Same-sex marriage in the United States
|Legal recognition of
*Not yet in effect
Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government. Twenty states[a] and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Ten Native American tribal jurisdictions[b] issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Colorado's same-sex marriage ban was struck down on 23 July and is expected to take effect on 25 August. Limited recognition has been granted to out-of-state same-sex marriages in Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio. Several hundreds to thousands of marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Utah, Michigan, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Indiana between the time their bans were struck down by federal or state judges and when those rulings were stayed.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, U.S. district courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Idaho, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, and Colorado, and state courts in Arkansas, Texas, Colorado, and Florida, have found state constitutional amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage to violate the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the Utah and Oklahoma decisions. Additionally, a U.S. district court in Ohio has struck down a ban on state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. A Tennessee recognition decision affected only the plaintiff couples. An order by the Seventh Circuit pertaining to the Indiana case forces that state to recognize one marriage, where one plaintiff is terminally ill, on an emergency basis. All rulings except those in Oregon and Pennsylvania and the emergency order in Indiana have been stayed pending appeal.
While many jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote, three states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 28 prohibit it in their constitutions. Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states.
The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in American politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state's prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health six months earlier. During the 21st century, public support for same-sex marriage has grown considerably, and national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.
- 1 Legal issues
- 2 Debate
- 3 Public opinion
- 4 Effects of same-sex marriage
- 5 Case law
- 6 Presently in litigation
- 7 See also
- 8 Notes
- 9 References
- 10 Bibliography
- 11 External links
Constitutional law: Marriage as a fundamental right
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage is "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
- Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man" and "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) "[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society" and is "a fundamental human relationship."
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) "[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation."
- Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) "[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education."
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) "[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right" and an "expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment."
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) "Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as 'of basic importance in our society,' rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect."
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) "[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are determined by the nation's federal system of government, in which the status of a person (including marriage) in general is determined by the individual states. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
DOMA was challenged in the federal court system. On July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2010, eight federal courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. On October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court to hold sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification and applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States. Windsor and four other federal cases were considered for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, on June 26, 2013, held Section 3 to violate the Fifth Amendment.
As a result of the Windsor decision, married same-sex couples—regardless of domicile—have tax benefits (which include the previously unavailable ability to file joint tax returns with the IRS), military benefits, federal employment benefits for employees of the U.S Government and immigration benefits. In February 2014, the Justice Department expanded recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits, survivor benefits and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse. Likewise in June 2014, family medical leave benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act 1975 were extended to married same-sex couples in all of the U.S. With respect to social security and veterans benefits, same-sex married couples who live in states where same-sex marriage is recognised are eligible for full benefits from the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The VA and SSA can provide only limited benefits to married same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, with Congress required to amend federal law to rectify that inequity.
According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2004, more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Many aspects of marriage law are determined by the states, rather than by the federal government. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a same-sex marriage case filed in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question." In doing so, the court upheld Minnesota's right to restrict marriage to different-sex couples. Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled Baker, several federal courts have held that it is no longer good law. For example, on November 15, 2013, a U.S. district court in Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss in a same-sex marriage case, put forth by defendants who argued that Baker v. Nelson was binding precedent. The court wrote that "[t]he jurisprudence of equal protection and substantive due process has undergone what can only be characterized as a sea change since 1972", allowing the case to proceed to trial in 2014.
Marriage laws in states that do not permit or recognize same-sex marriage have led to court challenges, including Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenged the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution; Sevcik v. Sandoval, which challenges Nevada's system of marriage for different-sex couples and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples under the equal protection clause; and others.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and was debated by the full Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.
On May 26, 2014, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness filed a Data Quality Act Request for Correction with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services challenging a directive by Medicaid policy that permits states without marriage equality laws to refuse recognition of lawful marriages performed out-of-state. The challenge stated that a state's refusal to recognize a couple's marriage license meant that the couple is effectively denied the financial "spousal impoverishment" protections created by the United States Congress to prevent people from being made destitute when their spouse moves into a nursing home and the facility takes takes all of the couple's jointly held assets to pay for care. The challenge asserted that Medicaid policy conflicted with federal regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally assisted housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings, tribal council rulings, and popular vote in statewide referenda.
As of July 9, 2014, nineteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia routinely issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals are actively involved in hearing same-sex marriage cases: the Tenth Circuit confirmed a ruling in favor of allowing such licenses in Utah and Oklahoma, but stayed its decisions; that circuit will now review the Colorado ruling from U.S. district court. Virginia is currently awaiting a decision out of the Fourth Circuit. Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee have received favorable rulings on same-sex marriage in lower courts, and the Sixth Circuit will hear arguments in these cases on August 6, 2014. Indiana and Wisconsin, too, received a ruling favorable to same-sex marriage in lower court, and the Seventh Circuit will hear arguments in these cases on August 13, 2014. Idaho received a ruling favorable to same-sex marriage in lower court; however Nevada did not, and the Ninth Circuit will hear these appeals on September 8, 2014. A lower court ruling finding for same-sex marriage in Texas has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit; this case is still pending.
A state appellate court in Florida and the state supreme courts of Arkansas and Colorado are expected to review lower court rulings in favor of allowing same-sex marriage licenses in all or portions of those states.
At the same time, Colorado, Nevada, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.
On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex.
The case was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court which, in 1971, ruled that Minnesota's laws prohibited marriages between same-sex partners and did not violate the federal constitution. Then, on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court, declining to hear the case on appeal, issued a one-sentence order that said: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
In 1998, in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Miike, Hawaii voters approved a state constitutional amendment ("Amendment 2") allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage. In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law in Lawrence v. Texas. The ruling effectively nullified similar same-sex sodomy laws in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri along with broader sodomy laws in nine other states.
Same-sex marriage was first recognized by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, pursuant to the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. This resulted in the first same-sex marriages occurring within the Bay State on May 17, 2004, making Massachusetts the first U.S. state to permit same-sex marriage within its borders.
On February 20, 2004, Sandoval County become the first county in New Mexico to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A restraining order was later issued to prohibit the county clerk from issuing licenses to same-sex couples for the rest of her term, which ended on January 1, 2005.
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage. (Proposition 8 was somewhat unusual compared to other initiatives connected to same-sex marriage, since California had ratified same-sex marriages and Proposition 8 was a response intended to subsequently re-remove the right of marriage.) Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona.
On August 4, 2010, a decision by the U.S. District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The decision in that case was upheld at appeal and – as the State of California decided not to appeal or defend Proposition 8 – the voters who initially instigated the initiative appealed to the Supreme Court, which asked to be briefed for arguments concerning the appellants' standing, and heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013. In accordance with numerous precedent cases rejecting the concept of proponents' standing to defend a challenged law in Federal court, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of standing in a decision issued June 26, 2013, after which same-sex marriage once again became legal in California. Proposition 8 supporters have expressed the intent to fight on (for example by asserting the ruling only applies to the persons or counties involved), but this was rejected by California's Attorney General Kamala Harris, who noted that "state officials are obligated to govern marriage equally in all counties and that Walker's ruling specifically covers those officials". Same-sex marriages resumed on June 28, 2013.
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil unions statute as unconstitutionally discriminatory against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The following year, the state general assembly passed gender-neutral marriage legislation, which the state's Republican governor signed into law.
In 2007, the Polk County District Court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples in Varnum v. Brien for the right to marry. On April 3, 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling. This decision was initially scheduled to take effect on April 24, but for administrative reasons the date was changed to April 27, when the licenses became available.
On December 18, 2009, a same-sex marriage became legal when mayor Adrian Fenty signed a bill passed by the Council of the District of Columbia; same-sex marriage licenses became available in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 2010. The first same-sex marriages took place on March 9.
By 2009, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage, which was achieved in all six states in that region by 2013 when Rhode Island legalized such marriages. On April 7, 2009, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor of Vermont had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative means rather than litigation. On May 6, 2009, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the first state governor to do so. Nonetheless, the legislation was stayed pending a vote and never went into effect. It was repealed by referendum in November 2009. On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state nationally to legalize same-sex marriage.
As of January 2010[update], 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had statutes that did so. Nineteen states banned any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. In 28 out of 30 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a referendum, voters approved such amendments.[c] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006, but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008. In 2012, Minnesota became the second state to reject an amendment to its state constitution banning same-sex marriage, though Democrats increased their numbers in the legislature in the same election, leading to the May 2013 enactment of same-sex marriage legislation there. A bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie on February 17, 2012 before a New Jersey Superior Court ruling led to its legalization in October 2013.
Prior to the November 2012 election, Maryland recognized same-sex marriages formed in other jurisdictions, but did not allow forming such marriages within its borders. New York had been in a similar situation as its courts had held that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes did not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, a situation which changed when its legislature legalized granting licenses to same-sex couples in 2011.
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as all other types of same-sex unions. The North Carolina vote was held on the same day as the Republican Presidential primary, therefore disproportionally drawing more Republicans to this special election. The amendment was approved 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%. North Carolina already prohibited same-sex marriages by statute.
In the regular November 2012 elections, however, state voters for the first time approved same-sex marriage by popular vote, in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Maine's law took effect on December 29, 2012. By law, Maryland started allowing same-sex marriages on January 1, 2013, The Washington legislature had enacted legislation in February 2012 that would institute same-sex marriage in the state, but the enactment was stayed pending a voter referendum, which passed. The referendum was certified on December 5, 2012, and the first licenses were distributed on December 6, with the first marriages on December 9 following the mandatory three day waiting period. In the same election, Minnesota became the second state to reject a statewide constitutional ban against same-sex marriage by a popular vote.
Several governments enacted same-sex marriage in 2013. The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians of Michigan voted in March 2013 to legalize same-sex marriages under their tribal jurisdiction, although the state maintained that it would not recognize the marriages. The Rhode Island legislature passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on May 2, which took effect August 1; Delaware enacted legislation on May 7, which took effect July 1; and Minnesota enacted legislation on May 14, which took effect August 1. In July 2013, a court clerk in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with the rationale that the state marriage statutes are unconstitutional, but his action was overruled by a state intermediate appellate court in September and he was ordered to cease issuing the licenses.
New Jersey began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on October 21, 2013, following a September 27 state superior court decision which found an equal protection guarantee for same-sex couples. Governor Chris Christie originally filed an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, but withdrew it after the court declined to issue a stay on the lower court's ruling.
In October and November 2013, both houses of the Hawaii legislature enacted legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, which Governor Neil Abercrombie signed on November 13. The law took effect on December 2, 2013. The Illinois General Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on November 5, 2013. The House of Representatives narrowly passed an amended version of an earlier Senate bill 61–54–2 with the Senate approving the House version 32–21 only about an hour later. Governor Pat Quinn signed the legislation on November 20. On February 21, 2014 U.S District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled that same-sex couples in Cook County, which includes Illinois' largest city Chicago, can obtain marriage licenses immediately and need not wait until the law's June 1 effective date. On February 26, 2014, a Champaign County clerk began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after consulting the State's Attorney and concluding that the Cook County order is applicable.
In 2013, certain New Mexico counties, either on the basis of a court decision or their clerks' own volition, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In August 2013, Doña Ana County and Santa Fe County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the latter through a court order. Although opponents filed for an injunction, same-sex marriage expanded to a total of eight New Mexico counties. On December 19, 2013, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, effective immediately, same-sex marriage would be permitted throughout the state.
On December 20, 2013, Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for Utah struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional in Kitchen v. Herbert. Salt Lake County began issuing marriage licenses immediately, followed by other counties. After failing to get the District Court or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the decision pending appeal, Utah state officials asked for a stay from the United States Supreme Court, which granted the request on January 6, 2014. The stay allowed Utah to reinstate its ban on same-sex marriage and deny state services to married same-sex couples. On January 10, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who married in Utah between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014. The Tenth Circuit ordered the appeals process to be heard on an expedited basis and set a briefing schedule to be completed by February 25.
On January 14, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Terence C. Kern ruled in Bishop v. Oklahoma that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He stayed his ruling pending appeal. On January 23, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced that the state would reverse its position and support a federal lawsuit challenging the Virginia state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage. On January 21, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, considering issues unrelated to marriage in SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, ruled that distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review. In response to that decision, on February 10, Nevada State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto withdrew the state's brief in Sevcik v. Sandoval, ending its defense of the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Because the decision in SmithKline was not appealed, heightened scrutiny remains the standard of review in the Ninth Circuit for laws and government actions that draw distinctions based on sexual orientation.
On February 12, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn declared Kentucky's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. On February 27, Judge Heyburn issued an order requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but the next day he stayed that order until March 20. On March 19, the stay was extended pending action by the Sixth Circuit, noting the stay granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kitchen v. Herbert. Additionally, on July 1, a judge ruled in Love v. Beshear that the ban on performing same-sex marriage within Kentucky was unconstitutional, and also stayed the ruling.
On February 13, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. She stayed enforcement of her ruling in Bostic v. Rainey pending appeal.
On February 26, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled in De Leon v. Perry that Texas's ban on same-sex marriage is a "state-imposed inequality," striking them down. He immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, pending an appeal. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said that he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On March 4, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued an opinion that a recent court decision ordering Cook County to issue marriage licenses immediately did not apply to all county clerks, but advised clerks that they should find the decision "persuasive as you evaluate whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples." Governor Pat Quinn then announced that the Illinois Department of Public Health would record marriages issued by any county clerk. Several of the state's 102 county clerks began, or announced plans to begin, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in March.
On March 21, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman issued a decision that found Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. He did not stay enforcement of his decision. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency request with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay pending appeal. Hundreds of same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses and some married in Michigan on the morning of March 22 before the appeals court temporarily stayed enforcement of the ruling until March 26. On March 25, the stay pending appeal was granted by the appellate court.
On May 9, 2014, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza struck down Arkansas' constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. On May 14, The Arkansas Supreme Court has rejected Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's request to stay the judge's ruling; however, the preliminary ruling addressed the existence of a state statutory ban not specifically overturned by the ruling. When the statutory ban was struck down, on May 15, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a stay.
On May 13, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in Latta v. Otter has issued a ruling striking down Idaho's ban on marriage for same-sex couples and ordering the state to allow same-sex couples to marry in Idaho and to recognize the marriages of couples who married in other states. But on May 15, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay while it considers whether a longer stay is needed. Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden both asked that Dale’s ruling be placed on hold while they appeal.
On May 19, U.S. District judge Michael J. McShane ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, striking it down. Judge McShane ordered marriages to begin immediately. The National Organization for Marriage filed to take over the defense of the case, two days before it was to start, but was rebuffed. Furthermore, both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States denied NOM's request to have Judge McShane's ruling stayed, thereby permanently legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban in his ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf. Governor Tom Corbett said he will not appeal the court decision, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. One county clerk has decided to intervene in, appeal, and stay the decision. The trial court denied intervention and the stay of judgment, and the Third Circuit affirmed. On July 7, 2014, the clerk applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay; the application is pending. Details can be found below.
On June 6, 2014, Judge Barbara Bandriff Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban in Wolf v. Walker. No immediate injunction to stop enforcement of the ban was ordered, and county clerks in at least 60 counties have begun to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. After Judge Barbara Crabb refused to stay her ruling, Wisconsin's attorney general J. B. Van Hollen requested a stay from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. On June 13, the judge put the ruling on hold, pending appeal.
On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed Judge Robert Shelby's ruling striking Utah's same-sex marriage ban. It is the first time a federal appeals court has recognized that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as all Americans. "We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the appellate court said. The judgment also becomes law within Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico (where same-sex marriage is already legal), and Wyoming, but was stayed pending review from the Supreme Court. Boulder County began issuing licenses despite the stay. The Tenth Circuit ruling created a circuit split on the issue of same-sex marriage by being directly opposed to Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006) from the Eighth Circuit. A circuit split gives the US Supreme Court a reason to rule on an issue, but the Eighth Circuit might reverse its ruling before then. The same day, Judge Richard L. Young from United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Young did not issue a stay on his ruling and instructed all state agencies to provide marital benefits to same-sex couples. Two days later, the order was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pending appeal.
On July 9, 2014, Judge C. Scott Crabtree of the Colorado 17th Judicial District Court struck down Colorado's same-sex marriage ban in Brinkman v. Long, holding that the state's "marriage bans violate plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Judge Crabtree immediately stayed the decision pending appeal. The next day, another state judge declined to stop the Boulder County clerk that had been issuing licenses, and Denver County began issuing licenses. On July 11, Pueblo County began issuing licenses as well. On July 23, 2014, in Burns v. Hickenlooper, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore also ruled that the state's ban against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. A temporary stay was issued immediately which will expire on August 25, 2014.
