Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Legal recognition of
same-sex couples
Same-sex marriage

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway

South Africa
Spain
Sweden

Granted in some regions

United States (CT, IA, ME*, MA, NH*, VT*)

Formerly granted

United States (CA)

Recognized, not granted

Aruba (Dutch only)
Israel
Netherlands Antilles (Dutch only)
United States (DC, NY)

Civil unions and
registered partnerships

Andorra
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland
Hungary

Iceland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

Granted in some regions

Argentina (C, RC, RN, VCP)
Australia (ACT, TAS, VIC)
Mexico (COA, DF)
United States (CA, CO, DC, HI, NJ, NV*, OR, WA, WI*)
Venezuela (ME)

Recognized, not granted

Isle of Man (UK only)
Mexico (Mex. only: all states, not federally)

Unregistered co-habitation

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Brazil

Colombia
Croatia
Israel
Portugal

Granted in some regions

United States (MD)

Status in other jurisdictions

Albania
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Chile
China (PRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
European Union
Faroe Islands
Greece
Honduras
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan

Jersey
Kosovo
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Mexico
Nepal
Nigeria
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
South Korea
Taiwan
Uganda
Venezuela
Vietnam

United States (AL, AS, AZ, DE, FL, GU, IL, LA, MI, MN, MT, NM, NC, OH, PA, PR, RI, SC, UT, WV, WY)

Notes

*Laws passed, but not yet taken effect.

See also

Same-sex marriage
Worldwide status of same-sex unions
Timeline of same-sex marriage
Civil union
Domestic partnership
Registered partnership
Listings by country

LGBT portal
For more comprehensive descriptions broken down by state see the article, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state.

In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing some form of same-sex marriage or union.

Contents

[edit] Federal level

In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 106-199, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Act defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law.

The impact of the second part of the Act is less clear. Traditionally, states have been allowed to regulate the marital status of their own citizens. A narrow interpretation of the Act only codifies this policy. The Act was arguably passed out of concern that same-sex couples from all over the U.S. would fly to Hawaii, get married, and demand recognition in their home states (although Hawaii ultimately never allowed same-sex marriage).

A broad reading of the Act would allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages of non-citizens, as well. For example, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might get married in Massachusetts, and later move to another state, where the state would have no obligation to recognize the marriage. The Act may also mean that the state could refuse to recognize the marriage even if the couple were only passing through transiently (relevant, for example, in emergency medical decision-making), and not moving permanently. Either of these broader readings would be an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,138 federal laws in which marital status is a factor, as well as state and private benefits (family memberships, discounts, etc.) which are denied same-sex couples by excluding them from participating in marriage. A legal denial of federal rights or benefits, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law: rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another.

In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas which came before the Supreme Court of the United States, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage believe that this ruling, especially when combined with the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia that eliminated anti-miscegenation laws, paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. However, these proponents often do not mention, or are not aware of, the United States Supreme Court's summary affirmance in the Minnesota case of Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810. This decision, binding on all lower federal courts, clearly distinguishes Loving, and establishes the right of the individual States to uphold traditional opposite-sex marriage.

Challenges to DOMA have already been rejected by several federal courts, including a decision by Judge James S. Moody in the case of Wilson v. Ake.

Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.

The amendment was debated in the United States Senate, but on July 14, 2004, a procedural motion to end debate failed by a wider-than-expected margin of 48 votes to 50. This effectively prevented the amendment from facing a full Senate vote.

Also in 2003, lesbian comedian Rosie O'Donnell's court case with ex-colleagues raised another new issue when O'Donnell's life partner, Kelli, was forced to testify against O'Donnell. Under United States law, spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other; but because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, they are denied this courtroom right, part of a long list of benefits of marriage in the United States. They married on February 26, 2004 in San Francisco, but this was later nullified by the California Supreme Court.

