The political divide over gay marriage is escalating in states across the country, and has so far become the focal point of America's culture wars for this election year.

Spurred by a Massachusetts court ruling - reaffirmed this week - that gay marriage is a constitutional right, a backlash is brewing from Georgia to Wisconsin. In an effort to prevent Massachusetts-style court interventions, these states and others are considering moves to define marriage in their constitutions as a union of one man with one woman. Ohio, meanwhile, is poised to enact a law banning civil unions and the awarding of spousal rights to gay couples.

But not all of the new activity opposes new rights for gays and lesbians. Emboldened by legal success in the Bay State, gay- rights advocates are pressing their cause in New Jersey and Arizona.

The result is a burgeoning political fight over one of the most basic concepts in American life - the definition of family and marriage. A key test comes next week, when Massachusetts lawmakers plan to open a rare constitutional convention on the issue. "What we're seeing now is the states tackling this issue with an eye on the fall elections," says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio. "In a lot of moral issues," state policymaking "works very well."

The legislative maelstrom, combined with President Bush's tacit support for a federal ban on gay marriage during his State of the Union address, point to the growing urgency of the issue on the national stage. It appears to be overshadowing other hot-button social issues such as abortion and school prayer.

A key reason: The sweeping decision last November by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts - which challenged that state and others to reconsider, with regard to gay rights, constitutional mandates for equal treatment.

With Massachusetts now the central battleground, many states are now watching to see how its legislature addresses the court's order to accommodate gay marriage by May 17, which is also the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's historic decision on school desegregation.

After the court's first ruling in November, which declared restrictions on gay marriage unconstitutional, the legislature had asked if the justices would accept civil unions, which provide similar rights as marriage but under a different name.

The court this week said no. The announcement makes the implementation of civil unions a legislative impossibility here, absent a constitutional amendment. An amendment requires a statewide referendum, which could happen no sooner than November 2006. Lawmakers plan to vote on the amendment next Wednesday.

Although more than 60 percent of state lawmakers are Catholic, many were disinclined to oppose the granting of marriage equality to gay couples, say experts.

Page: 1 | 2