With the Supreme Court poised to hold a "historic hearing" on same-sex marriage later this month, opponents of such unions are aggressively pushing legislation on the state level to shield individuals who cite religious objections in denying services to gay couples, the Washington Post noted.

An Indiana "religious freedom" law that opponents said all but legalized discrimination caused nationwide outrage last month, and Gov. Mike Pence and conservative lawmakers were forced to change the legislations days after it had passed. But opponents of same-sex marriage are now eyeing a variety of similar measures across the nation, the newspaper detailed.

In Florida, private adoption agencies with religious objections may get the legislature's green light to decline to place children with same-sex couples; in Springfield, Missouri, voters did away with a city ordinance extending civil-rights protections to gay and transgender people, a proposition that may also be on the ballot this fall in Houston, the fourth most populous city in the United States.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the Washington Post that these and other efforts make it clear that LGBT advocates will have their work cut out for them even if the Supreme Court chooses to legalize gay marriage across the nation.

"While most of the movement is pretty optimistic about the Supreme Court, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that that's not the end of the marriage fight," Keisling said. "We're seeing some really ugly remnants of the marriage fight cropping up already," she added.

Opponents, meanwhile, in part have their hopes pinned on the 2016 presidential election, Time noted: "A small circle of Christian activists," the magazine wrote, is "winning over some Republican presidential candidates to their last-ditch effort" of challenging a potentially unwelcome Supreme Court ruling.

Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer and conservative activist, insisted that the three separate branches of government exist for a reason.

"If the Supreme Court overreaches on an issue, the other two branches are there to check and balance it," Schlafly argued. "The Supreme Court can make that decision, but it can't enforce its own orders in a state. That's up to the legislative and executive branches."