On July 17, 2014, a Florida state circuit judge, Luis M. Garcia, overturned the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. This ruling applies only to Monroe County, Florida, and includes the Florida Keys. The ruling has been stayed pending appeal.
States that license same-sex marriage (table)
Note: This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not license them.
|State or federal district||State population
(US Census estimate, 2013)
|Legalization date||Effective date||Legalization method||Details|
|1.||Massachusetts||6,692,824||November 18, 2003||May 17, 2004||State court decision||Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.|
|2.||California||38,332,521||May 15, 2008||June 16, 2008 to November 6, 2008||California Supreme Court ruling in In re Marriage Cases. Invalidated via state constitutional amendment after Proposition 8 passed on November 5, 2008.|
|August 4, 2010||June 28, 2013||Federal court decision||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional on August 4, 2010. Stayed during appeal, affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as Perry v. Brown. Certiorari granted and appealed as Hollingsworth v. Perry to the U.S. Supreme Court; the high court dismissed Hollingsworth for lack of standing and vacated the Ninth Circuit decision below, resulting with the original decision in Perry left intact.|
|3.||Connecticut||3,596,080||October 10, 2008||November 12, 2008||State court decision → legislative statute||Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, also passed by the Connecticut General Assembly as Public Act 09-13.|
|4.||Iowa||3,090,416||April 3, 2009||April 27, 2009||State court decision||Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v. Brien.|
|5.||Vermont||626,630||April 7, 2009||September 1, 2009||Legislative statute||Passed by the Vermont General Assembly, overriding Governor Jim Douglas' veto.|
|6.||New Hampshire||1,323,459||June 3, 2009||January 1, 2010||Legislative statute||Passed by New Hampshire General Court.|
|-||District of Columbia||646,449||December 18, 2009||March 9, 2010||Legislative statute||Passed by the Council of the District of Columbia.|
|7.||New York||19,651,127||June 24, 2011||July 24, 2011||Legislative statute||Marriage Equality Act passed by New York State Legislature.|
|8.||Washington||6,971,406||November 6, 2012||December 6, 2012||Legislative statute → referendum||Passed by the Washington State Legislature; suspended by petition and referred to Referendum 74, approved.|
|9.||Maine||1,328,302||December 29, 2012||Initiative statute||Proposed by initiative as referendum Question 1, approved.|
|10.||Maryland||5,928,814||January 1, 2013||Legislative statute → referendum||Civil Marriage Protection Act passed by the Maryland General Assembly; referred to referendum Question 6, upheld.|
|11.||Rhode Island||1,051,511||May 2, 2013||August 1, 2013||Legislative statute||Passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly.|
|12.||Delaware||925,749||May 7, 2013||July 1, 2013||Legislative statute||Passed by the Delaware General Assembly.|
|13.||Minnesota||5,420,380||May 14, 2013||August 1, 2013||Legislative statute||Passed by the Minn. Leg.|
|14.||New Jersey||8,899,339||September 27, 2013||October 21, 2013||State court decision||New Jersey Superior Court ruling in Garden State Equality v. Dow, stay denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court; appeal abandoned by the governor.|
|15.||Hawaii||1,404,054||November 13, 2013||December 2, 2013||Legislative statute||Hawaii Marriage Equality Act passed by Hawaii State Legislature|
|16.||Illinois||12,882,135||November 20, 2013||June 1, 2014||Legislative statute||Passed by the Illinois General Assembly|
|17.||New Mexico||2,085,287||December 19, 2013||December 19, 2013||State court decision||New Mexico Supreme Court ruling in Griego v. Oliver.|
|18.||Oregon||3,930,065||May 19, 2014||May 19, 2014||Federal court decision||U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruling in Geiger v. Kitzhaber. Appeal not pursued by defendants.|
|19.||Pennsylvania||12,773,801||May 20, 2014||May 20, 2014||Federal court decision||U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf. Appeal not pursued by defendants.|
|20.||Colorado||5,268,367||–||June 25, 2014||De facto action by Boulder County||Boulder County issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples, based on Tenth Circuit precedents as interpreted by the county clerk.
The State sued the clerk and asked for an injunction to stop new licenses from being issued, but the request was denied in Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall, affirmed by Colorado Court of Appeals in Colorado v. Hall. The actual validity of such licenses has not yet been established.
|July 23, 2014||August 25, 2014||Federal court decision||U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruling in Burns v. Hickenlooper. Temporary stay in effect until August 25, 2014 so that the defendants can appeal to the Tenth Circuit.|
|Total||142,828,716 (45.2% of the U.S. population)|
States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage
Note: This table only lists states where a court has ruled the state's prohibition on performing same-sex marriage unconstitutional while staying enforcement of its ruling pending appeal.
(US Census estimate 2013)
|Ruling date||Stayed from date||Jurisdiction||Court decision(s)||Notes|
|1.||Utah||2,900,872||December 20, 2013||January 6, 2014||U.S. District of Utah||Kitchen v. Herbert||Enforcement stayed on January 6, 2014, by the United States Supreme Court pending appeal. About 1,360 same-sex marriages were performed in Utah in the 17 days before the stay was issued. The Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on April 10, and upheld the District Court's ruling on June 25, stayed pending appeal. A ruling requiring the state of Utah to recognize same-sex marriages performed within the state was temporarily stayed and was originally set to expire on July 21, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. The Supreme Court of the United States extended the stay on July 18, 2014.|
|2.||Oklahoma||3,814,820||January 14, 2014||January 14, 2014||U.S. Northern District of Oklahoma||Bishop v. Oklahoma||Enforcement stayed in initial ruling, referencing the Supreme Court's stay in Kitchen v. Herbert. The Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on April 17 and affirmed the District Court ruling on July 18.|
|3.||Virginia||8,260,405||February 13, 2014||February 13, 2014||U.S. Eastern District of Virginia||Bostic v. Rainey||Enforcement stayed in initial ruling, referencing the Supreme Court's stay in Kitchen v. Herbert. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 13.|
|4.||Texas||26,448,193||February 26, 2014||February 26, 2014||U.S. Western District of Texas||De Leon v. Perry||Enforcement stayed in initial ruling, referencing the Supreme Court's stay in Kitchen v. Herbert.|
|5.||Michigan||9,895,622||March 21, 2014||March 22, 2014||U.S. Eastern District of Michigan||DeBoer v. Snyder||Enforcement temporarily stayed until Wednesday, March 26, 2014 in initial ruling, citing the need for more time for consideration of a full stay. On March 25, the stay was extended indefinitely. Same-sex marriages were performed in Michigan on the morning of March 22 before the stay was issued that same day.|
|6.||Arkansas||2,959,373||May 9, 2014||May 14, 2014||Arkansas Circuit Court||Wright v. Arkansas||Enforcement temporarily stopped on May 14, 2014, after the Arkansas Supreme Court stated that Judge Piazza's order was silent about the state statutory same-sex marriage ban.|
|May 15, 2014||May 16, 2014||Trial judge issued a clarified order on May 15, 2014, which prevented the enforcement of any ban on same-sex marriage in the state. Same-sex marriages began being issued again that day. The state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which entered an expedited stay on May 16, 2014, without comment, Smith v. Wright, No. CV-14-427. Same-sex marriages were performed before the stay.|
|7.||Idaho||1,612,136||May 13, 2014||May 15, 2014||U.S. District of Idaho||Latta v. Otter||Enforcement temporarily stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending appeal, before the district court ruling would have taken effect. Oral argument in Latta before the Ninth Circuit is scheduled for September 8, 2014.|
|8.||Wisconsin||5,742,713||June 6, 2014||June 13, 2014||U.S. Western District of Wisconsin||Wolf v. Walker||Same-sex marriages were briefly performed before the ruling was stayed on June 13, 2014.|
|9.||Kansas||2,893,957||June 25, 2014, & July 18, 2014||June 25, 2014, & July 18, 2014||U.S. Tenth Circuit||Kitchen v. Herbert,
Bishop v. Oklahoma
|Enforcement stayed in initial rulings pending petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.|
|11.||Indiana||6,570,902||June 25, 2014||June 27, 2014||U.S. Southern District of Indiana||Baskin v. Bogan||Enforcement stayed on June 27, 2014, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pending appeal. Same-sex marriages were performed before the ruling was stayed.|
|12.||Kentucky||4,395,295||July 1, 2014||July 1, 2014||U.S. Western District of Kentucky||Love v. Beshear||Enforcement stayed in initial ruling, case to be argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.|
|Total||76,076,946 (24.1% of the U.S. population)|
In the United States, federally recognized Native American tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws. There are ten tribal jurisdictions that legally recognize same-sex marriage: the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Coquille Tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Puyallup tribe, the Santa Ysabel Tribe, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, and the Suquamish tribe. The legality of same-sex marriage is currently on hold in the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians due to Michigan's same-sex marriage ban being challenged.
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past U.S. prohibitions on interracial marriage. Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group. According to an American history scholar, Nancy Cott, "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is one of the leading advocacy groups in support of same-sex marriage. According to the HRC's website, "Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love—many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person—and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings."
The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States such as American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing and National Association of Social Workers have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence which supports the conclusions: that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships essentially equivalent to heterosexual relationships; that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children; and that the children of same-sex parents are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite-sex parents. The body of research strongly supports the conclusion that discrimination by the federal government between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples in granting benefits unfairly stigmatizes same-sex couples. The research also contradicts the stereotype-based rationales advanced to support passage of DOMA that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit.
Garden State Equality states that the wording "same-sex marriage" implies a separate, and therefore unequal, category of marriage. The 2012 Democratic Party Platform used the term "marriage equality" in its support.
Supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage have successfully used social media websites such as Facebook to help achieve that goal. Some have argued that the successful use of social media websites by LGBT groups has played a key role in the defeat of religion-based opposition.
One of the largest scale uses of social media to mobilize support for same-sex marriage preceded and coincided with the arrival at the US Supreme Court of high-profile legal cases for Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act in March 2013. The 'red equals sign' project started by the Human Rights Campaign was an electronic campaign primarily based on Facebook which encouraged users to change their profile images to a red equal sign to express support for same-sex marriage. At the time of the court hearings it was estimated that approximately 2.5 million Facebook users changed their profile images to a red equals sign.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States ground their arguments on parenting concerns, religious concerns, concerns that changes to the definition of marriage would lead to the inclusion of polygamy or incest, and in natural law-based reasoning. The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a statement in June 2003 that legalizing same-sex relationships would "convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and National Organization for Marriage claim that children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has raised concerns about the impact of same-sex marriage upon religious liberty and upon faith-based charities in the United States. Opponents of same-sex marriage have claimed that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would have harmful effects on biological family, children's rights, and social welfare. Stanley Kurtz of the Weekly Standard has written that same-sex marriage would eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory, or group marriage, in the United States.
The funding of the amendment referendum campaigns has been an issue of great dispute. Both judges and the IRS have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity. In February 2012, the National Organization for Marriage vowed to spend $250,000 in Washington legislative races to defeat the Republican state senators who voted for same-sex marriage.
In the first half of 2009, it was reported that Barack Obama opposed a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, and also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that individual states should decide the issue. Obama opposed Proposition 8—California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—in 2008. In December 2010, the White House website stated that the president supported full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He also stated that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving" and that he recognized that civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples was "not enough", before subsequently declaring his full support for the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2012.
On May 9, 2012, President Obama announced in an interview with ABC News that after wrestling with the subject for many years, he had come to believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. In the same interview, he stated his belief that individual states should have the final say as to whether same-sex marriage is recognized. The announcement made Obama the first United States president to publicly declare his support of same-sex marriage while in office, and marked a departure from his previous stance on the issue. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama had stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix." although he remained supportive of the rights of individuals who identified as gay or lesbian. Obama had previously made comments in support of same-sex marriage as early as the 1990s during his campaign for the Illinois Senate. In a 1996 newspaper interview, Obama stated "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, the campaign of the Democratic presidential ticket (Obama-Biden) continually emphasized the administration's support for marriage equality, making it a key part of the campaign. President Obama was reelected and mentioned LGBT rights and marriage equality both explicitly and implicitly in both his victory speech on November 7, 2012, and in his inauguration speech on January 21, 2013.
Politicians and media figures
Former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, and current Vice President Joe Biden have voiced their support for legal recognition, as have former first ladies Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton. Former president George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara have served as witnesses to a same-sex wedding, but neither has publicly stated whether this means they support same-sex marriage in general. In May 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting President to support same-sex marriage. In March 2013, Rob Portman became the first sitting Republican senator to endorse same-sex marriage. After the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor the same month, support for same-sex marriage in the Senate increased. 15 Senators announced their support in the following weeks, including another Republican, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. A majority of the Senate now supports same-sex marriage. In June 2013, Lisa Murkowski became the third Republican senator to endorse same-sex marriage.
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, then-Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin stated: "I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage."
Congressman Barney Frank voiced his concern in September 2009 with regard to the ability to obtain sufficient votes to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act: "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term." In 2009, Pelosi described the difficulty in repealing the Defense of Marriage Act: "I would like to get rid of all of it. But the fact is we have to make decisions on what we can pass at a given time. It doesn't mean the other issues are not important. It is a matter of getting the votes and the legislative floor time to do it."
Commenting on the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker regarding Proposition 8 in California, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich issued a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage, which read, in part, as follows: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife... Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy." Gingrich, whose sister is openly gay, later commented that he could accept civil—but not religious—same-sex marriages, and encouraged the Republican Party to accept the "reality" of same-sex marriage becoming legal.
Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for Judge Walker's decision: "I am extremely encouraged by the ruling today, which found that Proposition 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution. We must continue to fight against discriminatory marriage amendments and work toward the day when all American families are treated equally."
In an O'Reilly Factor interview in August 2010, when Glenn Beck was asked if he "believe(s) that gay marriage is a threat to [this] country in any way", he stated, "No I don't...I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"
On his radio show in August 2010, Rush Limbaugh made the following comments: "Marriage? There's a definition of it, for it. It means something. Marriage is a union of a man and woman. It's always been that. If you want to get married and you're a man, marry a woman. Nobody's stopping you. This is about tearing apart an institution."
As of 2013[update], public support for same-sex marriage in the United States has solidified above 50%. Public support for same-sex marriage has grown at an increasing pace since the 1990s. In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported legalization of same-sex marriage. Polls have shown that support is identical among whites and Hispanics, while support for same-sex marriage trails among blacks. Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 showed support for same-sex marriage gaining a majority, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis. On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country. In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans."
A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion. In May 2013, a Gallup poll showed that 53% of Americans would vote for a law legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Three previous readings over the course of a year consistently showed support at 50% or above. Gallup noted: "Just three years ago, support for gay marriage was 44%. The current 53% level of support is essentially double the 27% in Gallup's initial measurement on gay marriage, in 1996." Some commentators, however, have noted instances where polling data has understated voter opposition to referendums banning same-sex marriage. One 2010 study concluded that "polls on gay marriage ballot initiatives generally under-estimate the opposition to gay marriage by about seven percentage points".
Effects of same-sex marriage
Economic impact on same-sex couples
In June 2013, the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and required the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples on an equal basis with heterosexual married couples. Before that ruling, however, same-sex married couples faced a number of severe disadvantages. While some states extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples within their borders, until section 3 of DOMA was struck down none of those legally married couples were recognized by the federal government for any purpose, financial or otherwise.
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government were ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research found that the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was US$5,588 per year.
The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) also extended to federal government employee benefits. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples faced the following other financial disadvantages against which legal marriage at least partially shielded opposite-sex couples:
- Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain legal abilities granted automatically by legal marriage, including power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance
- A legal spouse could inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but a same-sex partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
- Same-sex couples were not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus could not take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly (however, in early 2013 the IRS did recognize the community property and income of same-sex partners in community property states)
- Only 18% of companies offered domestic partner health care benefits
- Employer-provided health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner incurred federal income tax, unlike like coverage provided to a heterosexual couple
- Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples had a member who was uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
- Inability to protect jointly owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe
- Inability of a U.S. citizen to sponsor a same-sex spouse for citizenship, as married heterosexuals automatically could
Some 7,400 companies were offering spousal benefits to same-sex couples as of 2008. In states that recognize same-sex marriages, same-sex couples can continue to receive those same benefits only if they marry.
