OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) – Washington’s closely watched same-sex marriage case was argued before the state Supreme Court in March of last year, and the long, long wait for a decision continues.

Some court-watchers are now speculating that this hot potato could stay under wraps until after the November election.

Same-sex marriage and gay rights were a front-burner issue in the Legislature this year, and the buzz over the Oscar-winning Brokeback Mountain seemed to galvanize attention.

After 30 years of debate and disputation, lawmakers finally passed a gay anti-discrimination bill – and even before the governor had signed it, initiative activist Tim Eyman began pushing for a public vote this fall.

Legislators were under the impression that the high court would hand down its opinion while they were in session this winter, possibly forcing a huge election-year debate on the touchiest social issue of the day.

But the court didn’t do the expected, and the issue has faded to “so five minutes ago.”

Lawmakers went home two months ago, Eyman says his referendum may not have enough steam to qualify next month for the ballot, and water-cooler discussions are more likely about gas prices or immigration.

Still, for those most invested in that pending high court ruling, it’s nail-biting time.

“It’s a combination of dread and anticipation,” says Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, one of four openly gay members of the Legislature. “I always get anxious on Wednesday afternoons” when the court Web site lists the cases that will come down on Thursday.

“We had obviously hoped we’d have a decision by now. The whole country is watching,” says Jeff Kingsbury, the Olympia City Council member who is anxious to wed his partner of 14 years. With a laugh, he adds “After all, if you plan a traditional summer marriage, it takes time.”

The court, per custom, is mum. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who once said he hoped the court could produce an opinion during the legislative session, now says: “I can safely tell you that the court is aware of the intense public interest in this case. Beyond that, we will rule and then you will know what each and every one of us thinks.”

Could Washington become the second state, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex marriage? Two judges, in King and Thurston counties, have concluded that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitutional requirement that all citizens be treated equally.

On March 8, 2005, the 38 plaintiffs in the case – 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry – brought the challenge to the Temple of Justice. They asked the high court to throw out the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to heterosexual couples.

They are using three constitutional theories, all with the common thread that equality demands open access to marriage, regardless of gender. The state’s position is that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and that lawmakers had a rational and compelling basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The decision ultimately will hinge on how the justices interpret the constitution and its unusually strong “privileges and immunities clause,” the state version of the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution. The state Equal Rights Amendment and state and federal privacy protections also are invoked.

Scholars say both sides have strong arguments and that it’s no slam dunk for either position despite the conventional wisdom that has the court deciding for same-sex marriage.

Most of the nine justices peppered the lawyers with questions during the oral arguments, but gave little clue about their personal views. Most court-watchers presume it’s a narrowly divided court.

Justice Barbara Madsen, a strong presence in the center of the court, could be the swing vote – and she seemed to dismiss one of the underpinnings of the same-sex couples’ case while supporting another of their legal theories, says Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle attorney active in national gay and lesbian legal circles.

Both sides agree that same-sex marriage still doesn’t enjoy majority public support, Washington’s live-and-let-live ethos notwithstanding.

Still, the proponents of same-sex marriage remain guardedly optimistic – and the foes generally express the gathering view that the court is prepared to throw out DOMA.

“I personally believe that’s what they’ll do,” says Gary Randall of the evangelical group Faith and Freedom Network. “I think the court may be more politicized than any of us realize.”

Fourteen months certainly isn’t a record wait for a decision – one recent opinion had a gestation of 22 months – but the wait is stretching the patience of some.

The chief justice declines to discuss the path of this particular case, but says there are many reasons why a case would take a long time.

“You have to consider whether there are a number of issues, the complexity of the issues, whether the votes change and so forth. That could slow things down. … Constitutional questions are always complex,” he said.

A pre-assigned reporting judge presents the case and a recommendation to colleagues at a closed-door conference on the same day as oral argument. If at least four other justices concur, that judge writes the majority opinion. Dissenters can write separately.

Lawyers in this case predict multiple opinions. Pedersen says it’s possible that five or more justices have agreed to throw out DOMA, but don’t have a majority yet on which of the constitutional theories to use as the reason.

The court doubtless will want a single, solid majority opinion, not separate opinions agreeing only on the result. Likewise, dissenters almost certainly will have one or more opinions to add.

It’s possible that justices shift sides and change the majority as persuasive opinions are circulated, refined and written with specific justices’ votes in mind.

Pedersen and Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, the state’s attorney, say the court will make sure their opinion is tightly written so it doesn’t have unintended consequences in other areas of the law.

Then, too, if the court throws out DOMA, they’ll have to deal with the remedy. Do they toss it to the Legislature or direct counties to start issuing marriage licenses?

A number of participants think justices will sit on it until after the election, just because it’s such a hot-button issue, bound to anger the losing side and segments of the voting public.