US: When President George Bush announced last month that he supported a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex civil marriage, it seemed that he had seized upon an election-year issue that would embarrass Democrats. But it hasn't worked out like that, writes Conor O'Clery, North America Editor, in New York
Two major Republican figures have taken positions on gay and lesbian marriage that are more liberal than that of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who supports gay unions but not marriages.
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger surprised Republicans by opposing an amendment and declaring that it would "be fine with me" if California changed its laws to allow for same-sex marriages.
This weekend, New York mayor Mr Michael Bloomberg made clear that he, too, was at odds with the President's position. Talking to reporters in Rockaway, at the Queens County St Patrick's Day parade on Saturday, Mr Bloomberg said: "I think everybody deserves to have the same rights."
He did not rule out lobbying in the state capital, Albany, for a change in New York family law to allow for same-sex marriages.
New York's Democratic attorney general, Mr Eliot Spitzer, who supports this goal, has ruled that New York law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and the issue should be resolved by the courts.
As a popular figure, Mr Schwarzenegger could help sway opinion in a controversy that has swept the country and taken both liberals and conservatives by surprise.
Civil unions have already been accepted by a majority of Americans with remarkable speed, even though gay sex was a crime in some states until last year.
The debate on gay marriages, according to yesterday's New York Times, is following "the same narrative arc as women's liberation, racial integration, disability rights and every other march of marginalised Americans into the mainstream".
It recalled that, as recently as 1967, Virginia still banned inter-racial marriage. The present controversy was ignited by the Massachusetts Supreme Court when it ruled that the state must provide the means for same-sex couples to marry.
When San Francisco's mayor, Mr Gavin Newsom, then allowed the city to perform same-sex marriages, gay and lesbian couples came from across the country to queue outside the city courthouse. Other mayors followed suit, forcing the issue on to the national agenda.
In Portland, Oregon, more than 420 gay and lesbian couples were married on Friday, despite warnings from Oregon's governor, Mr Ted Kulongoski, that the marriages may be illegal.
Oregon, however, is one of 13 states whose laws do not define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Mr Ron Gonzales, mayor of San Jose in New Mexico, will propose to the city council this week that it acknowledge gay marriages performed legally elsewhere. The question of whether to recognise such marriages has become a hot issue for states.
The 1996 US Congress Defence of Marriage Act says that no state can be forced to recognise gay marriages, but this may be challenged by a constitutional requirement on states to respect other's legislation.
Mr Spitzer said that, under New York law, marriages conducted legally elsewhere must be recognised in New York.
Most of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in past weeks in the US have been done within the law or before a ruling to stop them.
Some supporters chose defiance. On Saturday, a Unitarian minister, Ms Dawn Sangrey, said she was willing to go to jail after solemnising gay and lesbian marriages at a ceremony in New Platz, a town north of New York, where the mayor, Mr Jason West, is facing misdemeanour charges for conducting New York state's first same-sex marriages.
The Family Research Council, a lobby group which champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilisation, has warned that recognition of such marriages could lead to pressure to legalise other forms of marriage, such as polygamy.
Its president, Mr Tony Perkins, said: "The President was right to say enough is enough. Nothing short of an amendment will protect the institution of marriage from an out of control judiciary."
But the proposed amendment "would write discrimination into the constitution for the first time ever," according to Mr Gary Buseck, legal director of the gay advocacy group Lambda Legal. Mr Buseck argues that same sex marriage posed no threat to the country or other couples.
Mr Bush said that amending the constitution was necessary to prevent the meaning of marriage "being changed forever".
Asked if he was concerned about being on the wrong side of a civil rights issue, he said that marriage between man and woman was the ideal and it was his job as president was to "drive policy toward the ideal".
The issue will be a major concern in the November elections, according to a poll by the Pew Research Centre. The poll found that four in 10 voters would make a candidate's position on same-sex marriage the deciding factor in whom they would support. It also found that Americans oppose same sex marriage by 2-1 but put a ban in the form of a constitutional amendment low on their priorities.
A New York Times/CBS poll taken in mid-February found that most people supported civil unions but 61 per cent opposed gay marriage.
The Senate majority leader, Republican Mr Bill Frist, urged constitutional action to stop gay marriages from spreading like wildfire.
The call is unlikely to succeed, analysts say, as many Democrats and Republicans would be reluctant to be seen to be in favour of enshrining what some see as intolerance in the constitution.
Meanwhile some commercial outfits are cashing in on the phenomenon: "Happydays Collectibles" web site, for example, is advertising same-sex figurines for wedding cakes.