Potential economic disadvantages
While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples could face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation. Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.
Economic impact on the federal government
The 2004 Congressional Budget Office study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.
Based in part on research that has been conducted on the adverse effects of stigmatization of gays and lesbians, numerous prominent social science organizations have issued position statements supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; these organizations include the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association.
Several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress"—the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization—as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.
At the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, expert witness Ilan Meyer testified that the mental health outcomes for gays and lesbians would improve if laws such as Proposition 8 did not exist because "when people are exposed to more stress...they are more likely to get sick..." and that particular situation is consistent with laws that say to gay people "you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued." Such laws have "significant power", he said.
In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.
A study by the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health found that gay men in Massachusetts visited health clinics significantly less often following the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state.
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman)
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) upholding the denial of a marriage license to two women in Kentucky based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes do not restrict marriage to a male-female couple, because "in substance, the relationship proposed ... is not a marriage."
- Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination; because the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry)
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
- De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
- In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (Fam. Ct. 1990) (the state has a compelling interest in fostering the traditional institution of marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage)
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (holding that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly tailored, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
- Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage); overturned in part by Martinez v. County of Monroe (2008) (out-of-state same-sex marriages must be recognized equal to out-of-state opposite-sex marriages because they do not violate public policy)
- In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same-sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
- Baker v. Vermont, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
- Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
- Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
- Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
- In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
- Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest)
- Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) (reversing 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005)) (Nebraska's Initiative Measure 416 does not violate Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, was not a bill of attainder, and does not violate the First Amendment; "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States")
- Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure")
- Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
- Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (New York State Constitution does not require that marriage be extended to same-sex couples)
- Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (App. Div. 2005), review denied, 850 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 2006) (denying survivor partner in Vermont officiated Civil Union standing as a "spouse" for purposes of New York's wrongful death statute)
- Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman)
- Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App. Div. 2008). (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county was refused leave to appeal on a technicality.)
- In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). (The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.);
- Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). (holding that Proposition 8 was validly adopted, but that marriages contracted before its adoption remain valid)
- Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court unanimously ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples)
- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (2009–2013), Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. This ruling is affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Implementation stayed pending Windsor (see below) which ultimately resolves this case by finding Section 3 unconstitutional; hence Gill is dismissed.
- Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (2009–2013), Decided alongside Gill (above). Same outcome.
- Port v. Cowan (2010–2012), Maryland must recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under doctrine of comity.
- Hollingsworth v. Perry (2009–2013), California's proposition banning same-sex marriage is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Proposition backers appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are found to have standing, but the district court's finding of unconstitutionality is narrowly upheld, Perry v. Brown. U.S. Supreme Court finds proposition backers lack standing, dismisses appeal, instructs the Ninth Circuit to vacate the appeal below, leaving the district court ruling intact.
- Windsor v. United States (2010–2013) Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. This ruling is affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and after granting the petition of certiorari, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. government began implementing the decision the same week.
- Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (2010–2013), Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court, and that homosexuality is a quasi-suspect classification, meaning that discrimination in legislation such as the Act must substantially relate to an important government interest ("intermediate scrutiny"). On appeal case is held in abeyance pending the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor. Since Windsor finds the same Section 3 unconstitutional, the appeal is ultimately ordered dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Garden State Equality v. Dow (2011–2013), New Jersey's civil unions violate due process guarantees; denying same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in state superior court. The N.J. Supreme Court refuses to stay the ruling; and ultimately the state defendants drop their appeal.
- Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013), New Mexico's constitutional protections require marriage to be extended to same-sex couples in this N.M. Supreme Court ruling.
- State v. Schmidt, Opinion No. 6898 (Alaska, April 25, 2014), The Supreme Court of Alaska finds that same-sex couples, defined as "two people of the same biological sex who are in a long-term, committed, intimate domestic partnership, and who", but if for Alaska law, "would marry if they could" are entitled to the full benefit of the state's tax exemption programs.
- Halopka-Ivery v. Walker (2014) Same-sex marriage recognition case where a couple married out-of-state is seeking original jurisdiction in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as a matter of publici juris. The petition/case has been filed on April 16, 2014, and docketed as number 2014AP000839-OA. On May 27, 2014, the state supreme court, on a 5–2 vote, declined to hear the case.
- Nichols v. Nichols (2009–2014) Same-sex divorce case filed in 2009; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in August 2013. A petition for the case to be heard directly in the Nebraska Supreme Court was granted in March 2014. Oral arguments in the case, number S-13-0841, were heard before the state's highest court in Lincoln on May 28, 2014. On June 13, 2014 the Nebraska's Supreme Court dismissed the appeal saying it didn’t have jurisdiction, as the district court never issued a final, appealable order dismissing the complaint below. Nevertheless, the plaintiff pursued an appeal; therefore, this procedural error by the plaintiff prevented the state supreme court from addressing the constitutional arguments raised about same-sex marriage and divorce in Nebraska, Nichols, 288 Neb. 339.
- The trial judge and plaintiff are discussing the possibility of entering a proper final order, which would then be appealable; this could revive the case.
Presently in litigation
Lawsuits have been filed in various state and federal courts to challenge same-sex marriage bans in every state that currently prohibits the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples or recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (see map at right).
Courts of Appeals
- Appeal from Pennsylvania, Middle District:
- Whitewood v. Wolf
- Same-sex marriage case originally set for trial in U.S. district court in Harrisburg. Plaintiff same-sex couples moved for summary judgment on April 21, 2014; this allowed the court to bypass trial and issue a ruling in cases where there are no material disputes as to the facts.
- On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1-13-cv-01861 (M.D. Pa.) With the state's governor declining to appeal, the decision went into effect immediately, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. Despite this, the Schuylkill County clerk who handles marriage licensing in her official capacity has filed a motion before the court to intervene in the case on June 6, 2014, after the ruling was handed down. The counsel of record in the Pennsylvania county clerk's litigation is the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. The county clerk seeks to stay the same-sex marriages currently being held in the state, as well as to appeal the ruling.
- On June 18, 2014, Judge Jones denied the county clerk's motion for intervention in Whitewood. In deciding the motion, he said that since the clerk's role is "ministerial" and "may not exercise any independent judgment when issuing marriage licenses", her "rights and duties" are not affected, as they are to "comply with the current state of the law." In summary, the judge ruled "we have before us a contrived legal argument by a private citizen who seeks to accomplish what the chief executive of the Commonwealth, in his wisdom, has declined to do."
- The Schuylkill County clerk filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling. The case was sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the clerk again filed for a stay, renewing her reasons, among them, that 1. the Supreme Court's order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014), is precedent for a stay, 2. that she is likely to succeed on the merits, 3. that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, and 4. that the public interest is served by preventing same-sex marriage. The Third Circuit immediately ordered the case sent to a panel to see if summary action is appropriate in the case, Whitewood v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Health, No. 14-3048 (3rd Cir. Jun. 18, 2014).
- On July 3, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Schuylkill County clerk's motion to intervene in Whitewood and ordered her appeal dismissed. U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, in a two-sentence order, said such dismissal was warranted "[f]or essentially the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the District Court." Afterward, the lawyer for the clerk said "Our plan is to file something with the U.S. Supreme Court...The people of Pennsylvania deserve to have adequate review of this law."
- After the Third Circuit ruling, the Schuylkill clerk again applied for a stay of judgment, this time to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, docketed sub nom. Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 (Jul. 7, 2014). In her application, the clerk attempts to overcome not only the questions of her interest in intervening and standing to appeal, but that she, as a public official, is suffering irreparable harm. Supreme Court rules also require it probable that four Justices grant certiorari on any question presented in order for a stay to be granted.
- On July 8, 2014, Justice Alito denied the clerk's application for a stay, referencing National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger.
- Appeal from Virginia, Eastern District:
- Bostic marriage case
- Initially filed as Bostic v. McDonnell on July 18, 2013. The U.S. district court found the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on February 13, 2014 under both due process and equal protection challenges, Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456. Ruling stayed pending conclusion of appeal. Restyled as Bostic v. Schaefer in the Fourth Circuit, case number 14-1167, with oral arguments held on May 12, 2014. The panel hearing the case consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges Roger L. Gregory, Paul Niemeyer, and Henry F. Floyd; the judges were described as "sharply divided" during arguments.
- Appeal from Texas, Western District:
- De Leon v. Perry
- Same-sex marriage case filed on October 28, 2013; preliminary injunction granted in U.S. district court, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, on February 26, 2014. The court reasoned that: "Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, i.e. that [Texas'] ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; have established that continued enforcement ... would cause them irreparable harm." The district judge issued a stay during the state's interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, appellate case number 14-50196. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs-appellees same-sex couples filed a motion for an expedited hearing of the appeal, with the state appellants in opposition but forgoing a reply. This motion to expedite was denied without comment on May 21, 2014 by Circuit Judge James E. Graves, Jr.
All four states under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have a same-sex marriage case currently under appeal in that court. Oral arguments for all the below Sixth Circuit cases (DeBoer, Obergefell and Henry, Bourke and Love, and Tanco,) are scheduled for August 6, 2014 at 1:00pm in Cincinnati. The panel hearing the cases will consist of U.S. Circuit Judges Martha Daughtrey, Jeffrey Sutton, and Deborah L. Cook:
- Appeal from Michigan, Eastern District:
- DeBoer v. Snyder
- Initially filed on January 23, 2012; here, the U.S. district court finds that the state ban violates the Equal Protection Clause, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich.). Permanent injunction against enforcement of same-sex marriage bans and implementing statutes ordered March 21, 2014. Appeal filed in the Sixth Circuit, case number 14-1341. Order stayed indefinitely, i.e., until appeals have been concluded, and expedited appeal ordered on a 2–1 appeal panel vote. On April 8, 2014, the Sixth Circuit directed counsel for the same-sex couples to respond to the state's petition for an initial en banc hearing—only to deny the state's petition twenty days later, with not one judge in the circuit voting to bypass the normal procedure: a hearing by a three-judge panel.
- Appeals from Ohio, Southern District:
- Obergefell marriage case
- Initially filed on July 19, 2013; here, the U.S. district court finds that the state ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process Clause, for the limited purpose of issuing death certificates, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968. Under appeal in the Sixth Circuit, Obergefell v. Himes, case number 14-3057.
- Henry v. Himes
- This case originates in the same U.S. district court and before the same judge as Obergefell (see above). Here, a case to seek the names of same-sex parents legally married out-of-state on birth certificates, filed on February 10, 2014 as Henry v. Wymyslo, was amended to overturn the state ban on same-sex marriage. On April 14, 2014, the U.S. district judge in the case declared: "The record before the Court, which includes the judicially noticed record in Obergefell, is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the State's ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, therefore, Ohio's marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances" (emphasis omitted). The judge noted that while the Due Process Clause requires that the state recognize out-of-state same-sex unions under his rulings, Ohio need not perform same-sex marriage. Except for the initial birth certificate amendment issue, the district judge stayed the remainder of the order pending appeal. After the state attorney general filed the necessary paperwork on May 9, 2014, Henry is currently on appeal in the Sixth Circuit, case number 14-3464.
- On May 29, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued a sua sponte order consolidating both Obergefell and Henry.
- Appeal from Kentucky, Western District:
- Bourke v. Beshear
- Initially filed on July 26, 2013; here, the U.S. district court found the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional as violating the Equal Protection Clause; other theories (i.e. Due Process violations) were therefore not analyzed. Order stayed during interlocutory appeal, appellate number 14-5291.
- Love v. Beshear
- The addition of intervening plaintiffs to this lawsuit dealing with the related issue of denial of marriage licenses to in-state same-sex couples, required the court to bifurcate the case and restyle it. Love continued in district court as to the state marriage license issue, while the out-of-state recognition issue was appealed. Briefing by the intervening in-state couples concluded on May 28, 2014.
- On July 1, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II found in favor of the intervening same-sex couple plaintiffs and ruled that Kentucky's ban on allowing same-sex marriage in-state violates the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, Judge Heyburn departs from the opinions issued by most of the other U.S. district courts that examined the issue; he "does not determine whether Kentucky’s laws interfere with a fundamental right." Looking at the trio of marriage cases of Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley; Judge Heyburn states that "the question before the Court can be distilled to: is same-sex marriage part of or included in the fundamental right to marry, or is it something else altogether?" He is hesitant to answer in the affirmative, reasoning that "holding that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriage would be a dramatic step that the Supreme Court has not yet indicated a willingness to take."
- Judge Heyburn then notes that he can bypass answering this question. "Given the current posture of relevant constitutional jurisprudence, this Court finds caution here a more appropriate approach to avoid overreaching in its own constitutional analysis." Instead, the judge finds that homosexual persons constitute a suspect class. Although Sixth Circuit precedent suggests that sexual orientation classifications do not receive heightened scrutiny, Heyburn prods the Sixth Circuit "to reconsider its view" as this precedent relied on Bowers v. Hardwick, a Supreme Court case subsequently overturned as "not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today." (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at 575) He does the analysis required and finds the heightened scrutiny of a "quasi-suspect" class applies to the case; but even under the lower "rational basis" review, the state does not bear it's burden in justifying exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Heyburn concludes that the defendants' arguments for exclusion, i.e. encouraging relationships that procreate and stabilize the birthrate, "are not those of serious people," finding no relation between same-sex marriage and heterosexual procreation.
- Judge Heyburn stayed his ruling pending appeal, appellate number 14-5818.
- Consolidation of Bourke and Love appeals
- Upon motion of appellee same-sex couples, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated Love v. Beshear with Bourke v. Beshear, as the cases had been previously split due to the in-state versus out-of-state issue. A July 16, 2014, order by the Sixth Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule in the consolidated appeal due to conclude July 31; oral arguments remain the same as in the previously-scheduled Bourke – August 6, 2014. The Sixth Circuit will also hear same-sex marriage cases stemming from Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee on that date as well.
- Appeal from Tennessee, Middle District:
- Tanco v. Haslam
- Initially filed on October 21, 2013; here, the U.S. district court granted a preliminary injunction on March 14, 2014, with the court finding the equal protection analysis in Bourke (see above) persuasive. The injunction forces Tennessee to recognize the three plaintiff same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages until the court disposes of the case; it also indicates that the couples are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. The district judge denied Tennessee's motion to stay the injunction, reasoning that unlike Kitchen v. Herbert (where the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay) this injunction covers only three couples and not the entire state. The Sixth Circuit finally granted a stay at the request of the state defendants, at the same time, sua sponte, ordering expedited assignment to a panel of judges for consideration on the merits. Appellate case number 14-5297.
The four same-sex marriage cases pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Baskin, Fujii, Lee, and Walker v. Wolf) have been consolidated for an expedited oral argument per a July 14, 2014 court order. Oral arguments have been scheduled for August 13, 2014 in Chicago.
- Appeal from Indiana, Southern District:
- Baskin v. Bogan
- Fujii v. Commissioner of the Ind. State Dept. of Revenue
- Lee v. Abbott
- Five separate same-sex marriage lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana: Love v. Pence, docket number 4:14-CV-0015, filed on March 7, 2014; Baskin v. Bogan, docket number 1:14-CV-0355, filed on March 13, 2014; and Fujii v. Pence, Bowling v. Pence and Lee v. Pence, dockets 1:14-CV-0404, -0405, and -0406 respectively, all filed on March 14.
- Baskin v. Bogan took precedence, because one partner of one of the plaintiff couples is terminally ill. As to this one couple, the district court granted immediate relief: on April 10, 2014, an emergency order—then after oral arguments on May 8, 2014 on a motion for summary judgment, a preliminary injunction—directing Indiana to recognize the couple's out-of-state same-sex marriage. In doing so, the court temporarily withdrew the motion for as to the rest of the plaintiffs, reasoning it makes a stronger case for the terminally ill couple while also allowing the rest a resolution on the merits without causing undue confusion in case of an appeal. The state did file an appeal of this limited injunction on May 9, 2014; this portion of the case, to briefed in the U.S. Seventh Circuit under the name of Baskin v. Zoeller, appellate docket 14-2037, was dismissed by the latter court as moot on July 14, 2014. Both parties jointly agreed to a dismissal of this interlocutory appeal, as the Baskin plaintiffs have since received a favorable final ruling in district court, and the Seventh Circuit will be reviewing that ruling.
