The right of same-sex couples to marry has been contested in legislatures, referendums and state courts, but the argument moves to a new sphere this week ”“ a federal court in California.

The case raises the likelihood that judges may eventually consider whether denying gays and lesbians the right to marry their chosen partners is a violation of their constitutional rights. This issue has occasioned such back-and-forth struggle that it seems inevitable that the aguments willbe heard by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In California alone, the issue has a complicated legal history that seemed to be resolved when the state’s highest court ruled that the California State Constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage. However, the court was overruled by the voters’ enactment of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

The question now to be considered is whether Proposition 8 itself violates the U.S. Constitution.

A similar controversy began in Maine when the state passed a law guaranteeing equality in marriage in 2009, only to see it vetoed in a referendum vote last fall.

New Hampshire also passed a law allowing same-sex marriage last year, and that law is now in effect. Opponents, without an easy option to challenge New Hampshire’s law, have begun a grass-roots campaign to debate the matter at town meetings across the state this spring.

Decisions on gay marriage in the New Hampshire towns would be nonbinding, but we expect town meetings would be a good forum for this kind of debate ”“ much more revealing than the pro and con advertising that accompanied the referendum campaigns in Maine and California. Town meetings allow for the respectful give-and-take that is essential for resolving difficult issus.

Town meetings generally succeed in maintaining civility, even during contentious arguments over taxes. Participants generally keep in mind that an adversary is also a neighbor. And sometimes the weight of logic can even change the minds of those who are willing to listen.

Reconciling the various claims relating to marriage clearly requires more conversation. Town halls, seem an appropriate setting for such an important discussion, even though the last word may come in a federal courtroom.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com or City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski at kristenm@journaltribune.com.