CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) – Same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts and move to Wyoming would suddenly find themselves single if some Wyoming legislators have their way: A bill has been introduced that would allow Wyoming to void same-sex marriages granted by other states.

Massachusetts is the only state that currently grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples; others permit civil unions but the proposed law only pertains to same-sex marriages. Wyoming already has a law in place that mandates marriages conducted in the state must be between a man and woman.

“All the bill does is say that we don’t have to honor the same-sex marriages that are performed in other states,” the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Gerald E. Geis, R-Worland, said. “If a couple came from Massachusetts, or wherever they allow same-sex marriage, we would not have to recognize it here.”

Gay rights groups say the measure is unnecessary.

“I don’t know where the fear of a mass influx of married gay people entering Wyoming and demanding recognition comes from,” said the Rev. Bob Spencer, social change coordinator for Wyoming Equality. “I cannot envision hordes of [married same-sex] couples from Massachusetts, England, Canada, Amsterdam or any place like that thronging to Wyoming at any point in near future.”

Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, echoed that, “Surely the Wyoming legislature has real problems to deal with.”

But a co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Owen Petersen, R-Mountain View, said the measure is extremely important. “In the past 30 years, most of the statistics support the fact that with the loss of marriage and a stable home environment there are more adverse impacts on society with crime and with various other things that cause a deterioration of our whole country,” Petersen said.

Petersen added that he has only had positive feedback from his constituents on the proposed measure.

“I’m not supporting this legislation to cast aspersions or cause problems for anybody and their particular beliefs,” Petersen said. “But I do believe that it’s something we should go forward with and support for the betterment of our society.”

Geis said he decided to sponsor the bill after some of his constituents asked him to tackle the subject.

“A group of people in Worland asked me to sponsor it,” Geis said. “They didn’t want people from other states that say [same-sex couples] can be married to come in and say they get the same status in Wyoming. ... I’m just representing my district.”

The executive director of the Wyoming chapter of the ACLU, Linda Burt, said she hopes there isn’t enough popular support for the bill.

“I certainly hope this law doesn’t stand a chance,” Burt said. “Particularly in a state that calls itself the ‘Equality State.’”

Where Wyoming stands on gay rights issues can be hard to tell, according to gay rights organizations. Evans says because the state typically elects conservatives, people are surprised to learn Wyoming is actually one of a “special few states that doesn’t already deny recognition to same-sex unions from other areas.”

But the groups also remember the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay, 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was beaten to death outside Laramie, apparently because of his sexuality.

“So there’s some good and some bad,” Evans said. “Wyoming tends to be very measured. It’s not very reactionary in terms of social issues. There’s no horrific anti-gay laws on the books, but they also don’t have any laws banning hate crimes even after Matthew Shepard’s death.”

Gay rights groups say they’re tracking the legislation but are not particularly concerned about it since a similar Wyoming bill was not advanced in 2005.

Geis himself said he’d been told his bill wouldn’t get a committee hearing. “You don’t have to worry about that anymore,” Geis said. “They told me they’re not going to hear it in the (Senate Judiciary) committee. You’ll have to ask them why.”

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, said no official action had been taken on the bill. “We haven’t decided that yet,” Ross said.

The ACLU’s Burt said she plans to speak against the measure if it does come up for discussion in committee. “I think the bill is probably unconstitutional under both the state and federal constitution,” Burt said. “It codifies discrimination.”

Petersen disagreed. “When we draft legislation we work with our Legislative Service Office, and they’re all attorneys,” Petersen said. “And as a result they’re quite conscientious and do check to see that we are going forward with something that can meet the test of the Constitution.”

Petersen and gay rights advocates did agree on one thing: That the ability of a state to void another’s marriage laws will likely wind up being decided by the courts.

States currently are required to give “full-faith-and-credit” to contracts and judgments like child support payments and divorces that have been approved by other states, according to Evans.

“There will be a discussion that probably won’t happen for decades about whether it is legal or not for full-faith-and-credit laws to extend to marriages between same-sex couples,” Evans said. “It will take couples from Massachusetts moving around country, suffering harm and then taking it to court to say whether or not measures like these are unconstitutional.”