- On June 25, 2014, the U.S. district court ruled as to the case of the remaining plaintiffs in Baskin, as well as the cases of Fujii and Lee. District Judge Richard L. Young found in favor of the plaintiff couples, granting them summary judgment and striking down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage, while removing the state's governor from the lawsuit. In doing so, the judge found that the ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment under both due process and equal protection theories; the state had no rational basis for instituting such ban:
Defendants point to the one extremely limited difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, the ability of the couple to naturally and unintentionally procreate, as justification to deny same-sex couples a vast array of rights. The connection between these rights and responsibilities and the ability to conceive unintentionally is too attenuated to support such a broad prohibition.
- The district court did not immediately issue a stay in Baskin v. Bogan and two companion cases. Judge Young also dismissed Love v. Pence for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, in that case, the only named defendant was Indiana Governor Mike Pence, and "...the injuries of which the Plaintiffs complain are not fairly traceable to him, and cannot be redressed by him"; the governor cannot "issue executive decrees telling other elected officials how to do their jobs when it comes to laws affecting marriage."
- The state defendants appealed the U.S. District Court's decisions in Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii, and Lee; and on June 27, 2014, the cases were ordered, sua sponte, consolidated for purposes of briefing and disposition by the Seventh Circuit, and docketed under appellate case numbers 14-2386, 14-2387, and 14-2388 respectively. On the same day, a three-judge panel (Richard Posner, Ann Claire Williams, and David F. Hamilton) of the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of the prevailing same-sex marriage cases for the duration of their appeal; a separate order exempted one marriage, because one partner is terminally ill, from that stay on recognition. The briefing schedule was set as to end on September 19, 2014; however, after Wolf v. Walker (see below) was decided and appealed to the same circuit, the cases were ordered combined for oral argument.
- Appeal from Wisconsin, Western District:
- Wolf v. Walker
- Same-sex marriage case with U.S. district judge Barbara Crabb granting plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for summary judgement on June 6, 2014. Judge Crabb found that Wisconsin's constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage interferes with the fundamental right to marriage, violating the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights:
"In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these decisions are coming at a time when public opinion is moving quickly in the direction of support for same-sex marriage."
- Same-sex marriage case with U.S. district judge Barbara Crabb granting plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for summary judgement on June 6, 2014. Judge Crabb found that Wisconsin's constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage interferes with the fundamental right to marriage, violating the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights:
- The judge held that heightened scrutiny applied to Wolf, No. 14-cv-64. While a hearing on specific injunctive relief was to follow (and did), clerks in at least 60 counties had begun marrying same-sex couples based on the judge's declaratory judgement alone. The state attorney general immediately requested a stay from both the district judge and from the Court of Appeals.
- In a June 9, 2014 order, Judge Crabb denied a motion for an emergency stay by the state defendants. The judge reasoned as she had not yet issued an injunction, only a declaration, that: "defendants [are] unable to cite any authority for the proposition that a court may 'stay' a declaration." As to the fact that clerks were already issuing marriage licenses, she responded: "...that is an issue outside the scope of this case." The organization representing the plaintiffs has submitted proposed language for the injunction. The state attorney general, while requesting that the court "expedite its ruling and enter final judgment without further hearing or oral argument," has filed an objection to it. On one hand, the attorney general states the proposed injunction "is not sufficiently specific" and "hopelessly vague," and on the other hand, objects to it as "expansive in scope" and describes it as "judicial legislation."
- Judge Crabb held a hearing on June 13, 2014, where she adopted the injunction proposed by the plaintiffs, for the most part, rewording it somewhat to address the concerns of vagueness by the state defendants. She stayed "all relief in this case," meaning the injunction and declaration (despite her previous finding that defendants could not cite authority to stay a declaration); this effectively ended same-sex marriage even under county clerks' own volition in Wisconsin, pending appeal. The judge expressed that she was bound by Supreme Court precedent to enter the stay:
After seeing the expressions of joy on the faces of so many newly wedded couples featured in media reports, I find it difficult to impose a stay on the event that is responsible for eliciting that emotion, even if the stay is only temporary. Same-sex couples have waited many years to receive equal treatment under the law, so it is understandable that they do not want to wait any longer.
- The state defendants filed a notice of appeal on July 10, 2014 and the case is now pending before the Seventh Circuit, sub nom. Walker v. Wolf, appellate case number 14-2526. The Seventh Circuit has consolidated Wolf v. Walker with the Baskin marriage cases (see above) for oral arguments and scheduled them for August 13, 2014.
- Appeal from Hawaii, District:
- Jackson v. Fuddy
- U.S. district court upholds the state's denial of marriage to same sex couples, Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012). As this was a pre-Windsor case, the court found Baker as controlling, and rejected plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, case number 12-16995. Briefing, including on the mootness issue, to be concluded on June 10, 2014. Per letter dated May 6, 2014, the state attorney general is choosing not to file any brief or defend the case any longer, stating that the law has changed since the case's filing—i.e. Hawaii has enacted same-sex marriage legislatively and the Ninth Circuit now applies heightened scrutiny to cases of discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. On July 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments in Jackson; the issues presented are whether the appeal is moot, and if so, whether the opinion below (upholding Hawaii's ban) is subject to vacatur.
- Appeal from Nevada, District:
- Sevcik v. Sandoval
- U.S. district court upholds the state's denial of marriage to same sex couples, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012). Ruling appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, case number 12-17668. The district judge found that any challenges are precluded by Baker, and if not, the discrimination described merits only rational basis review, and that "the protection of the traditional institution of marriage ... is a legitimate state interest." As this case was decided before Windsor, and since the lower rational basis review in sexual orientation discrimination cases is no longer valid law in the Ninth Circuit, Nevada has decided to no longer defend this case. On July 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments in Sevcik. If the district court ruling upholding Nevada's same-sex marriage ban is overturned, the circuit court could simply vacate the ruling below, or could rule more broadly, allowing same-sex marriage statewide, or possibly circuit-wide.
- Appeal from Idaho, District:
- Latta v. Otter
- U.S. district court strikes down the state ban against same-sex marriage, No. 1:13-CV-00492-CWD (D. Ida. May 13, 2014). Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled that Idaho's marriage laws' exclusion of same-sex couples were unconstitutional, stating:
Idaho's Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho's Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.
- U.S. district court strikes down the state ban against same-sex marriage, No. 1:13-CV-00492-CWD (D. Ida. May 13, 2014). Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled that Idaho's marriage laws' exclusion of same-sex couples were unconstitutional, stating:
- The ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit; on May 15, 2014, a three-judge panel issued a temporary stay. A May 20, 2014 order determined that a stay pending appeal is necessary, with one circuit judge concurring with the stay, "...solely because I believe that the Supreme Court, in Herbert v. Kitchen ... has virtually instructed courts of appeals to grant stays in the circumstances before us today. If we were writing on a cleaner state, I would conclude that application of the familiar factors ... counsels against the stay requested by the Idaho appellants." The Ninth Circuit calendared the cases, numbers 14-35420 and 14-35421, for the week of September 8, 2014.
- On May 30, 2014, state defendants filed a petition before the Ninth Circuit to hear the case initially en banc, which in that circuit means a hearing by an 11-judge panel instead of a 3-judge panel. Idaho maintains that any ruling "will carry profound legal and broader social consequences" and a ruling signed off by more judges will hold greater weight. The state also argues that there is a circuit split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the level of scrutiny used when deciding cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation—plaintiffs will argue heightened scrutiny, which stems from the Ninth Circuit decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (2014); the other circuits apply less scrutiny, called rational basis review.
- On July 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments in Latta. Jackson v. Fuddy and Sevcik v. Sandoval—two other cases pending before the same circuit, see above—are also scheduled for argument at the same time. Such scheduling indicates a broad ruling on same-sex marriage by the Ninth Circuit is possible.
- Appeal from Oregon, District:
- Geiger v. Kitzhaber and
- Rummell v. Kitzhaber
- Two state same-sex marriage cases, consolidated in U.S. district court. The court heard oral argument on motions for summary judgment in both on April 23, 2014. Three weeks later, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage argued for, and was denied, status to intervene in the case. On May 19, 2014, the U.S. district judge declared Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unenforceable, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (D. Or.) He immediately ordered a permanent injunction preventing state defendants from enforcing or applying any law to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, or from having their out-of-state marriage recognized. The same-sex opposition group immediately applied for a stay, and was denied, by the Ninth Circuit. This group is appealing the ruling as well, with the plaintiffs and state defendants moving on May 20, 2014, to dismiss the appeal as moot, appellate number 14-35427 (U.S. 9th Cir.) On May 27, 2014, this same-sex opposition group filed an application for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, National Organization of Marriage, Inc. v. Geiger, No. 13A1173 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) The next day, Justice Anthony Kennedy, responsible for applications coming from the Ninth Circuit, asked the Geiger plaintiffs to submit a reply to this application by June 2, 2014.
- On June 4, 2014, in an order without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court denied to stay the U.S. district judge's decision, removing the last obstacle in the Geiger and Rummell cases; a motion to dismiss the opposition group's appeal as untimely and without foundation, awaiting a decision the Ninth Circuit, will finalize the decision if granted.
- Appeal from Oklahoma, Northern District:
- Bishop v. Smith
- The state ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in U.S. district court, Bishop v. Oklahoma ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (2014). Ruling stayed pending resolution of Kitchen v. Herbert (see below). Appeal was heard by the same panel of judges as Kitchen in the Tenth Circuit, but with separate briefing and oral argument on April 17, 2014, case number 14-5003 and 14-5006. District court ruling upheld, July 18, 2014; stayed pending further appeal.
- Appeal from Utah, District:
- Kitchen v. Herbert
- The state ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in U.S. district court, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2013). Ruling stayed by U.S. Supreme Court until resolution of appeals, Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S.Ct. 893 (January 6, 2014). Appealed in the Tenth Circuit, case number 13-4178, with oral arguments held on April 10, 2014. District court ruling upheld, June 25, 2014; stayed pending further appeal. Meanwhile, the Boulder, Colorado clerk has begun issuing marriage licenses to couples in spite of the ban, under her interpretation of the Tenth Circuit's ruling.
- Appeal from Colorado, District:
- Burns v. Hickenlooper
- This is an appeal of a same-sex marriage case filed on July 1, 2014 in U.S. district court. The complaint references the Tenth Circuit decision in Kitchen v. Herbert (see above), sues for a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and alleges that the defendants violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The main defendants, the state governor and attorney general, agree with the plaintiffs insofar as having the court issue an injunction declaring the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but they want a stay and swift resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to avoid costly litigation.
- On July 15, 2014, a expedited status conference was held in the case before U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore. As the defendants stipulate that the Colorado same-sex marriage ban cannot stand, the only issue before the court is the state's request for a stay of the injunction to be issued against the ban. Per courtroom minutes, the judge scheduled a hearing on the state's motion for July 22, 2014.
- Judge Moore granted a preliminary injunction on July 23, 2014; this prevents Colorado officials from enforcing the state's same-sex marriage ban as the judge found it unconstitutional under the plaintiffs' theory. Moore issued a stay in the case as to proceedings (i.e. the injunction is preliminary); this expires upon the issuance of a mandate in Kitchen v. Herbert. Refusing to "divine" Supreme Court logic in staying other same-sex marriage cases, Judge Moore declined to stay the injunction, though he issued a temporary stay until August 25, 2014 to allow an appeal.
- The state defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal; the case is now before the Tenth Circuit, where defendants are expected to seek a permanent stay of the decision.
Federal district courts
- Alabama, Southern District: Searcy v. Bentley
- This same-sex marriage recognition case was filed on May 7, 2014. Plaintiffs seek recognition of their out-of-state marriage and step-parent adoption for their minor daughter. In mid-June, attorneys for the same-sex couple have filed a motion for summary judgement; the state defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
- Alabama, Middle District: Hard v. Bentley
- This same-sex marriage recognition case was filed on February 13, 2014. Here, the plaintiff is asking to be listed on his deceased partner's death certificate as surviving spouse, a claim similar to the one in Obergefell (see above).
- Alabama, Northern District: Aaron-Brush v. Bentley
- This same-sex marriage recognition case was filed on June 10, 2014. Here, the plaintiff couple, married out-of-state, seek recognition of this marriage and the state benefits associated with such.
- Alaska, District: Hamby v. Parnell
- This same-sex marriage case was filed in Anchorage on May 12, 2014. A scheduling conference in the case was held on July 11, 2014; with Hamby to proposed to proceed as follows: expert reports due on or before October 1, 2014; pretrial motions to be filed by October 1, 2014; and discovery to be completed by January 5, 2015. Parties indicated that a trial is not necessary for disposition of Hamby—the case will be resolved by a motion for summary judgment.
- In Connolly, plaintiff same-sex couples filed their motion for summary judgment on April 29, 2014; per court order briefing by parties on this motion will conclude on June 23. The motion to consolidate Majors v. Humble (formerly known as Majors v. Horne) with Connolly was denied on April 15, 2014, but "because [the cases] turn on the same ultimate issue," both cases were assigned to the same judge, the visiting Senior U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick.
- On July 7, 2014, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint status report to Judge Sedwick indicating that it would be best to resolve Majors via summary judgment, a method not requiring trial, as well, as both parties stipulate there is no issue as to any material facts. The proposed schedule is as follows: plaintiffs will file a motion for summary judgment and a supporting brief by August 1, 2014 and the defendants will respond by September 5. Majors will then move forward pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit decision in the same-sex marriage cases of Latta, Sevcik, and Jackson; the Ninth Circuit has scheduled these latter cases (which could become circuit precedent) for oral argument on September 8, 2014. On July 15, 2014, Judge Sedwick agreed with the parties' joint recommendation for summary judgment and briefing schedule, and adopted such via court order.
- Arkansas, Eastern District: Jernigan v. Crane
- Florida, Northern District: Brenner and Grimsley marriage cases
- Same-sex marriage cases consolidated on April 21, 2014 for case-management purposes. Discovery is underway, responses to pending complaints are due May 12, and the court will be ruling on motions, including motions to dismiss and for preliminary injunctions, noting that it may not hold hearings if it deems them unnecessary. The schedule for further proceedings will be entered after May 27, 2014.
- Georgia, Northern District: Inniss v. Aderhold
- Louisiana, Eastern District: Forum for Equality Louisiana v. Barfield
- First filed as an out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition case on February 12, 2014, Forum for Equality Louisiana was joined with an earlier case, Robicheaux v. George. Robicheaux was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it named the incorrect defendant. All briefs on a motion for summary judgment were due May 12, 2014. Oral arguments were held on June 25, 2014 before U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman sitting in New Orleans. Judge Feldman indicated that he prefers a ruling on more aspects of same-sex marriage: he scheduled further briefing, due before July 16, 2014, on related issues—including whether Louisiana's refusal to allow in-state same-sex marriage—violates the plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection.
- Michigan, Eastern District: Blankenship v. Snyder
- Same-sex marriage case with the plaintiff couple seeking Michigan recognition of their out-of-state marriage, as well as second-parent adoption for two of their children–one adopted, the other conceived via in vitro fertilization. The couple's complaint was filed on June 5, 2014; they have previously filed a motion to intervene in another Michigan same-sex marriage case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, DeBoer v. Snyder, on April 21, 2014.
- Montana, District: Ronaldo v. Fox
- North Carolina, Middle District: Fisher-Borne v. Smith
- Originally a case dealing with second-parent adoption filed in 2012; proceedings were initially stayed because of the expected decision in Windsor before the U.S. Supreme Court. Following a favorable outcome in Windsor, this case was amended to allow consideration of same-sex marriage. On June 2, 2014, a U.S. magistrate judge overseeing the case recommended another stay of proceedings, this time per the expected U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Bostic v. Shaefer, with the judge noting: "the decision...will provide the controlling legal principles for this Court to apply in evaluating the motions to dismiss and in determining whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in support of their request for preliminary injunctive relief. Any decision by this Court in this case prior to Bostic would need to be reconsidered in light of the decision ultimately issued in Bostic, which would result in significant inefficiency and uncertainty with regard to the effect of any decision rendered in the interim." Similar orders have been entered in other Fourth Circuit cases, including McGee v. Cole, Bradacs v. Haley, and Harris v. Rainey.
- North Dakota, District: Ramsay v. Dalrymple
- On June 6, 2014, private counsel filed a federal lawsuit in North Dakota on behalf of seven same-sex couples challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Fargo and argues that the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment—which limits marriage to heterosexuals—violates the equal-protection and due-process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
- Pennsylvania, Eastern District: Palladino v. Corbett
- Same-sex marriage case filed in Philadelphia on August 28, 2013. The judge is currently ruling on pretrial motions, with oral arguments scheduled on May 28, 2014. This case may be moot, however, since Whitewood v. Wolf, another Pennsylvania marriage case, may have decided the issue.
