TAMPA, Fla. -- After 27 years together, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether got married last summer in Massachusetts, along with thousands of other same-sex couples who wanted their unions legalized.

Massachusetts right now is the only state that allows gay marriage, but Wilson and Schoenwether want their home state of Florida to recognize their union, too. Their attempt to get that recognition, though, was soundly rejected this past week when a judge dismissed their lawsuit, upholding a federal law that lets states ban same-sex marriages.

The ruling was described by legal experts as the first of its kind.

"This is a legal shot heard 'round the world," said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. "But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it."

Also this past week, the Indiana Court of Appeals let stand a state law that prohibits Indiana from recognizing same-sex marriages, even those that take place in states where it is legal. And the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment, overwhelmingly approved by voters in September, to the state constitution.

The rulings are the latest in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize the unions. Opponents are bolstered by last year's elections, when 11 states pushed through constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. And President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.

Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said the ruling in Florida was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.

Judge James S. Moody Jr. sided with Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage "stable relationships" for the rearing of children by both biological parents.

The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians, said in a statement that she was prepared to take her challenge to the Supreme Court.

"Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts," she said. Her partner added: "No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision."

The women argued the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.

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

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.

"The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down" the law, Moody wrote. "But, until then, this court is constrained to hold [the law] and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid."

Conservative Christian groups applauded the ruling.

"Today we have witnessed a significant victory -- for marriage and democracy," said Tom Minnery of Focus on Family. 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 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.

Thursday's ruling in Indiana rejected a challenge to a 1997 law by three homosexual couples and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. The group was considering an appeal, ICLU legal director Ken Falk said.

The appeals court said that opposite-sex couples were distinguished from same-sex couples because they can produce children and that the couples who filed the lawsuit did not establish that they had a "core value" right to marry.

"Opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment," the ruling said.

Gay rights groups criticized the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling to reinstate a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It had been thrown out by a lower court that ruled the amendment, as written, covered more than one topic.

"High divorce rates, high adultery rates, poverty, lack of education, parents having to hold more than one job, those are the real threats to marriage," said Chris Daigle, a gay rights activist and state legislative candidate.