This is reprinted with permission from The News & Observer of Raleigh.

It has been a busy month on the same-sex marriage front:

In Vermont, the legislature legalized gay marriage, overriding the veto of Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

In Iowa, the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.

In Washington, the city council took a preliminary vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Last week in New York, Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in his state.

Courts have already legalized same-sex marriages in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Legislatures in New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire are considering bills that would follow in Vermont's path.

So where is this headed?

Polling wizard Nate Silver, whose Web site www.FiveThirtyEight.com nailed the 2008 presidential election, posted an analysis this month of dozens of national polls concerning civil unions and same-sex marriage going back to the mid-1990s.

He concluded that support for civil unions was growing, but slowly. Recent national polls showed a slim majority supporting civil unions; support for legalizing same-sex marriage tended to be in the 35 percent to 45 percent range.

He also noted that support for gay marriage "is strongly generational" and is much stronger among voters ages 18 to 45 and weak among those older than 65. He predicted that gay marriage will achieve majority support "at some point in the 2010s."

The issue is explored in the two brief Q&A interviews that follow.

A Patchwork of Laws

David Masci, interviewed in this segment, is a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in Washington, where he is the in-house expert on church-state issues.

Q: Some states allow same-sex marriage, while others have constitutional amendments forbidding it. How serious is the conflict between these laws?

A: The U.S. Constitution generally compels states to abide by the judicial decisions and laws of other states, but there is a "public policy exception." Courts have ruled that in certain circumstances, a state should not be forced to enforce another state's law when that law conflicts with an important policy consideration of the first state.

So states that oppose same-sex marriage could argue that they don't have to recognize it because of this exception.

In addition, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which bans same-sex marriage on the federal level, also mandates that states not be required to recognize a same-sex marriage that is valid in another state.

So far, courts have upheld both parts of this act. So, as things stand now, a same-sex couple that legally marries in Massachusetts and moves to Alabama can't force Alabama to legally recognize that marriage.

Q: That hypothetical couple that married in Massachusetts and now lives in Alabama: For federal tax or Social Security purposes, are they married?

A: No, because same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government; that's part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

It's important to note that President Barack Obama said during the campaign that he favored repeal of the act, but there's no telling whether or when that might happen.

Q: Is the U.S. Supreme Court at some point likely to grapple with this?

A: The court might be wary of taking a case that addresses the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

The justices might be inclined to say that the states are sorting this out -- that the democratic process is working as it's supposed to.

Q: The court attempted to resolve abortion with the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, and 26 years later it's anything but settled. Might this factor into the justices' wariness with same-sex marriage?

The abortion analogy is very apt. Even some people who are pro-choice say there is a downside to pulling the issue away from the states.

Others, of course, say that the court acted appropriately and that abortion is clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Q: Do the conflicts between the various states' laws have to be resolved?

A: We may be headed toward a kind of patchwork where some states allow same-sex marriage, some allow something approaching same-sex marriage, such as civil unions, and many others simply ban same-sex marriage.

So far, we're seeing federalism in action -- letting each state decide its policy.

Expect Inaction Here

Interviewed below is Andrew J. Taylor, chairman and professor of political science in the School of Public and International Affairs at N.C. State University.

Q: Don't North Carolina, and the South in general, seem unlikely to hop on the same-sex marriage bandwagon?

A: Yes. There's much polling data showing that a large proportion of the North Carolina population is resistant to the idea of same-sex marriage, though the actual numbers vary depending on how the question is phrased.

If people are asked whether they believe marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman, about three-quarters will agree. But if the question focuses more on civil unions and sensitivity to the rights of homosexuals, the numbers come down.

Q: So the word "marriage" is a big issue?

A: A significant number of people in North Carolina draw the line there. There are some who oppose even recognizing civil unions, but they're in the minority.

A lot of people are in that middle area -- they think same-sex couples should have certain rights, but they don't feel those rights extend to marriage.

Q: Is religion a factor?

A: No doubt about it. People who are more religious tend to be much less supportive of same-sex marriage -- those things are highly correlated across the country. North Carolina is more liberal than some Southern states, but we're still a Southern state.

Q: So now some states have legalized same-sex marriage and others ban it. Where's this going?

A: We have a developing patchwork of laws and legal decisions among states that will be difficult to resolve.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution says that states should generally recognize and enforce judicial decisions made in other states. But in 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, meant to protect states that didn't recognize same-sex marriage from having to do so.

It's a thicket. Many elected officials don't want to touch it because it's so divisive. So things often get punted into the courts -- that's where policy is largely going to be made. This is happening across the country.

Q: How do you see this playing out in North Carolina?

A: Continuing inaction, it looks like.

Democrats are in power in the legislature and governor's office. They tend to be sympathetic to calls for equal rights for homosexuals -- but they know where the public stands, so they don't want to touch the issue.

They also control the agenda, so they can block Republican efforts to bring a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to a vote.

Q: At some point, won't the federal courts get sucked into this?

A: There won't be constitutional adjudication. There won't be legislative resolution. So it will continue to play out in the courts in litigation, and in the media.

It will remain a divisive issue. We have a long way to go before we're even approaching resolution.