- Puerto Rico, District: Conde v. Rius
- South Carolina, District: Bradacs v. Haley
- On April 22, 2014, proceedings in this same-sex marriage case were ordered stayed in abeyance until the expected ruling in Bostic v. Shaefer, a possibly precedent-setting case above in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Proceedings have been stayed for similar reasons in other Fourth Circuit cases: Harris v. Rainey, McGee v. Cole, and Fisher-Borne v. Smith.
- South Dakota, District: Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard
- Same-sex marriage lawsuit filed on May 22, 2014 in Sioux Falls. Five plaintiff couples have valid out-of state marriages, and a sixth was denied a license in-state. On July 3, an attorney for the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, such a motion allows the court to rule on the case without a trial, where there is no issue as to the material facts. The attorney also filed a motion to allow the National Council for Lesbian Rights, a nonprofit LGBT advocacy organization, intervenor status in the case.
- Virginia, Western District: Harris class-action
- A second Virginia case dealing with same-sex marriage; this was certified as a class-action lawsuit on January 31, 2014. Two months later, proceedings were ordered stayed in Harris because Bostic v. Shaefer, the other Virginia case awaiting a decision in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, could set precedent for that circuit. The plaintiff same-sex couples in this case have been granted leave to intervene in Bostic as well. Similar orders have been entered at least in three other cases bound by the Fourth Circuit: McGee v. Cole, Bradacs v. Haley, and Fisher-Borne v. Smith.
- West Virginia, Southern District: McGee v. Cole
- This same-sex marriage case, initially filed on October 1, 2013, survived a motion to dismiss in U.S. district court on January 29, 2014, with the court finding: "Doctrinal developments since Baker, however, do justify a finding that Baker is nonbinding."
- On June 10, 2014, the district court ordered a stay of proceedings until there is a ruling in Bostic v. Shaefer. Bostic is a same-sex marriage case above in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; the district judge reasoned that "because of the overlap in the issues present" the Bostic case should be decided first. Similar orders exist in three other cases in states where U.S. district courts are bound by Fourth Circuit precedent: Harris v. Rainey (Virginia), Bradacs v. Haley, (South Carolina) and Fisher-Borne v. Smith (North Carolina).
Note: In the United States, the name of the court where a civil complaint or a petition is initially filed, and the trial is held, varies by state. The following terms may be used: county court, circuit court, district court, and superior court.
- Arkansas: Wright v. Arkansas
- Same-sex marriage case on appeal from state circuit court. Following oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment, held on April 17, 2014, the circuit judge issued a ruling on May 9, 2014, striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban. He stated: "The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage for no rational basis violates the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection ... The difference between opposite-sex and same-sex families is within the privacy of their homes." Wright, No. 60CV-13-2662 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Pulaski Co.)
- The next day the state filed notice of appeal with the circuit court. The state attorney general and, separately, the clerks of four counties, filed a petition for an emergency stay, and an expedited motion for a stay (respectively) with the state supreme court, as the trial judge did not act on such below. The plaintiffs-appellees filed their response on May 13, 2014, and later that day, moved to dismiss the state's appeal as premature, stating first, that there is no final ruling from the circuit court on injunctive relief, only a declaratory judgment, and second, that the ruling struck down the state constitutional ban without mentioning the statutory ban. The supreme court agreed with the plaintiffs, and sent the case back to circuit court for a final order, Wright v. Smith, No. CV-14-414 (Ark. Sup. Ct.)
- On May 15, 2014 the circuit judge clarified his order, striking down the statutory ban as well. This had the brief effect of allowing same-sex marriage to resume. However, the next day the Arkansas Supreme Court acted on the state's and county clerks' renewed motions for a stay, granting them, Smith v. Wright, No. CV-14-427 (Ark. Sup. Ct.) The case is currently on appeal.
- Here, the same-sex marriage cases of Brinkman and McDaniel-Miccio were combined for argument in the state's Seventeenth Judicial District via a granted motion to consolidate. Written motions for summary judgment were submitted by May 2, 2014. A court hearing was held before state District Judge C. Scott Crabtree on June 16, 2014 in Adams County where oral arguments were heard. News articles about the court hearing in the Denver Post and the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Judge Crabtree was skeptical about the same-sex marriage ban. The judge chose not rule from the bench; he said a written opinion will follow. Brinkman, the lead case, is docketed as No. 2013-CV-32572.
- On July 9, 2014, Judge Crabtree issued his ruling on Colorado's same-sex marriage ban. He held that the ban violates plaintiffs' guarantees of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
No state since U.S. v. Windsor has been able to justify its ban under even the rational basis test, much less under the strict scrutiny test.
- The judge also noted that because Colorado's civil unions deny same-sex couples federal benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples, "[t]he existence of civil unions [in Colorado] is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans." This argument that civil unions are inherently inferior to marriage had been used successfully before—in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, the case that recognized same-sex marriage in Connecticut, a decision which Judge Crabtree references; and in Garden State Equality v. Dow, the New Jersey case that led to marriage equality there. The judge stayed his ruling pending the outcome of appeals, which are expected.
- The Boulder County clerk had been issuing licenses based on her own interpretation of the Tenth Circuit ruling in Kitchen. The state attorney general filed a motion before the Twentieth Judicial District in an attempt to stay the clerk's actions. However, on July 10, 2014 (a day after the Brinkman ruling) District Court Judge Andrew Hartman found that while the Boulder clerk violated the law, he refused to impose a restraining order or injunction upon her, as the state did not meet its high burden for a stay.
- Ruling in Colorado ex rel. Suthers, No. 2014-CV-30833, and viewing the case as a procedural one, Judge Hartman applied the test set out in Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982). The judge found for the state on two of the Rathke factors: probability of success in finding that the clerk was violating current law, and certainty that an injunction would preserve the status quo. But Judge Hartman found that the other four factors outweighed this, in the clerk's favor: that no irreparable injury would occur by issuing licenses; that if marriage licenses were issued in error, the state had an adequate remedy—precedent existed in Lockyer v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. 4th 1055 (Cal. 2004)—of invalidating the licenses; that stopping the clerk would not serve the public interest as the ban had been found unconstitutional; and that a balance of the equities did not favor stopping the clerk, either, as "the law is hanging on by a thread."
- After Judge Hartman's decision was handed down, the Denver County and Pueblo County began issuing licenses to couples regardless of gender as well. On July 14, 2014, the state's attorney general appealed Judge Crabtree's ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court. In a separate filing, and seeking a reversal of Judge Hartman's ruling, the attorney general also asked the high court for an emergency injunction to stop clerks from issuing licenses. In a July 18, 2014 unanimous order issued en banc, the high court rejected the attorney general's request for an emergency injunction—one which would have statewide effect. However, in light of the previous stay entered by Judge Crabtree but thereafter left unenforced, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered clerks in Adams and Denver counties stop issuing licenses pursuant to Colorado Appellate Rule 8. That rule grants the high court power to issue a stay where "the trial court … has failed to afford the relief which the applicant requested", Brinkman v. Colorado, No. 2014-SA-212.
- On July 21, 2014, the state defendants appealed Judge Hartman's ruling allowing the Boulder County clerk to issue marriage licenses despite the ban, Colorado v. Hall, No. 2014-CA-1368 (Colo. Ct. App.)  In light of the ruling by the state supreme court staying license issuance in Adams and Denver counties, the defendants also asked Judge Hartman to reconsider his ruling and stay it. On July 23, 2014, Hartman denies the request, dismissing the defendants' assertion that the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is binding on Boulder County, as well, "is an improper circular argument" in that the high court relied on a preexisting stay in Brinkman when ruling; however, no such stay exists in the Boulder case. Judge Hartman then notes issuing a stay is now even more difficult since the last time he performed Rathke analysis, as "chances of prevailing are rapidly fading since two subsequent rulings ... have found same sex marriage bans unconstitutional." The rulings he notes are Bishop v. Smith and Huntsman v. Heavilin.
- Meanwhile, the Colorado Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the merits of the state's same-sex marriage ban on September 30, 2014
- Pareto v. Ruvin is a lawsuit for establishing same-sex marriage filed in state circuit court—the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida—on January 21, 2014. The case was assigned to Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel and docketed as number 14-1661 CA. Judge Zabel held a hearing in the case on July 2, 2014.
- Meanwhile, Huntsman v. Heavilin is a similar lawsuit pending in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, which includes Key West. The case has been assigned to Judge Luis Garcia, the chief judge in that circuit and sitting in Plantation Key, and docketed as case CA-14-305-K. An initial hearing in the case was held on July 7, 2014.
- On July 17, 2014, Judge Garcia issued a ruling in Huntsman in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couple and those similarly situated. The judge, in declaring that Florida's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, found: 1. that Baker v. Nelson had lost its precedential value, 2. that substantive due process guarantees marriage and liberty as fundamental rights, 3. that liberty in marriage is an individual right that cannot be submitted to popular vote, 4. and that same-sex marriage is not a new right as "[s]ocietal norms and traditions have kept same-sex couples from marrying," similar to the way women had previously been deprived of voting rights, and interracial couples of the right to marry. Judge Garcia also noted that Florida's same-sex marriage ban denies couples equal protection of the law under both heightened scrutiny and (although the defendants do not put a basis forward) rational basis analysis. Amici argue a rational basis of procreation and child welfare, but the judge rejects these notions, despite not even having to, as amici "do not have standing to raise issues that have not been raised by the parties."
- While Judge Garcia did not get to the question of out-of-state recognition as the plaintiffs lacked standing as to that issue, he ordered Monroe County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning July 22, 2014.
- Kansas: Nelson v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
- Same-sex marriage recognition case filed in state district court in Topeka, where the plaintiffs are seeking respect for their out-of-state marriage licenses in-state for the purpose of filing their taxes as a married couple. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the revenue department to allow the couples to file joint income tax returns as married. Docketed as No. 13-C-1465 (Kan. Dist. Ct., Shawnee Co., Div. 7)
- Mississippi: Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon
- Same-sex divorce case; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 2, 2013 (Chancery Ct. Dist. 3). Appeal filed three weeks later in state appellate court; briefing is scheduled to conclude July 23, 2014.
- Barrier is a same-sex marriage recognition case filed by the ACLU in state circuit court on February 11, 2014. The case was docketed No. 1416-CV03892 and an April 24, 2014 case conference set oral arguments on motions for summary judgment to September 25, 2014 before Judge James D. Youngs in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Meanwhile, Dahlgren is a petition demanding the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This latter case was also filed by the ACLU, in the same state circuit court as Barrier—the Sixteenth Judicial District in and for Kansas City—on June 24, 2014. Here, the docket number is 1416-CV15024. Dahlgren alleges Missouri's statutory same-sex marriage ban violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. Haines
- This same-sex marriage case remains on appeal before the state supreme court, docket number 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. Sup. Ct.) Cases below are Ballen v. Wolf, number 481 MD 2013, and Cucinotta v. Commonwealth, number 451 MD 2013. On May 21, 2014, the Middle District of Pennsylvania's ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf effectively legalized same-sex marriage in the state. The state defendants filed an application two days later to dismiss the Ballen and Cucinotta cases as moot because of this. The arguments that were set in these cases before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court sitting en banc in June were cancelled by a May 29 court order as well.
- However, since Whitewood remains subject to appeal by a possible intervenor, the Commonwealth Court issued per curiam orders on June 19 and 20, denying the defendants' motions to dismiss Ballen and Cucinotta, respectively. The orders mention that the cases are suspended until—and the defendants can renew their motions to dismiss after—the final resolution in Whitewood.
- A 2009 same-sex divorce case before the state supreme court. A state district court granted the divorce and ruled the state same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional as applied to the case. The state court of appeals reversed, holding that district courts do not have jurisdiction in such matters, 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 5th Ct. App. 2010). The high court granted review on August 23, 2013, and oral arguments were held on November 5, 2013. A decision is yet to be handed down.
- Texas: In re State of Texas
- Another Texas same-sex divorce case; this is a newer case, however. Here, the same-sex plaintiff prevailed in the initial hearing, but after the state intervened on appeal, the appellate court directed the district court to vacate the initial order. On April 22, 2014, the state challenged the district court's statutory jurisdiction to hear same-sex divorce cases. The state district court not only found that it had jurisdiction over the case, but the judge also ruled that Texas's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional on its face, A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L., No. 2014-CI-02421 (Tex. 438th Jud. Dist. Ct.)
- Before a hearing for the plaintiff same-sex divorcees' request for divorce could be scheduled, the state filed a mandamus proceeding in state appellate court. The appellate court granted an emergency stay on April 24, and directed parties to file briefs on the issue, No. 04-14-00282-CV (Tex. 4th Ct. App.)
- On May 28, 2014, in a 2–1 decision, the appellate court found that procedural error was committed, and sent the case back. Since "the parties and the court failed to provide notice to the attorney general of a party’s challenges to the constitutionality of a state statute as required by the Texas Government Code," that the trial court would have to vacate it's April 22 order and to provide notice to the attorney general. The dissent, relying on the precedent of Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (op. on reh’g), stated that such a "provide notice to the attorney general" requirement violates the separation of powers. The majority dismisses Lo as applicable to only criminal cases.
- The case now either heads back before the trial judge in circuit court, or can be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
- Wyoming: Courage v. Wyoming
- LGBT rights in the United States
- A Union in Wait (documentary)
- Same-sex marriage
- Timeline of same-sex marriage
- Status of same-sex marriage
- Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States
- Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions
- Minority Stress
- Same-sex unions and military policy#United States
- Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States
- LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
- Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
- Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
- Same-sex unions in the United States
- Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnership in the United States
- These states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Coquille, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Mashantucket Pequot, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Puyallup, Santa Ysabel Tribe, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and Suquamish
- Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States#Attempts to establish same-sex unions via initiative or statewide referendum
- "National Conference of State Legislatures: Quick facts on key provisions". ncsl.org. Retrieved January 1, 2014.
- Caldwell, Suzanna (25 April 2014). "Alaska Supreme Court decision affords gay couple equal property tax rights". Alaska Dispatch. Retrieved 28 April 2014.
- Press, Associated (February 27, 2014). "Colo. governor signs bill allowing joint tax-filing for married same-sex couples". Associated Press via lgbtqnation.com. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Wilson, Reid (November 15, 2013). "Missouri governor allows same-sex couples to file joint tax returns". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 15, 2014.
- Palmer, Kim (September 3, 2013). "Ohio must recognize marriage of same-sex couple, federal court rules". Reuters. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- Reilly, Ryan (June 26, 2013). "Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional". HuffingtonPost. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, (2013).
- Watkins, Tom (December 20, 2013). "In Utah, judge's ruling ignites same-sex marriage frenzy". CNN. Retrieved December 23, 2013.
- Brandes, Heide (January 14, 2014). "U.S. judge rules Oklahoma gay marriage ban unconstitutional". Reuters via Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 15, 2014.
- Simpson, Ian (February 14, 2014). "Federal judge strikes down Virginia's ban on gay marriage". Reuters. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- Calkins, Laurel (February 27, 2014). "Texas Gay-Marriage Ban Held Illegal as Judge Delays Order". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- "Deboer v. Snyder: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law". United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. March 15, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2014.
- Staff reports (May 13, 2014). "Federal court strikes down Idaho gay marriage ban". LGBTQ Nation. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
- Mears, Bill; Shoichet, Catherine (May 19, 2014). "Federal judge strikes down Oregon's same-sex marriage ban". CNN. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
- Williams, Pete (May 20, 2014). "Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Same-Sex Marriage Ban". NBCNews.com. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
- "Judge strikes down Wisconsin same-sex marriage ban". Associated Press. USA Today. June 6, 2014. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
- "Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage". Associated Press (ABC News). June 25, 2014.
- Wolfson, Andrew (July 1, 2014). "Gays have right to marry in Kentucky, judge rules". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
- "Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban, Stays Ruling". Associated Press. ABC News. July 23, 2014. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- DeMillo, Andrew. "Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban". Associated Press. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
- Kuffner, Charles. "State court rules gay marriage ban is unconstitutional". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
- Steffen, Jordan (9 July 2014). "Adams judge tosses Colorado gay marriage ban but stays ruling". The Denver Post.
