California, the second state to recognize same-sex couples' right to civil marriage, became the first to extend that right to couples residing outside the state when its landmark Supreme Court ruling took effect in mid June. Most out-of-state couples, with the exception of those residing in Massachusetts and New York, know that their marriages will not be recognized when they return home.

For couples in Wisconsin, however, second-class citizenship may simply be the appetizer to the main course: Jail time.

In addition to an amendment voted into Wisconsin's constitution in 2006 barring recognition of same-sex marriages, a law on the books prohibits its residents from leaving the state to enter a marriage that would not be legally recognized when they return.

Wisconsin statute 765.04(1) reads:

If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state.

"The law has been around since 1915," noted Fair Wisconsin's Glenn Carlson of its age, "which was five years before women got the right to vote."

Violation of this law opens up the possibility for a fine of up to $10,000, and up to nine months imprisonment, which Fair Wisconsin warned its members on the heels of California's may ruling.

Among those who would prefer to be "prosecuted over persecuted" are Bob Klebba and David Waugh of Madison, who will be returning from their annual San Diego vacation a married couple.

"What we might be looking for is outside recognition of our relationship -- recognition from society," Klebba told The Capital Times. "This is a way to ask for that recognition. Happily, California is willing to give us that."

"I want to have the same opportunity as everybody else to let my partner know, in the strongest of ways, that I am committed to him for life," Waugh added. "Marriage is kind of the ultimate, top-level commitment you can make with another person."

"Someone has to prosecute them," charged Julaine Appling, CEO of Wisconsin Family Council. "That's a defrauding of the government."

Kathy Cox and Kim Whalen, another Wisconsin couple, also plan to marry in California.

Asked by CNN about the legal risk, Cox responded: "Pioneers get the arrows, and the settlers get the land."

The late Mildred Loving, who, with her husband Richard, made history after being prosecuted in her home state of Virginia for violating its anti-miscegenation law, had the following to say in June of 2007, marking the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling and affirmation of multiracial couples' marriage rights:

...Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

The accompanying video report appears courtesy of CNN.com.