As Maryland edges closer to legalizing gay marriage, New Hampshire, which already has such a law, is teetering precariously close to repealing it after Republicans took supermajorities in both legislative houses (they'll need the extra margin, as Democratic Governor John Lynch has pledged to veto any repeal vote).
There is a weird asymmetry between how I perceive failures to legalize gay marriage, and repeals of prior legalization. Obviously, in one sense the difference is obvious -- the loss of something we once had. But I think there's more than that.
I noted in the wake of President Obama's election that there was extra pain in the simultaneous repeal of California's gay marriage legalization, as it represented an affirmative decision to consciously exclude a group of citizens from one of the most important symbols of American inclusion in our nation's history.
From the perspective of New Hampshire law as it currently stands, gays and straights are treated entirely equally. What is being proposed is electing to strip only one of those two classes of the rights and privileges of marriage. At least in situations where the law does not allow gay marriage, one could say with a straight face that the law was written without thinking about gay people, and then rely on inertia for why it wasn't being changed to include them. Here, there is no denying the conscious anti-gay character of the enactment. It is evil by commission, not omission.