- Associated Press (17 July 2014). "Ruling allows same-sex marriages for Florida Keys". USA Today.
- Miller, Stewart and Manson (25 June 2014). "10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage in Utah". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
- Associated Press (18 July 2014). "Oklahoma same-sex marriages ruled constitutional for second time". The Guardian. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
- Black, Timothy (U.S. District Judge) (April 14, 2014). "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Henry v. Himes". U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. of Ohio, Case No. 1:14-cv-129. Retrieved April 14, 2014.
- "National Conference of State Legislatures: Quick facts on key provisions". ncsl.org. Retrieved May 29, 2013.
- Gumbel, Andrew. "The Great Undoing?". The Advocate. Retrieved July 9, 2012.
- "Same Sex Marriage Laws - History". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
- Belluck, Oam (May 17, 2004). "With Festive Mood, Gay Weddings Begin in Massachusetts". New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2014.
- "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness" (PDF). American Political Science Review 103 (3): 67–86. August 2009. doi:10.1017/S0003055409990050. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Silver, Nate (May 9, 2012). "Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls". New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2012.
- Staff, ABC News (May 9, 2012). "Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage". ABC News. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
- "14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right". American Foundation for Equal Rights. 19 July 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- 1 U.S.C. § 7.
- Goodnough, Abby; Schwartz, John (July 8, 2010). "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2011.
- "Judge rules federal same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". CNN. July 9, 2010. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- "The Defense of Marriage Act". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- Lavoie, Denise (May 31, 2012). "DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- Malewitz, Jim (October 18, 2012). "Defense of Marriage Act Discriminates Against Gays, Federal Court Rules". Pewstates.org. Retrieved October 20, 2012.
- Tiven, Rachel. "Edie Wins! Another Ruling Against DOMA, What It Means". Immigration Equality (organization). Retrieved October 23, 2012.
- Windsor v. United States, 12-2335-cv(L), October 18, 2012.
- Geidner, Chris (July 3, 2012). "DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- Shapiro, Lila (July 16, 2012). "Edie Windsor vs. DOMA: 83-Year-Old Lesbian Petitions U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- Also see
- Grindley, Lucas (June 19, 2012). "Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court". The Advocate. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- "Live Analysis of the Supreme Court Decisions on Gay Marriage". New York Times. June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- Michon, Kathleen. "Federal Marriage Benefits Available to Same-Sex Couples". Nolo.com a.k.a. Nolo Law for all. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
- Laurence, Beth. "Military Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses Post-DOMA". Nolo.com a.k.a. Nolo Law for all. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
- Wadsworth, Margaret. "Veterans Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses Post-DOMA". Nolo.com a.k.a. Nolo Law for all. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
- "John Kerry Announces Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples". U.S. Embassy Kuala Lumpur. August 2, 2013. Retrieved 26 July 2014. ""“I’m very pleased to be able to announce that effective immediately, when same-sex spouses apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it will consider the application of opposite-sex spouses. And here is exactly what this rule means: If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world.” - Source: Speech of Secretary of State John Kerry at U.S. Embassy London, London, United Kingdom,August 2, 2013.
"Same-sex marriage is now valid for immigration as long as the marriage is recognized in the “place of celebration” and the same-sex marriage is valid even if the applicant is applying in a country in which same-sex marriage is illegal. The validity of a marriage will depend on whether it was legally valid in the place of celebration, rather than where the applicant lives or comes from. The change isn’t just good news for married same-sex couples. Starting immediately, same-sex partners of U.S. citizens may apply for fiancé(e) K visas to wed in the United States." - Source: Nonimmigrant and immigrant visa information by the U.S. Embassy Kuala Lumpur"
- Perez, Evan (February 10, 2014). "U.S. expands legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages". CNN. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- Holder, Jr., Eric (February 10, 2014). "Office of Attorney Memorandum to all department employees entitled Department Policy on Ensuring Equal Treamtment for Same-Sex Married Couples". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- Chappell, Bill (June 20, 2014). "Married Same-Sex Couples To Receive More Federal Benefits". National Public Radio. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- Glenza, Jessica (June 20, 2014). "Federal agencies roll out benefits for married same-sex couples". The Guardian (The Guardian). Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- Capehart, Jonathan (May 9, 2014). "Fix the Social Security discrepancy DOMA left behind". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- Capehart, Jonathan (June 23, 2014). "Social Security agency shows why Supreme Court must act on gay marriage". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- "2004 updated report of the GAO" (PDF). January 23, 2004. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
- Denniston, Lyle (July 4, 2012). "Gay marriage and Baker v. Nelson". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved September 14, 2012.
- Warden, Amy (November 17, 2013). "Judge clears way for trial on Pa. gay marriage ban". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
- "Yes on 8 » Perry v. Schwarzenegger". Protect Marriage. June 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- Geidner, Chris (April 13, 2012). "Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Marriage Equality in Nevada". Metro Weekly. Retrieved August 10, 2012.
- "Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban". CNN. June 7, 2006. Archived from the original on May 11, 2008. Retrieved July 5, 2006.
- "Alabama House approves call to put same-sex marriage ban in U.S. Constitution". Montgomery Advertiser. April 2, 2014. Retrieved April 3, 2014.
- Medicaid policy
- "CMS Challenged For Letting States Deny Medicaid Protections To Gay Couples". Inside Health Policy. May 27, 2014. Retrieved May 29, 2014.
- Glenn Adams and David Crary, "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law", November 4, 2009
- Houston, Sonya (March 17, 2013). "Tribe marries same-sex couple but state won't recognize it". CNN. Retrieved March 18, 2013.
- "For first time, voters back gay marriage in statewide votes". NBC News. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
- "Washington State Senate approves same-sex marriage". MSNBC. February 1, 2012.
- "General Election 1998". Hawaii Office of Elections. November 3, 1998. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
- "Texas Penal Code 2011, Title 5, Chapter 21. Sexual Offenses". "Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
- Schlesinger, Richard (June 26, 2003). "High Court Rejects Sodomy Law". CBS News. "Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four—Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri—prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well."
- Burge, Kathleen (November 18, 2003). "SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass.". The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- Burge, Kathleen (November 18, 2003). "SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass.". The Boston Globe.
- "California same-sex marriage ban struck down". CNN. May 16, 2008. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- Mintz, Howard (May 15, 2008). "California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage". Mercury News. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling". The New York Times. May 16, 2008.
- "Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage". The New York Times. November 5, 2008.
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger (US District Court, Northern California August 4, 2010). Text
- "Hollingsworth v. Perry, Proceedings and Orders". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
- "Justices to Hear Two Challenges on Gay Marriage". New York Times. December 7, 2012. Retrieved December 8, 2012. (archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6ClunjOCb)
- "Supreme Court strikes down Calif. Prop 8, DOMA Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/news/politics/live-coverage-prop-8-struck-down-by-supreme-court/-/2124/20722962/-/et9v39z/-/index.html#ixzz2XLD0eSg2". Ksbw.com. June 26, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- Goodbye and good riddance to Prop. 8 – Los Angeles Times, editorial, June 27, 2013
- "Prop. 8 officially out — SF weddings begin". SF Gate. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
- McFadden, Robert (October 10, 2008). "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
- "Public Act No. 09-13". Connecticut General Assembly (April 23, 2009).
- Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman, Des Moines Register, April 3, 2009.
- "Iowa gay marriages delayed". 365gay.com. April 7, 2009. Archived from the original on April 10, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- "Mayor Adrian Fenty Signs DC Marriage Bill". Hrcbackstory.org. December 18, 2009. Archived from the original on July 27, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Post Store (March 3, 2010). "D.C. same-sex marriage law takes effect". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- The Washington Times: Valerie Richardson, "Gay marriage backers target New England," January 4, 2009. Retrieved March 21, 2011
- "Governor Signs LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom" (Press release). Maine.gov. May 6, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- "House Bill 0436". Gencourt.state.nh.us. March 26, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- "Statewide Marriage Prohibitions". Human Rights Campaign. Archived from the original on July 28, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art15.html
- "Arizona Secretary of State: 2006 general election results". Retrieved March 2, 2011.
- "State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2008 General Election – November 4, 2008" (PDF). Secretary of State of Arizona. December 1, 2008. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
- June, Daniel (May 15, 2013). "Minnesota Legalizes Same Sex Marriages". JD Journal. Retrieved May 15, 2013.
- "N.J. Gov. Christie vetoes gay marriage bill as vowed". USA Today. Associated Press. February 17, 2012. Retrieved February 17, 2012.
- "States". Freedom to Marry. April 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- Martinez, Patricia v County Of Monroe Decision Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department
- "North Carolina Republican Primary - Election Results". elections.nytimes.com. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
- Weiner, Rachel (May 8, 2012). "North Carolina passes gay marriage ban Amendment One". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
- "A Festive Mood in Maine as Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal". The New York Times. December 29, 2012. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- "Maryland upholds same-sex marriage law". politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com. November 7, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
- The Seattle Times: Lornet Turnbull, "Gregoire signs gay marriage into law," February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2012
- Turnbull, Lornet. "Gay-marriage measure passing in initial return". The Seattle Times. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
- "Same-sex marriage ban defeated". StarTribune. November 7, 2012.
- "Referendum Measure No. 74 Concerns marriage for same-sex couples". Washington Secretary of State. November 6, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
- "Rhode Island legalizes same-sex marriage". Fox News. AP. May 2, 2013. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
- Eckholm, Erik (May 7, 2013). "Delaware, Continuing a Trend, Becomes the 11th State to Allow Same-Sex Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- Helgeson, Baird; Ragsdale, Jim (May 13, 2013). "Minnesota to become 12th state to legalize gay marriage". StarTribune (Minneapolis). Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- "Gay couple marries in Pa. county defying state ban on same-sex unions; 5 licenses issued". Washington Post. July 24, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2013.[dead link]
- "Memorandum Opinion by President Judge Pellegrini". Pa. Dept. of Health v. Hanes, Pa. Commonwealth Ct., Docket 379 M.D. 2013 (September 12, 2013).
- Zernike, Kate; Santora, Marc (September 27, 2013). "Judge Orders New Jersey to Allow Gay Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- "Gov. Chris Christie plans appeal of N.J. gay marriage ruling". Lgbtqnation.com. April 12, 2011. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Order". Garden State Equity v. Dow, N.J. Sup. Ct., Docket 073328, M-192/193 September Term 2013 (October 11, 2013).
- "NJ Gov. Christie drops gay marriage appeal". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
- Ian, Scheuring (November 13, 2013). "Bill legalizing same-sex marriages in Hawaii signed into law". Hawaii News Now. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Garcia, Monique (November 20, 2013). "Quinn signs Illinois gay marriage bill". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November 20, 2013.
- "Same-sex couples allowed to wed in Cook County, Illinois". Reuters. February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
- "Champaign County begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses". Chicago Tribune. February 26, 2014. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- "New Mexico county begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses amid pending court battles". Washington Post. August 21, 2013. Retrieved August 21, 2013.[dead link]
- "Sarah M. Singleton". Judgepedia. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Updated: Santa Fe County Clerk to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday at 2pm". Sfreporter.com. August 23, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- Pearce, Matt (August 23, 2013). "Second New Mexico county now issuing same-sex marriage licenses". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
- "Brian Egolf to Court: Compel Clerk to Issue Same-Sex Marriage License". Sfreporter.com. June 6, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- Hanna and Hudson v. Salazar, Docket No. D-101-CV-201302182, accessible here .
- "GOP lawmakers bring lawsuit to block gay marriage licenses in New Mexico". The Washington Times. August 31, 2013. Retrieved August 31, 2013.
- Sanchez, Aurelio (August 26, 2013). "Judge OKs same-sex marriage in Bernalillo County". Albuquerque Journal News. Retrieved August 26, 2013.
- Santos, Fernanda (December 19, 2013). "New Mexico Becomes 17th State to Legalize Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved December 19, 2013.
- "Judge strikes down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban". Washington Post. December 20, 2013. Retrieved December 20, 2013.[dead link]
- "Marriage licenses being issued to gay couples in Utah". Deseret News. December 20, 2013. Retrieved December 20, 2013.
- Williams, Pete and Connor, Tracy (January 6, 2014). "U.S. Supreme Court puts gay marriage in Utah on hold". Retrieved January 6, 2014.
- Brooke Adams; Matthew Piper (January 8, 2014). "Utah won’t recognize same-sex marriages performed before stay". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved January 8, 2014.
- Geidner, Chris (January 10, 2014). "Obama Administration To Recognize Utah Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages". Buzz Feed. Retrieved January 12, 2014.
- Lang, Marissa (December 24, 2013). "10th Circuit Court denies same-sex marriage stay". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved January 6, 2014.
- Adams, Brooke (December 30, 2013). "New Utah AG: Cost to defend same-sex marriage ban worthwhile". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved January 6, 2014.
- "Judge promises to rule quickly on Virginia gay marriage ban". UPI.com. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
- Geidner, Chris (January 21, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Says Jurors Can't Be Excluded Because They Are Gay". Buzz Feed. Retrieved January 21, 2014.
- "Gay Marriage Ban Support Slips in Nevada". New York Times. February 10, 2014. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
- Geidner, Chris (March 8, 2014). "Courts In 9 Western States To Review Anti-Gay Laws More Closely". BuzzFeed. Retrieved March 8, 2014.
- Cheves, John (February 12, 2014). "Federal judge: Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states". Lexington Herald-Leader. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- Barrouquere, Brett (February 12, 2014). "Kentucky Ban On Recognizing Out-Of-State Gay Marriages Struck Down By Federal Judge". Huffington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
- Barrouquere, Brett. "Same-sex marriage now legally recognized in Ky". yahoo.com. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- Wolfson, Andrew (February 28, 2014). "Kentucky gay marriage ruling on hold until March 20". Louisville Courier-Journal. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Johnson, Chris (March 19, 2014). "Judge stays order requiring Ky. to recognize same-sex marriages". Washington Blade. Retrieved March 20, 2014.
- "Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional". nbcwashington.com. February 13, 2014. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
- Garrett, Robert (February 26, 2014). "Federal judge voids Texas' gay marriage ban, though he delays order from taking effect immediately". Dallas News. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
- Merevick, Tony; Geidner, Chris (March 4, 2014). "Illinois Attorney General Hedges On Marriage Equality Question". BuzzFeed. Retrieved March 5, 2014.
- "More Illinois counties to issue gay-marriage licenses". The Southern Illinoian. March 7, 2014. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
- Snow, Justin (March 21, 2014). "Federal court strikes down Michigan's same-sex marriage ban". Metro Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2014.
- "Gay couples wed across Michigan in 24 hours same-sex marriage was legal". Michigan Live. March 22, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2014.
- "Arkansas judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban".
- KGW Staff (May 19, 2014). "Gay couples getting married after Oregon ban overturned".
- Mapes, Jeff (May 19, 2014). "Ninth Circuit strikes down National Organization's request to halt judge's decision".
- "Supreme Court Rebuffs Call to End Same-Sex Marriages in Oregon". New York Times. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- "NAT'L ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE V. GEIGER, DEANNA L., ET AL.". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 5 June 2014.
- Buzzfeed (20 May 2014). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Same-Sex Marriage Ban". Retrieved 20 May 2014.
- Wolf v. Walker, 14-cv-64-bbc, (W.D. Michigan Jun. 6, 2014) p 3
- Jason Stein; Patrick Marley; Dana Ferguson (Jun 6, 2014). "Federal judge overturns Wisconsin's gay marriage ban". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved Jun 6, 2014.
- Jessica Miller, Kirsten Stewart and Pamela Manson (25 JJune 2014). "10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 12 July 2014.
- "Nearly simultaneous decisions strike down gay marriage bans". CNYCentral. The Associated Press. Jun 25, 2014. Retrieved Jun 25, 2014.
- Canham, Matt (Jun 25, 2014). "Answering your questions on the same-sex marriage ruling". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved Jun 25, 2014.
- Mataconis, Doug (Jul 3, 2014). "SCOTUS Will Find It Hard To Avoid Ruling On Marriage Equality In The Next Term". Outside the Beltway. Retrieved Jul 4, 2014.
- "ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" (PDF). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA – INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION. 2014-06-25. Retrieved 2014-06-25.
- "Order Granting Motion". United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
- Thomaston, Scottie (July 9, 2014). "Colorado same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional". Equality On Trial.
- "Annual Population Estimates". State Totals: Vintage 2013. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved January 14, 2014. The Census Bureau population estimate for 2013 was 316,128,839 for the states and the District of Columbia.
