“It really is a monkey wrench that sort of is thrown into the process for some of them,” Steffen W. Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University, said. “It’s potentially more dangerous for the Democrats, where the front-runners have been trying to finesse this issue.”

OCEAN GROVE — A pending renewal of a state tax exemption on land including the embattled boardwalk pavilion could become an issue in the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's ban on same-sex civil unions in the pavilion, and could end up costing the association hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's because one of the requirements for land qualifying for the exemption — administered by the state Department of Environmental Protection's Green Acres program — is that the land "must be open for public use on an equal basis," according to the program's rules.

And whether the pavilion is open to the public on an equal basis or a religious structure subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Book of Discipline is at the heart of the controversy, which has now spread to a federal courthouse in Trenton.

Our first President...?

Maryland's highest court Tuesday rejected same-sex marriage and upheld the state's 34-year-old statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In a case watched closely around the nation, the Maryland Court of Appeals' 4-3 ruling dealt a blow to gay and lesbian advocates who launched their fight to overturn the state's marriage law three years ago. Tuesday, those advocates pledged to take the battle for marriage to the General Assembly, where two lawmakers have already vowed to sponsor legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

...

The court's majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the 1973 statute discriminates on the basis of gender. In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

something fundamentally wrong with the law

SSM has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003. SSM legal advocates lost outright in Washington state and New York in 2006. New Jersey's high court also rejected an SSM claim in 2006, though it did order the recognition of civil unions and left open the possibility of a future pro-SSM ruling. A case is still pending in California's supreme court.

When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future. Once California is decided, the initial phase of post-Goodridge litigation will have pretty much run its course. That was the phase that was supposed to start an avalanche of pro-SSM judicial rulings that would quickly lead to gay marriage around the country. It didn't happen. Other cases are pending in states like Iowa, and there's nothing to stop gay couples from filing anywhere else, but the odds are now longer. If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.

If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.