BOSTON -- Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly this week gave the green light to two petition drives that would ask voters in 2004 to ban gay marriage and limit marital rights and domestic partner benefits for gays and lesbians.

Reilly on Wednesday approved the constitutionality of 18 ballot questions and rejected eight, the Boston Globe reports.

Supporters of the measures must now collect more than 60,000 signatures by next summer to ensure an eventual spot on the ballot. With enough signatures, most of the proposed questions would be placed on the November 2002 ballot, though a few, including the gay marriage ban, would not be placed until 2004.

Bryan Rudnick, chairman of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, said his group has the resources to meet the Dec. 5 deadline to deliver 57,100 voter signatures to Secretary of State William F. Galvin's office for certification. He would not rule out using paid signature gatherers.

"'I know democracy is not cheap and we are going to do what it takes to make it happen," Rudnick said. "We will do whatever is in our legal means to protect marriage."

Gay and lesbian leaders say they will appeal Reilly's ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court.

"There is a specific provision in the constitution which says that any measure which relates to the powers of the courts is excluded from the petition process," Mary Bonauto of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders told the Boston Globe.

"The Protection of Marriage Amendment," its formal title, would essentially prohibit the courts from "interpreting laws in a way that could be inclusive for non-traditional families, whether gay or not gay," Bonauto said.

The amendment effort comes as gay and lesbian activists pursue a civil suit in Suffolk Superior Court to win the right to marry. Last April, seven gay couples filed the legal action after their applications for marriage licenses were denied.

Bonauto told The Globe the amendment would bar gay couples from receiving any benefits that heterosexual couples now enjoy, including health insurance coverage, inheritance rights, tax changes, hospital visits, and survivorship rights.

"This measure is an attempt to stop the clock by essentially pretending that all families still resemble Ozzie and Harriet of the 1950s and 1960s," Bonauto said. "Most people know that families come in all shapes and sizes."