- Previous 10th Cir. rulings may have created precedent, see Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Oklahoma, though enforcement of both is stayed pending appeal to the U.S. Sup. Ct.
- Tenth Circuit p 64-65
- Colo. 20th Jud. Dist. No. 2014-CV-30833, July 10, 2014
- Colo. Ct. App. No. 2014-CA-1368, July 24, 2014
- McCombs, Brady (December 20, 2012). "Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional". The Associated Press (The Huffington Post). Retrieved March 11, 2014.
- Ingram, David (January 10, 2014). "Obama administration recognizes Utah same-sex marriages". Reuters. Retrieved January 15, 2014.
- Mitchell, Kirk (April 10, 2014). "10th Circuit arguments on gay marriage ban focus on family and fairness". Denver Post. Retrieved April 11, 2014.
- Riccardi, Nicholas; McCombs, Brady. "Federal appeals court says Utah's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, puts ruling on hold". Associated Press (reported in US News). Retrieved 25 June 2014.
- Geidner, Chris (January 14, 2014). "Oklahoma Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules". BuzzFeed. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
- "Oral Argument Audio Recording for 13-4178, Kitchen v. Herbert". United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Retrieved April 23, 2014.
- "Opinion of the Court in Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, Bishop, et al v. Smith, et al". United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Retrieved July 18, 2014.
- Mimica, Mila (February 14, 2014). "Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional". nbcwashington.com. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- "Federal Appeals Court Hears Va.Same-sex Marriage Caselurl=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/federal-appeals-court-hears-va-same-sex-marriage-case/". LGBTQnation. March 12, 2014.
- Guillermo Contreras (February 26, 2014). "Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
- "Appellate court reverses course, issues temporary stay on same-sex marriages until Wednesday". Detroit Free Press. March 22, 2014. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
- Botelho, Greg (March 26, 2014). "Court: Same-Sex Couples Can't Marry in Michigan As Appeal Continues". CNN. Retrieved 27 March 2014.
- Maples, Cheryl and, Wagoner, Jack (15 May 2014). "Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification of Judgment, Wright v. Smith, No. 60CV-13-2662". Arkansas Circuit Court, Pulaski County. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- Jorgenson, Colin (Assistant Attorney General) (15 May 2014). "Response to Motion for Clarification, and Renewed Motion for Stay, Wright v. Smith, No. 60CV-13-2662". Arkansas Circuit Court, Pulaski County. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- Piazza, Circuit Judge (15 May 2014). "Final Order, Wright v. Arkansas, No. 60CV-13-2662". Circuit Court of Arkansas, Pulaski County. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- DeMILLO and HUYNH, ANDREW and CHRISTINA (May 15, 2014). "Judge strikes down all Arkansas laws banning gay marriage, won't put ruling on hold.". USAnews. Retrieved June 1, 2014.
- Associated Press (16 May 2014). "Ark. Supreme Court issues stay, puts same-sex marriage ruling on hold". LGBTQNation.com. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- "Judge rules Idaho gay marriage ban unconstitutional". Idaho Statesman. May 13, 2014. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
- "9th Circuit Court temporarily halts Idaho same-sex marriages". Idaho Statesman. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
- "Uncertainty for Gay Couples Married in Wisconsin". ABC News. June 14, 2014. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
- Joe Shirley, Jr. "Native Americans". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Brandes, Heide (November 1, 2013). "Oklahoma gay couple marry under Native American law". Reuters. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- "Colvilles recognize same sex marriage". wenatcheeworld.com. September 7, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- By Administrator. "Coquille First Tribe in the Country to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage". American Indian Report. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- "Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians to Sign Same Sex Marriage Statute". nativenewsnetwork.com. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Laws Annotated 2010-2011 Pocket Part
- "Northern Michigan tribe legalizes same sex marriage". Michigan Radio. March 18, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Nagle, Matt (2014-07-16). "Puyallup Tribe Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages". Tacoma Weekly. Retrieved 2014-07-21.
- "Santa Ysabel Tribe First in California to Support Same-Sex Marriage". indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com. June 28, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Andrew Potts (November 16, 2013). "8th US Native American tribe allows same-sex couples to wed". gaystarnews.com. Retrieved November 21, 2013.
- Yardley, William (August 11, 2011). "A Washington State Indian Tribe Approves Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2013.
- Mathabane, Gail (January 25, 2004). "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought". USA Today. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
- "Commentary: Latinos should see gay marriage a civil right - CNN.com". CNN. November 7, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
- Direct Examination of Nancy Cott, p. 208. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-2292 (N.D. Cal. January 11, 2010). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Human Rights Campaign website. Retrieved November 1, 2010.
- "The APA reaffirms support for same-sex marriage". San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. Retrieved July 28, 2012.
- "Position Statement on Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage". Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Position Statement on Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples". American Psychiatric Association. 2002. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation". Ama-assn.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children". Pediatrics.aappublications.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Overview of Same Sex Marriage in the U.S.: The Struggle for Civil Rights and Equality". Socialworkers.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Support for Marriage Equality". American Academy of Nursing. July 2012. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "Brief of the American Psychological Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance - Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- "Marriage Equality". Garden State Equality. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- "The Democratic Party Platform". Democrats.org. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- Switzer, Cody. Inside the Human Rights Campaign's Social-Media Success Philanthropy. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- Lipp, Murray. The power of online activism and social media in the fight for LGBT equality Pink News. January 29, 2013. Accessed, April 14, 2013.
- Royal, Denis. Facebook Page 'Gay Marriage USA' Pushes for Equality South Florida Gay News. April 10, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- Ferenstein, Gregory How The Internet Is Erasing The Religious Right’s Political Power Tech Crunch. March 21, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- HRC Logo Memes Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- Kleinman, Alexis How The Red Equal Sign Took Over Facebook, According To Facebook's Own Data Huffington Post. March 30, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- "Homosexuality". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. stanford.edu. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
- "On Same-Sex Marriage, June 2003". August 19, 2013. Southern Baptist Convention.
- "The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom". Beta-newsroom.lds.org. August 13, 2008. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- "(FLWY)". USCCB. November 12, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- "Obama celebrates gay dads on Father's Day - Florida Baptist Witness". Gofbw.com. July 2, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- "Why Marriage Matters" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- "Banned in Boston". The Weekly Standard. May 15, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- George et al., Robert P. "What is Marriage". Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Retrieved March 20, 2014.
- Le Fevre, Tyler A. "Gender and the Institutional Nature of Marriage". Retrieved March 20, 2014.
- "Beyond Gay Marriage". The Weekly Standard. August 4, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- Anti-gay marriage group loses Maine appeal to prevent release of its donor list. David Sharp, Associated Press, January 31, 2012.
- "Campaign Finance After Two Years of Citizens United, Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, January 21, 2012". Jurist.org. January 21, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
- I.R.S. Moves to Tax Gifts to Groups Active in Politics, New York Times, By Stephanie Strom, May 12, 2011
- Gay marriage foes to fight expected Washington state law. Nicole Neroulias, Reuters, February 2, 2012.
- Paterson, Penny (January 13, 2009). "Gay Supporters Petition Obama to Repeal DOMA". Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
- Eleveld, Kerry (April 3, 2009). "White House Responds to Iowa". The Advocate. Archived from the original on April 7, 2009. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
- "Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008". CNN. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
- Post Store (August 5, 2010). "President Obama's beliefs meet his policy". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- "Civil Rights". The White House. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
- Bacon, Jr., Perry (December 23, 2010). "Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are evolving". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 5, 2011.
- "Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry". BBC News. May 9, 2012. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
- Mason, Jeff (May 9, 2012). "Same-sex couples should be able to marry: Obama". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
- "ElectionCenter2008". CNN. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
- "Obama and Miss California aligned on same-sex marriage?". The Christian Science Monitor. May 12, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
- "Report: Obama Changed His View on Gay Marriage". FoxNews.com. April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- Linkins, Jason (January 13, 2009). "Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- "Bill Clinton endorses gay marriage in New York". USA Today. May 5, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
- Raushenbush, Paul (March 19, 2012). "President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
- Stenovec, Timothy (September 13, 2011). "Dick Cheney On Gay Marriage: "I Certainly Don't Have Any Problem With It". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
- "Al Gore: "Gay men and women should have the same rights". Current TV. January 17, 2008. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
- Wing, Nick. Laura Bush: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, Abortion Should Remain Legal (VIDEO). The Huffington Post. May 13, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2013.
- Wing, Nick. Hillary Clinton Announces Support For Gay Marriage. The Huffington Post. March 18, 2013. Retrieved March 27, 2013.
- "George H.W. Bush is Witness at Same-Sex Marriage in Maine". Washington Post. September 25, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
- Stein, Sam. Rob Portman's Gay Marriage Conversion Explained By His Son. The Huffington Post. March 25, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- Wilson, Chris. The same-sex marriage Senate endorsement tracker. Yahoo! News. Updated June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
- Miller, Sunlen (April 2, 2013). "Majority of Senate Supports Same Sex Marriage". ABC News. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- Burgess, Everett (June 19, 2013). "Lisa Murkowski Endorses Same Sex Marriage". Politico. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- Scott Conroy, "Palin Breaks With McCain On Gay Marriage Ban", CBS News, October 20, 2008. Retrieved October 31, 2010.
- Politico, "Frank won't back Marriage Act repeal", September 13, 2010. Retrieved November 1, 2010.
- Matthew S. Bajko, "DOMA repeal unlikely in '09", EDGE, April 28, 2009. Retrieved November 1, 2010,
- Newt Gingrich's Website at the Wayback Machine (archived August 17, 2010). Retrieved October 31, 2010.
- Signorile, Michelangelo. Candace Gingrich-Jones Questions Whether Brother Newt Gingrich Really Believes His Own Anti-Gay Rhetoric. The Huffington Post. December 10, 2011. Retrieved February 14, 2013.
- Stein, Sam and Ward, Jon. Newt Gingrich On Mitt Romney: 'I Would Have Probably Done Better' Against Obama. The Huffington Post. December 20, 2012. Retrieved February 14, 2013.
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website at the Wayback Machine (archived March 4, 2010). Retrieved October 31, 2010.
- Elizabeth Tenety, "Glenn Beck, Gay Marriage Advocate?", The Washington Post, August 12, 2010. Retrieved October 31, 2010.
- Talkers Magazine, "2010 Talkers 250" at the Wayback Machine (archived January 30, 2011). Retrieved November 30, 2010.
- Limbaugh, Rush (August 5, 2010). "One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California". Retrieved October 31, 2010.
- Jones, Jeffrey M. (May 13, 2013). "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S.". Gallup.
- Lydia, Saad (July 29, 2013). "In U.S., 52% Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States". Gallup.
- "Section 1: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Inevitability". In Gay Marriage Debate, Both Supporters and Opponents See Legal Recognition as "Inevitable". Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. June 6, 2013. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
- "Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics". people-press.com. March 20, 2013. Retrieved June 5, 2013.
- Nate Silver. "Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority". The New York Times April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
- "For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage". Gallup.com. Retrieved September 19, 2012.
- The Rapid Increase in Support for Marriage Changes Political Equation: Emerging Majority Supports the Freedom to Marry. Joel Benenson, Benenson Strategy Group, and Jan van Lohuizen, Voter Consumer Research. July 27, 2011. Retrieved August 2, 2011.
- Peyton M. Craighill and Scott Clement (March 5, 2014). "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 5, 2014.
- "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S.". Gallup.com. May 13, 2013. Retrieved July 29, 2013.
- Goodman, Josh (October 27, 2009). "In Maine, Will the Polls on Gay Marriage Be Wrong Again?". Governing.com. Retrieved March 15, 2012.
- Egan, Patrick (June 15, 2010). "Findings from a Decade of Polling on Ballot Measures Regarding the Legal Status of Same-Sex Couples". Department of Politics, New York University. Retrieved August 1, 2013.
- Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer.. "Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1 (Spring2005 2005): 521–530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 30, 2009
- The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages. Congressional Budget Office. June 21, 2004. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
- Badgett, M.V. Lee (2003). Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-03401-1.
- "IRS Provides Answers to Community Property Filers". United States Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
- Barkacs, L. L. (2008). Same sex marriage, civil unions, and employee benefits: Unequal protection under the law – when will society catch up with the business community? Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 11(2), 33-44.
- Price, M. "Upfront—Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
- Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), October 2007, 447–457.
- Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), July 2007, 306–319.
- Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), August 2007, 392–400.
- Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), January 2008, 40–54.
- "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Transcript of Proceedings: pp.670-990 (Meyer testimony begins on p.806)". U.S. District Court of Northern California. American Foundation for Equal Rights. Retrieved March 8, 2012.
- "Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV infections". Webcitation.org. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
- Elaine Justice. "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections". Emory.edu. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- "Gay marriage 'improves health'". Bbc.co.uk. December 16, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Jones v. Hallahan 501 S.W.2d 588
- Cantor, et.al, Donald J. (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. pp. 117–8. ISBN 9780819568120.
- De Santo v. Barnsley, May 11, 1984, retrieved January 19, 2013
- "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) opinion" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
- Louis, Tim. "GAY MARRIAGE: Technicality delays county's appeal". Rochestercitynewspaper.com. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
- 'In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).
- Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).
- "Port v. Cowan, No. 69, September Term, 2011. (May 18, 2012)". Findlaw. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- Dolan, Maura (June 28, 2013). "Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
- Shapiro, Lila (July 16, 2012). "Edie Windsor vs. DOMA: 83-Year-Old Lesbian Petitions U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- Kaplan, Elaine (28 June 2013). "Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Guidance on the Extension of Benefits to Married Gay and Lesbian Federal Employees, Annuitants, and Their Families - (OPM Benefits memo)". United States Office of Personnel Management. acribd.com. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
- Eastaugh, Senior Justice (25 April 2014). "Opinion No. 6898, State v. Schmidt, Docket S-14521". The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska. Retrieved 28 April 2014.
- Ksicinski, Paul (Attorney for Plaintiffs) (16 April 2014). "Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Halopka-Ivery v. Walker, No. 2014AP000839-OA". Wisconsin Supreme Court via Scribd. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
- Kelly, Bill (27 March 2014). "Nebraska Supreme Court asked to dissolve couple's same-sex marriage, toss state ban". NetNebraska.org (Nebraska's PBS & NPR Stations). Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- Margolin, Emma (June 6, 2014). "North Dakota gay marriage ban challenged in federal court". Retrieved June 26, 2014.
- Conrad, Jeffery (Attorney for Proposed Intervenor) (6 June 2014). "Motion for Intervention, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861". U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (via scribd.com). Retrieved 9 June 2014.
- Jones, John E., III (U.S. District Judge) (18 June 2014). "Memorandum and Order (Denying Intervenor Status), Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861". U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
- Dalton, J. Caleb (Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom) (June 18, 2014). "Proposed Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Theresa Santai-Gaffney's Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Scribd.com). PACER Document 3111654843.
- Waldron, Marcia (Clerk of the Court) (18 June 2014). "Order (for Determination of Summary Action), Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dept. of Health, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Scribd.com). PACER Document 3111654697.
- Fuentes, Jordan, and Shwartz, U.S. Circuit Judges (3 July 2014). "Order, Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (PACER Document 3111670016).
- Marchiano, Amy (5 July 2014). "County official vows appeal after same-sex marriage setback". The Standard Speaker (Hazelton, PA).
- Babione, Byron J. (Attorney for Petitioner) (3 July 2014). "Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Schuylkill-clerk-application-7-3-141.pdf". U.S. Supreme Court.
- Associated Press (9 July 2014). "Justice Alito denies clerk’s bid to halt same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania". LBGTQ Nation.com.
- "Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down in Virginia". February 14, 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2014.
- Denniston, Lyle (February 25, 2014). "Briefing set for Virginia marriage appeal". SCOTUSblog.com.
- Fernandez, Manny (February 26, 2014). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas' Ban on Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
- McNeel Lane, Jr., Daniel (14 April 2014). "Opposed Motion for Expedited Hearing of Appeal, De Leon v. Perry". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-50196. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
- Graves, James E. (U.S. Circuit Judge) (21 May 2014). "Order (Denying Motion to Expedite), De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- Hunt, Deborah (Clerk of the Court) (16 June 2014). "Notice of Oral Argument, DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Hunt, Deborah (Clerk of the Court) (June 16, 2014). "Notice of Oral Argument, Obergefell v. Himes and Henry v. Himes, Nos. 14-3057/14-3464.". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Hunt, Deborah (Clerk of the Court) (June 16, 2014). "Notice of Oral Argument, Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-5291". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Hunt, Deborah (Clerk of the Court) (June 16, 2014). "Notice of Oral Argument, Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Clerk of the Court. "Oral Arguments Calendar, August 5-8, 2014". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
- Thomaston, Scottie (April 8, 2014). "Sixth Circuit asks Michigan same-sex couple to respond to state’s request for initial en banc hearing". Equality on Trial. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
- Harris, Beverly (April 7, 2014). "Direction to File Response to Petition for Initial En Banc Hearing, DeBoer v. Snyder". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case Number 14-1341.