As of April 2006, California same-sex couple Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer had a marriage-rights case pending in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gay-rights groups including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union did not support the lawsuit, on the grounds that it is likely to lose in the Supreme Court and set an unfavorable precedent. The Court eventually tossed out the suit in the spring of 2006, saying that the couples must wait for a ruling by the Appeals Court in California.[1]

[edit] State level

[edit] Efforts to enable same-sex unions

Votes by state legislatures to recognize various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:

State Date Type of same-sex union Upper House Lower house Governor Final
outcome
Yes No Yes No
District of Columbia June 1992 [1] Domestic Partnership (limited) Passed [2] Signed [3] Yes Yes
California September 1994 Domestic Partnership (limited) [4] 21 17 41 26 Vetoed No No [5]
Hawaii March 1996 Domestic Partnership [6] 14 11 Failed - No No
Hawaii June 1997 Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship 24 7 43 27 Signed Yes Yes
California September 1999 Domestic Partnership (limited) 22 14 41 36 Signed Yes Yes [7]
Vermont April 2000 Civil Union 19 11 79 68 Signed Yes Yes
California October 2001 Domestic Partnership (expansion) 23 11 41 32 Signed Yes Yes [8]
California September 2003 Domestic Partnership (expansion) 23 14 41 33 Signed Yes Yes [9]
New Jersey January 2004 Domestic Partnership (limited) 23 9 41 28 Signed Yes Yes
Maine April 2004 Domestic Partnership (limited) 19 14 84 58 Signed Yes Yes
Utah February 2005 Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship 10 18 - - - No No
Connecticut April 2005 Civil Union 27 9 85 63 Signed Yes Yes
Maryland May 2005 Domestic Partnership (limited) 31 16 83 50 Vetoed No No [10]
California June 2005 Same-Sex Marriage - - 37 36 - No No [11]
Oregon July 2005 Civil Union 19 10 - - - No No [12]
California September 2005 Same-Sex Marriage 21 15 41 35 Vetoed No No [13]
District of Columbia April 2006 Domestic Partnership (expansion) Passed [14] Signed [15] Yes Yes
Colorado November 2006 Domestic Partnership Statewide Voter Referendum No No
New Jersey December 2006 Civil Union 23 12 56 19 Signed Yes Yes
Washington April 2007 Domestic Partnership (limited) 28 19 63 35 Signed Yes Yes
Oregon May 2007 Domestic Partnership 21 9 34 26 Signed Yes Yes
New Hampshire May 2007 Civil Union 14 10 243 129 Signed Yes Yes
New York June 2007 Same-Sex Marriage - - 85 61 - No No
California September 2007 Same-Sex Marriage 22 15 42 34 Vetoed No No [16]
New Mexico January 2008 Domestic Partnership - - 33 31 - No No
Washington March 2008 Domestic Partnership (expansion) 29 20 62 32 Signed Yes Yes
Maryland May 2008 Domestic Partnership (limited) 39 19 44 39 Signed Yes Yes
District of Columbia May 2008 Domestic Partnership (expansion) Passed Signed Yes Yes
New Mexico February 2009 Domestic Partnership 17 25 - - - No No [17]
Hawaii March 2009 Civil Union - - 33 17 - No No
Vermont April 2009 Same-Sex Marriage 23 5 100 49 Vetoed, Overridden Yes Yes
Colorado April 2009 Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship 23 10 41 24 Signed Yes Yes
Connecticut April 2009 Same-Sex Marriage 28 7 100 44 Signed Yes Yes
Maine May 2009 Same-Sex Marriage 21 14 89 58 Signed Yes Yes
District of Columbia May 2009 Same-Sex Marriage (recognition only) Passed Signed Yes Yes
Washington May 2009 Domestic Partnership (expansion) 30 18 62 35 Signed Yes Yes
Nevada May 2009 Domestic Partnership 14 7 28 14 Vetoed, Overridden Yes Yes
New Hampshire June 2009 Same-Sex Marriage 14 10 198 176 Signed Yes Yes
Wisconsin June 2009 Domestic Partnership (limited) 17 16 50 48 Signed Yes Yes
Rhode Island July 2009 Domestic Partnership (limited) [18] 35 0 Pending - -
New Jersey July 2009 Same-Sex Marriage - - Pending - -
Guam July 2009 Civil Union Pending - -
Rhode Island July 2009 Same-Sex Marriage[2] Pending - - -
New York September 2009 Same-Sex Marriage Vote delayed until early September[3] 89 52 - -
Pennsylvania Fall 2009 Same-Sex Marriage[4] Pending until Fall[5] - - - -
  • ^  Granted limited rights.
  • ^  Expanded rights included.
  • ^  Gave domestic partnerships legal rights of married couples.
  • ^  Maryland Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
  • ^  The vote failed to receive the absolute majority (41 votes) required to pass.
  • ^  The bill failed to come to a floor vote in the House of Representatives.
  • ^  California Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
  • ^  California Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
  • ^  Passed by the City Council; Signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia in 1992 with delayed implementation until 2002 due to action taken by the U.S. Congress during the Congressional Review Period. (See Recognition of same-sex unions in the District of Columbia).
  • ^  Passed by the City Council; Signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia with no delay action taken by the U.S. Congress during the Congressional Review Period.
  • ^  Failed state Senate vote.
  • ^  The Hawaii Civil Union Bill 2009 failed by a tie vote in Committee.
  • ^  Vermont Governor vetoed legislation; the veto override required two-thirds support.
  • ^  Nevada Governor vetoed legislation; the veto override required two-thirds support.

