing,” said Paul Martinek, publisher and editor-in-chief of Lawyers Weekly USA.

In her decision, Ball says the high court had “no intention of usurping the prerogative of the Legislature or rewriting the marriage statute” when it ruled that gay couples are constitutionally entitled to marry.

She also notes that the Goodridge decision “carefully and repeatedly limited the reach of its decision to Massachusetts ‘residents’ and ‘citizens.’”

One of the judges in the narrow 4-3 majority, Justice John Greaney, wrote a separate opinion specifically noting that the 1913 law would prevent the legalization of marriage in Massachusetts from spreading to other states.

The seven same-sex Massachusetts couples who filed the Goodridge case failed at the Superior Court level, but prevailed before the Supreme Judicial Court.

Greaney’s opinion, however, leaves in doubt whether he would remain with the four-judge majority if the plaintiffs wanted to strip that prohibition out of state law.

While stating that the law is clear and constitutional, Ball expresses concerns about the 1913 law and the way that Romney has applied it.

“It does seem to this court that on its face the [1913 law] violates the spirit of Goodridge, which held that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights entitles gay and lesbian couples to equal treatment under the marriage laws of the Commonwealth,” Ball said. “Moreover, the court finds troubling the timing of the resurrection of the implementation of [the law] immediately after the Supreme Judicial Court declared the prohibition against gay marriages unconstitutional.

“However, the plaintiffs have failed to show that same-sex couples are being subjected to a different set of rules than are opposite-sex couples.”

A press secretary for Romney, who has aggressively fought same-sex marriage, declined comment on pending litigation. The attorney general’s office, which represented the state in court, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.