- Hunt, Deborah, Court Clerk, (By Order of the Court) (28 April 2014). "Order (denying initial en banc hearing), DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, via Scribd.com. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
- "90 ORDER filed to consolidate for submission the following cases: 14-3057/3464.". PACER. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
- Thomaston, Scottie (February 28, 2014). "Kentucky marriage equality case re-named Love v. Beshear". Equality on Trial. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- John E. Heyburn II, U.S. District Judge (1 July 2014). "Memorandum Opinion and Order, Love v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H". U.S.District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (LBGTQ Nation.com).
- Borkowski, Cheryl (Case Manager) (16 July 2014). "Briefing Schedule Letter, Love v. Beshear, No. 14-5818". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Scribd.com). PACER Document 12.
- Guy and Clay, Circuit Judges, Bertlesman, District Judge (sitting by designation) (25 April 2014). "Order (granting stay, assignment to merits panel), Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
- Clerk of the Court (14 July 2014). "Notice of Oral Argument, Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Comm'r Ind. Dept. Revenue, Lee v. Abbott, Wolf v. Walker, No's. 14-2386, 14-2387, 14-2388, 14-2526". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Scribd.com).
- Odendahl, Marilyn. "5 lawsuits keep marriage debate alive in Indiana". Evansville (Ind.) City-County Observer. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
- Young, Richard (Chief Judge) (8 May 2014). "Entry on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Baskin v. Bogan, No. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY". U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
- Wilson, Charles (9 May 2014). "Ind. asks judge to stay ruling that it recognize terminally ill woman's marriage". LGBTQ Nation News. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
- Clerk of the Court (14 July 2014). "Order of Dismissal (on Joint Motion for Dismissal) Baskin v. Bogan (Zoeller), No. 14-2037". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Scribd.com).
- Young, Richard L., U.S. District Judge (25 June 2014). "Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Baskin v. Bogan, No. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY". U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- Young, Richard, Chief U.S. District Judge (25 June 2014). "Entry on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Love v. Pence, No. 4:14-cv-00015". U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Scribd.com).
- Posner, Williams, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges (27 June 2014). "Order (Granting Stay), Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-2386; Fujii v. Comm'r, Ind. State Dep't of Revenue, No. 14-2387; and Lee v. Abbott, No. 14-2388". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (LBGTQNation.com).
- Per Curiam (27 June 2014). "Order (of Consolidation and Setting Briefing Schedule) Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-2386; Fujii v. Comm'r, Ind. Dep't of Revenue, No. 14-2387; and Lee v. Abbott, No. 14-2388". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (scribd.com).
- Samuelson, Timothy (Assistant Attorney General) (9 June 2014). "State Defendant-Appellants' Emergency Motion for Temporary Immediate Stay, Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-2266". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (documentcloud.org). State of Wisconsin, Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
- Crabb, B. (U.S. District Judge) (9 June 2014). "Order (Denying Stay), Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc". U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (PACER Document 125). Retrieved 10 June 2014.
- Samuelson, Timothy (Assistant Attorney General) (11 June 2014). "State Defendants' Opposition to Proposed Injunction, Wolf v. Walker, No. 3:14-cv-64". U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (PACER Document 128) (Scribd.com). Retrieved 12 June 2014.
- Crabb, Barbara (U.S. District Judge) (13 June 2014). "Opinion and Order, Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc". U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Scribd.com). PACER Document 134.
- Blair, Chad (August 8, 2012). "Hawaii Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved August 9, 2012.
- Johnson, Chris (August 9, 2012). "Hawaii court upholds same-sex marriage ban". The Washington Blade. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
- Leonard, Arthur S. "Federal Court Rejects Hawaii Marriage Challenge". newyorklawschool.typepad.com. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
- Wynhoff, William (Deputy A.G. of Hawaii) (6 May 2014). "Letter to the Clerk, Jackson v. Abercrombie, No. 12-16995, 12-16998". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninith Circuit via Scribd. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
- "Jackson v. Abercrombie, 'Hawaii Gay Marriage'". Cases of Public Interest. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 3 July 2014.
- Geidner, Chris (December 19, 2012). "Federal Judge Rules Nevada Can Ban Same-Sex Couples From Marriage". BuzzFeed Politics. Retrieved November 30, 2012.
- "Gay Marriage Ban Support Slips in Nevada". New York Times. February 10, 2014. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
- "Sevcik v. Sandoval, 'Nevada Gay Marriage'". Cases of Public Interest. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- Leavy, Callahan, Hurwitz (U.S. Circuit Judges) (20 May 2014). "Order (Denying Stay, Setting Expedited Schedule), Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, 14-35421". United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (PACER ID: 9100459). Retrieved 2 June 2014.
- Stewart, Monte (Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant) (30 May 2014). "Appellant Governor Otter's Petition for Initial Hearing En Banc, Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Docket Entry 16-1) (PACER ID 9114268). Retrieved 3 June 2014.
- "Latta v. Otter, 'Idaho Gay Marriage'". Cases of Public Interest. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 3 July 2014.
- Mapes, Jeff (23 April 2014). "Gay marriage: Judge Michael McShane provides little clue in how he will rule on Oregon case". The Oregonian. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
- McShane, Michael (U.S. District Judge) (19 May 2014). "Order, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC". U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- Leavy, Callahan, and Hurwitz (Circuit Judges) (19 May 2014). "Order (Denying Motion for Stay), Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 14-35427". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- Johnson, Thomas (Attorney for the Plaintiffs) (22 May 2014). "Joinder in Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 14-35427". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- "Docket, National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. Geiger, No. 13A1173". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
- (Per Curiam) (4 June 2014). "Order in Pending Case, Nat'l Organization of Marriage v. Geiger, No. 13A1173". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- "Federal judge strikes down Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage". January 14, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
- "Order (Setting Date and Time for Oral Argument), Bishop v. Smith". January 29, 2014.
- "US Appeals Court Tosses Oklahoma Gay Marriage Ban". July 18, 2014. Retrieved July 18, 2014.
- "Order (Setting Date and Time for Oral Argument), Kitchen v. Herbert". January 29, 2014.
- Moreno, Ivan (3 July 2014). "Colorado officials ask court to declare same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". LGBTQ Nation.com. Associated Press.
- Newman, Mary (Attorney for Plaintiffs) (1 July 2014). "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 1:14-cv-01817". U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (LGBTQ Online.com). PACER Document 1.
- Pearson, Cathy (Courtroom Deputy for U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore) (15 July 2014). "Courtroom Minutes, Status Conference. Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 1:14-cv-01817". U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Scribd.com). PACER Document 38.
- Mitchell, Kirk (16 July 2014). "Federal judge weighs arguments in Colorado gay marriage case".
- Raymond P. Moore, U.S. District Judge (23 July 2014). "Order, Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 1:14-cv-01817". U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Scribd.com). PACER Document 45.
- Francisco, Michael (Assistant Solicitor General) (23 July 2014). "Notice of Appeal, Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 1:14-cv-01817". U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Scribd.com). PACER Document 46.
- "Complaint, Searcy v. Bentley, No. 1:14-cv-208". U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (freemarry.3cdn.net). PACER Document 1. 7 May 2014.
- Marshall, Randall; Crew, Wendy; et. al., (Attorneys for the Plaintiffs) (10 June 2014). "Complaint, Aaron-Brush v. Bentley". U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. ACLU.org. Retrieved 10 June 2014.
- Caldwell, Suzanna (12 May 2014). "Couples file suit to overturn Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- Mendel, Allison (Attorney for the Plaintiffs); Milks, William E. (Assistant Attorney General for Alaska) (18 July 2014). "Scheduling and Planning Conference Report, Hamby v. Parnell, No. 3:14-cv-89-TMB". U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (Scribd.com). PACER Document 11.
- "Docket Sheet, Connelly v. Brewer, Case No. 2:14-cv-00024". Plainsite.org. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
- Sedwick, John W., Senior U.S. District Judge (15 April 2014). "Orders from Chambers (Denying Consolidation), Majors v. Humble, No. 2:14-cv-00518-JWS". U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (qmgo.net).
- Pizer, Jennifer (Attorney for Plaintiffs); Sweeney, Kathleen (Attorney for Defendants) (7 July 2014). "Joint Case Status Report, Majors v. Humble, No. 2:14-cv-00518". U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (PACER Document 42). Scribd.com.
- John W. Sedwick, U.S. District Judge (15 July 2014). "Text Order (Accepting Joint Report and Adopting Briefing Schedule), Majors v. Horne, No. 2:14-cv-518". U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Scribd.com). Docket Entry # 43.
- Hinkle, U.S. District Judge (21 April 2014). "Order Setting a Partial Schedule and Consolidating Cases for Case-Management Purposes, Brenner v. Scott, No. 14cv107". U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Justia.com). Retrieved 25 April 2014.
- Thomaston, Scottie (24 April 2014). "Lawsuit challenges Georgia’s same-sex marriage ban". Equality on Trial. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
- McGill, Kevin (25 June 2014). "Judge in La. same-sex marriage case signals he may expand scope of ruling". LGBTQNation.com.
- Gibbs, Alec Scott (Atty. for the Plaintiffs) (5 May 2014). "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Blankenship v. Snyder, No. 2:14-cv-12221". U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Scribd.com). PACER Document 1. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
- Alke, Ben (Attorney for the Plaintiff) (21 May 2014). "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Rolando v. Fox". U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- Peake, Joi (U.S. Magistrate Judge) (2 June 2014). "Recommendation (for Stay of Proceedings), Fisher-Borne v. Smith, No. 1:12CV589". U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (PACER Document 97). ACLU.org. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
- "Puerto Rican Wants Same-Sex Marriages Recognized". ABC News. March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 30, 2014.
- Waker, Carson, and Burbach, Kevin (22 May 2014). "Six South Dakota couples challenge state’s same-sex marriage ban". LGBTQNation.com. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
- Associated Press (7 July 2014). "Attorney requests ruling in South Dakota same-sex marriage case". LBGTQ Nation.com.
- "Order: Harris v. Rainey". Lambda Legal. January 31, 2014. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
- Urbanski, Michael (U.S. District Judge). "Order for Stay, Harris v. Rainey (March 31, 2014)". U.S. District Court, W.D. Va. Case No. 5:13-cv-77. Scribd. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
- Memorandum Opinion and Order, McGee v. Cole, Docket No. 3:13-24068, issued January 29, 2014 by Robert C. Chambers, C.J. (S.D. W.Va. 2014)
- White, Kate (Staff Writer) (10 June 2014). "W.Va. gay marriage suit to await higher court ruling". The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
- McCoy, Summer, Law Clerk (1 May 2014). "Letter Memo to Attorneys of Record, Wright v. Arkansas, No. 60CV-13-2662". Arkansas Sixth Judicial Circuit Court via Scribd. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
- "Arkansas judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban". 9 May 2014. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
- "New Court Filings in Arkansas Same Sex Marriage Case". Arkansas Matters.com. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- Steen, Leslie (Clerk of the Ark. Sup. Ct.) (16 May 2014). "Formal Order (Granting State Appellants' Motion for Stay)". Arkansas Supreme Court. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- Steffen, Jordan (16 June 2014). "Colorado Defends Same Sex Marriage Ban in Court". The Denver Post. Retrieved 17 June 2014.
- Riccardi, Nicholas (16 June 2014). "Colorado judge skeptical of gay marriage ban". Salt Lake Tribune. Associated Press. Retrieved 17 June 2014.
- "Marriage Litigation". Why Marriage Matters Colorado. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
- C. Scott Crabtree, Colorado District Judge (9 July 2014). "Summary Judgment Order, Brinkman v. Long, No. 13-CV-32572, and McDaneil-Miccio v. Colorado, No. 14-CV-30731". Colorado Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Adams County (courts.state.co.us).
- Steffen, Jordan (10 July 2014). "Judge rejects state attempt to stop Boulder clerk from issuing same-sex marriage licenses". The Denver Post.
- Andrew Hartman, District Judge (10 July 2014). "Order Denying Motion for T.R.O. and Prelim. Injunction, Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall, No. 2014CV30833". Colorado Twentieth Judicial District Court, Boulder County (LGBTQ Nation.com).
- Murray, Jon; Nicholson, Kieran (10 July 2014). "Denver clerk begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses". The Denver Post.
- Francisco, Michael (on behalf of Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers) (14 July 2014). "Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall, No. 2014-SA-212". Colorado Supreme Court (Scribd.com).
- Per Curiam (18 July 2014). "Order of Court, Brinkman and Burd v. Colorado, No. 2014-SA-212". Colorado Supreme Court, en banc (LGBTQ Nation.com).
- Francisco, Michael (Assistant Solicitor General) (21 July 2014). "Notice of Appeal, Colorado v. Hall, No. 2014-CA-1368". Colorado Court of Appeals (Scribd.com).
- Andrew Hartman, District Judge (23 July 2014). "Order: Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal / Reconsideration, Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall, No. 2014-CV-30833". Colorado District Courts (Scribd.com).
- Rothaus, Steve (March 13, 2014). "Married gay couples sue Florida for recognition". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
- Staff Reports (7 July 2014). "Key West couple’s challenge to Fla. same-sex marriage ban goes to court". LGBTQ Nation.com.
- Luis M. Garcia, Circuit Judge (17 July 2014). "Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Huntsman v. Heavilin, No. 2014-CA-305-K". Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (LGBTQ Nation.com).
- Brown, David (Atty. for the Plaintiffs) (30 December 2013). "Petition (Initial), Nelson v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 13 C 1465". Kansas District Court, Shawnee Co., Div. 7. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- Miley, Cynthia (14 February 2014). "ACLU files lawsuit over Missouri ban on recognizing same-sex marriages". Jurist (supported by the University of Pittsburgh Law School). Retrieved 28 April 2014.
- Rothert, Anthony (Attorney for Plaintiffs) (24 June 2014). "Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Lawson and Dahlgren v. Kelly, No. 1416-CV15024". Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri at Kansas City (Scribd.com).
- "Docket Sheet, Ballen v. Corbett, No. 481 MD 2013". Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
- "Docket Sheet, Cucinotta v. Commonwealth, No. 451 MD 2013". Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
- Nellermoe, District Judge (22 April 2014). "Order Denying Plea to the Jurisdiction, A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L, No. 2014-CI-02421". Texas District Court, 438th Judicial District, Bexar County. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
- Hottle, Keith, Clerk of Court (24 April 2014). "Order Granting Emergency Motion, In re State of Texas, No. 04-14-00282-CV". Texas Fourth Court of Appeals. Retrieved 12 May 2014.
- Barnard, Marialyn (Justice of the Court) (28 May 2014). "Memorandum Opinion, In re State of Texas, No. 04-14-00282-CV". Texas Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio, TX). Retrieved 20 June 2014.
- Martinez, Rebeca C. (Justice of the Court) (28 May 2014). "Dissenting Opinion, In re State of Texas, No. 04-14-00282-CV". Texas Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio, TX). Retrieved 20 June 2014.
- Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
- Corvino, John, and Maggie Gallagher (2012). Debating Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975631-5.
- Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War. Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4.
- Murdoch, Joyce, and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-01513-1.
- NeJaime, Douglas (October 2012). "Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination". California Law Review 100 (5): 1169–1238.
- Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0805076336
- Sullivan, Andrew (1989) "Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage," The New Republic, reprinted in Slate, November 9, 2012.
- Sullivan, Andrew, editor (1997, 2004). Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader. Vintage. ISBN 1-4000-7866-0. Second edition.
- Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
- Same-sex marriage in the United States at DMOZ
- LA Weekly feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer at the Wayback Machine (archived April 17, 2008)
- PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium
- American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998–2008, Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
- Gay rights in the US, state by state The Guardian
- Timeline: Gay marriage, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2012
- The Shifting Landscape of State Same-Sex Marriage Laws as of February 26, 2014 by the Bloomberg Visual Data Center showing various charts with respect to the development of same-sex marriage in the United States