State of the unions: the debate to define marriage is raging around the country in the wake of Massachusetts' court decision.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that it is unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marrying, touching off a political maelstrom across the country. The mayor of San Francisco started performing same-sex marriages in February. A county clerk in New Mexico began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples one week later. The city of San Francisco is now suing the state, challenging the constitutionality of the California statute that prohibits recognition of marriage between same-sex couples.

Nationwide, legislatures have introduced dozens of proposals this session that run the gamut from defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman to creating civil unions to allowing gay couples to marry.

"This is a difficult issue for the country, and it is a difficult issue for state legislatures. We are doing the best we can," said Massachusetts Speaker Thomas Finneran, as his deeply divided legislature struggled with the issue.

The Massachusetts legislature has held two constitutional conventions in an attempt to find some resolution to this issue, but the conventions were not able to agree on any amendments. If lawmakers decide to amend the constitution, the proposal must be approved in two successive legislative sessions and then referred to the voters. The earliest any proposed amendment could make the ballot would be November 2006. By court decree, the first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place in Massachusetts as early as May this year.

These are the latest developments in the larger public discussion of "marriage" and "family" that started in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated state constitutional equal protection rights unless the state could show a "compelling reason" for such discrimination. In 1996, a trial court ruled that the state had no such compelling reason, and the case headed back to the supreme court. Voters adopted a constitutional amendment in 1998, before the final ruling was issued, giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and effectively ending the lawsuit.

Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, defining marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for the purpose of federal law and benefits. The act also clarified that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from any other jurisdiction.

The Hawaii debate, similar cases in Alaska and Vermont, and passage of the federal act have spurred state action. Before 1996, only three states had language on the books defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Now 42 have such statutes.

Four of those states have added language defining marriage to their constitutions. This session, 16 states are considering legislation to enact of clarify defense of marriage statutes, and 18 have proposed constitutional amendments. Eight states have introduced bills that would legalize same-sex marriages of civil unions, and one would add registered domestic partners to the list of people who are allowed to make health care decisions. California, New Jersey and Vermont are currently the only states with laws establishing statewide domestic partnerships of civil unions.

Defense of marriage legislation proponents see these measures as protection for traditional marriage. They are concerned that judges may not respect long-standing state definitions of marriage. They contend that same-sex marriage subverts the belief that our society is based on marriage between a man and a woman, and weakens the idea that monogamy lies at the heart of marriage. They say that gay rights activists seek to enact laws based on the belief that all consensual sexual acts are morally equal. There also is concern that laws legalizing same-sex marriage could weaken laws against polygamy, group marriage and incest.

Ohio lawmakers have passed legislation that, in addition to defining marriage as only between one man and one woman, also limits state benefits to unmarried partners. Senator Bill Harris, one of the sponsors of the legislation, said that it was important to underscore the "strong public policy of the state that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society. We didn't want judges to determine the definition of marriage in our state, we wanted to do it in the legislature."

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the government should treat all couples equally. They assert that gay marriage is beneficial to society because it promotes tolerance and officially clarifies that homosexuals are not second-class citizens.

Others argue that without the legal right to marry, same-sex couples do not have access to family health coverage, medical and bereavement leave, child custody, tax benefits and pension plans. Still others say this issue is about civil rights.

"For me, it is about one thing, the principle that one group of citizens cannot be 'almost' equal to another," says Massachusetts Senator Dianne Wilkerson. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I know the pain of being less than equal. I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else."

There are several proposals before Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and ensuring that states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

President Bush has announced his support for such an amendment, however, he is receptive to allowing states to "define other arrangements." This could indicate that the president does not favor enacting a federal ban on civil union of domestic partnership laws. Opponents of the amendment cite federalism concerns in addition to support for same-sex marriages. A constitutional amendment requires ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate and three-fourths of the state legislatures for enactment.

PROPOSED LAWS AND AMENDMENTS (AS OF MARCH 1)

3 States with language on the books before 1996 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Maryland (1973), New Hampshire (1987) and Wyoming (1957).

4 States that have added defense of marriage language to their constitutions. Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada.

16 States that have introduced legislation this session to enact or clarify defense of marriage statutes. Alabama, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

18 States that have proposed constitutional amendments. Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

8 States that have bills pending that would legalize same-sex marriages or civil unions. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

3 States that allow domestic partnerships or civil unions. California, New Jersey and Vermont.

Christi Goodman is NCSL's expert on family and marriage laws.