Conflicting reports are claiming that same-sex marriage would cost Maryland $2.3 million per year — or result in a $3.2 million windfall.

Fiscal analyses delivered this month to state lawmakers show that marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for Maryland’s same-sex couples could drain more than $2.3 million annually from state coffers.

The notes, prepared by the Maryland Office of Policy Analysis, say the unions would cost $2.2 million in health and retirement benefits for state employees.

But gay activists and some state lawmakers are challenging the calculations. Carrie Evans, policy director at Equality Maryland, said the analyses did not account for a potentially massive bump in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and related tourism.

“That wasn’t included in the marriage bill fiscal notes,” she said. “None of that was considered.”

A report released in December by the University of California’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation says that when such numbers are included, Maryland nets about $3.2 million by enacting same-sex marriage.

The report says Maryland would see $4.7 million in new tax revenues from same-sex marriage rights. It also estimated that new benefits to state employees would cost about $1.3 million.

Del. Ben Barnes (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties) has requested a revised fiscal note from state analysts to address the discrepancy.

The conflicting analyses come as state lawmakers, who struggled last year to reconcile a $1.5 billion budget deficit, work to keep Maryland in the black as they near the end of their legislative session.

Evans said that Equality Maryland knew that lawmakers, set to adjourn April 7, would look for “ways to be more fiscally responsible” after raising the state sales tax during their special session last year.

In recognition of that, she said, Equality Maryland sought to make the same-sex union bills and gay measures it pushed this session “as least costly as possible.” But some expenses were unavoidable.

“Equality costs money,” Evans said. “It’s not a free thing. And I don’t think Equality Maryland or any other state or national group should hold back on working for fairness for our families or our community because it’s going to cost money.”

Not all legislative proposals to benefit gay Marylanders have such high price tags. Most are cheaper, and some come at no cost.

State analysts concluded a bill that would allow gay Marylanders to visit a partner in the hospital and make medical decisions for him or her would not directly affect government finances. That bill passed the Senate this week, 30-17.

Bills that would bar discrimination based on gender identity also are expected to spur no expenses. A fiscal note on that proposal was forthcoming, but a similar bill offered last year had virtually no costs attached to it.

Analyses for two other proposals — including domestic partner exemptions from inheritance and recordation tax liabilities — yielded unclear results. Fiscal notes for the bills say any annual losses in state revenue “cannot be reliably estimated.”

Evans said those losses would be minimal, though, and have not given lawmakers pause.

“We’re not hearing that,” she said. “Nobody has publicly or privately come to us and said the fiscal note is really a hang-up for folks.”

Evans said another fiscal note, though, attached to a plan to ensure the partners of state employees could “play a big role in whether people can get behind that.”

The proposal, which also would benefit the partners of unmarried straight workers, could cost about $10.5 million if 4 percent of eligible employees used the plan. The analysis notes the calculations are “for illustrative purposes only,” but such a price tag makes the measure the costliest bill to directly benefit gays.

Despite the high cost, Evans said many lawmakers are striving to secure “health insurance for every Marylander” and could tout the bill as a meaningful step in that direction.

“Other than the fiscal reason,” she said, “there’s really no way you can oppose this because you’d have to oppose people having health insurance to be against this bill.”