TAMPA, Fla. (AP) – A federal judge upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit brought by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized elsewhere.

Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step in upholding the federal law, but said they anticipated lengthy appeals.

Several federal cases nationwide have been filed challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. But the Florida court’s ruling is believed to be the first time a federal judge has ruled on a direct challenge to the 1996 law.

“This is a legal shot heard round the world,” said Miami attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Tampa couple. “But we are not giving up. Certainly, there are a lot of things in this ruling that I am encouraged by.”

In his ruling, Moody ruled in favor of filings by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages.

The U.S. Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.

The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages.

The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights. They cited a dozen historic cases as a basis for their lawsuit, ranging from the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ended segregation to Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion.

They argued that that right to marry is a “fundamental right.”

But Moody disagreed, saying the Defense of Marriage Act was not discriminatory on the basis of sex because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for only allowing marriages to exist between men and women.

The government had argued that the federal law encourages the creation of “stable relationships” for the rearing of children by both biological parents.

Moody said he could not declare marriage a “fundamental right,” as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent, which has not done so.

“The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down DOMA,” Moody wrote. “But, until then, this court is constrained to hold DOMA and the Florida statutes…constitutionally valid.”

Rubin, who has filed two other federal lawsuits in Florida challenging the law, said he had wanted Moody to declare it unconstitutional under legal precedents set in the civil rights battle and in court rulings establishing a right to privacy in homosexual acts.

“I am disappointed, but I am not surprised,” he said after reading the ruling. “This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it.”

The ruling prompted immediate reaction from conservative Christian groups nationwide. In Orlando, Matt Staver, the director of conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, applauded the ruling, as did Focus on Family, a conservative group from Colorado Springs.

“Today we have witnessed a significant victory – for marriage and democracy,” said Tom Minnery, the group’s vice president for government and public policy. The group is pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages.

“Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional.”

Last year, a federal bankruptcy judge in Washington State had ruled the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional when a lesbian couple sought to file for bankruptcy as a heterosexual couple would. But that decision was not binding on other courts.