Legal ground is shifting beneath the feet of clergy members, politicians and voters responsible for embedding in constitutions of Kansas and other states prohibitions intended to permanently block recognition of same-sex marriages.

Much has transpired since April 2005 when Kansans — with 70 percent approval — affirmed Amendment 1 to explicitly reject gay marriages and civil unions. Last year, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional. Seventeen states and Washington, D.C., are issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. Since December, bans were overturned by courts in Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky and Virginia.

"We are at an exciting turning point for our country," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign. "The American people have shown that they are ready for full equality for all. We will not stop until each and every American in all 50 states enjoys equal justice under the law."

In Kansas, however, opponents and advocates of gay marriage are holding their collective breath. There is reluctance to place Kansas on the cutting edge of litigation on the issue, nor is there appetite — at this juncture — to erect in state law fresh barriers to same-sex unions.

"I personally look at litigation as a high-risk last resort," said Thomas Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, an organization created in the wake of the state constitutional amendment.

"What we have on the books serves us well," said Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson. "I'm willing to address the matter at a later time if necessary."

Nationally, tectonic shifting was unmistakable in June when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which stifled federal recognition of gay marriage. The ruling's aftershocks contributed to nearly 60 lawsuits challenging state marriage bans. Nine cases have reached the appellate level across the country, suggesting the issue could soon be in the hands of the Supreme Court.

New polling for Americans for Marriage Equality indicated 55 percent of U.S. voters support gay marriage.

In a state where the GOP-led Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback made marriage between man and woman a point of emphasis, the undulating landscape led the House in February to pass a hedge against a potential Supreme Court ruling to strike gay marriage bans in Kansas and elsewhere.

House Bill 2453, described by proponents as a shield for religious freedom, was written to strengthen legal protection of government or company employees who refused service to same-sex couples.

Robert Noland, executive director of the Wichita organization Kansas Family Policy Council, said the legislation was an appropriate response in a "culture where activist court rulings around the nation seem to call into question rights of conscience and religious liberty more and more every day."

From the outset, gay activists portrayed the Kansas bill as a vehicle to justify overt discrimination simply by asserting a religious belief.

Powerful corporate interests in Kansas subsequently expressed displeasure with the bill, denouncing it as an unworkable intrusion into managerial affairs.

Amid the policy clash at the Capitol and national attention created by the bill, the Senate's GOP leadership spiked the measure. Later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a similar bill.

While there doesn't appear to be vocal interest in positioning Kansas as a prominent player in the unfolding drama, demise of the House legislation couldn't erase sentiment on both sides of the question.

"The government is for everybody," said Rep. Annie Tietze, a Topeka Democrat. "The government shouldn't pick or choose which ones are deserving of equal rights."

Rep. Scott Schwab, R-Olathe, said opposition to gay marriage would persist in Kansas because Christian ideals of the state's founders prevail. Evidence can be found in the state's conservative approach to liquor and abortion, as well as ideas of traditional marriage between a man and woman, he said.

"On sexual orientation, it's a choice," he said. "It's a lifestyle choice."