[edit] Efforts to define marriage by constitutional amendment

The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments concerning same-sex marriage, and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Hawaii amendment is different in that it granted the legislature authority to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" (which the legislature had already done).

State Initiative Ban on Date Yes Yes vote No No vote Final
outcome
1998:
Alaska Ballot Measure 2 Marriage November 1998 68% (152,965) 32% (71,631) Yes Yes
Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 Marriage ban
permitted
November 1998 69% (285,384) 31% (117,827) Yes Yes [19]
2000:
Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 Marriage and
civil union and
domestic partnership
November 2000 70% (450,073) 30% (189,555) Yes Yes [20]
2002:
Nevada Question 2 Marriage November 2002 67% (337,183) 33% (164,555) Yes Yes
2004:
Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 75% (753,770) 25% (251,914) Yes Yes
Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 76% (2,454,912) 24% (768,703) Yes Yes [21]
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 75% (1,222,125) 25% (417,097) Yes Yes
Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 1 Marriage and
civil union
September 2004 78% (618,928) 22% (177,103) Yes Yes [22]
Michigan State Proposal - 04-2 Marriage and
civil union and
domestic partnership
November 2004 59% (2,698,077) 41% (1,904,319) Yes Yes
Mississippi Amendment 1 Marriage November 2004 86% (957,104) 14% (155,648) Yes Yes
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 Marriage August 2004 71% (1,055,771) 29% (439,529) Yes Yes
Montana Initiative 96 Marriage November 2004 67% (295,070) 33% (148,263) Yes Yes
North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 73% (223,572) 27% (81,716) Yes Yes
Ohio State Issue 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 62% (3,329,335) 38% (2,065,462) Yes Yes
Oklahoma State Question 711 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 76% (1,075,216) 24% (347,303) Yes Yes
Oregon Measure 36 Marriage November 2004 57% (1,028,546) 43% (787,556) Yes Yes
Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 Marriage and
civil union
November 2004 66% (593,297) 34% (307,488) Yes Yes
2005:
Kansas Proposed amendment 1 Marriage and
civil union
April 2005 70% (414,106) 30% (178,018) Yes Yes
Texas Proposition 2 Marriage and
civil union
November 2005 76% (1,718,513) 24% (536,052) Yes Yes
2006:
Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment Marriage and
civil union
June 2006 81% (734,746) 19% (170,399) Yes Yes
Arizona Proposition 107 Marriage and
civil union
November 2006 48% (721,489) 52% (775,498) No No
Colorado Amendment 43 Marriage November 2006 56% (768,700) 44% (612,155) Yes Yes
Idaho Amendment 2 Marriage and
civil union
November 2006 63% (281,823) 37% (163,191) Yes Yes
South Carolina Amendment 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2006 78% (818,894) 22% (230,674) Yes Yes
South Dakota Amendment C Marriage and
civil union and
domestic partnership
November 2006 52% (172,237) 48% (160,756) Yes Yes
Tennessee Amendment 1 Marriage November 2006 81% (1,417,315) 19% (326,335) Yes Yes
Virginia Marshall-Newman Amendment Marriage and
civil union and
domestic partnership
November 2006 57% (1,325,668) 43% (1,003,967) Yes Yes
Wisconsin Referendum 1 Marriage and
civil union
November 2006 59% (1,260,554) 41% (861,554) Yes Yes
2008:
Arizona Propositions 102 Marriage November 2008 56% (1,258,355) 44% (980,753) Yes Yes
California Proposition 8 Marriage November 2008 52% (7,001,084) 48% (6,401,482) Yes Yes
Florida Amendment 2 Marriage and
civil union
November 2008 62% (4,890,883) 38% (3,008,026) Yes Yes

[edit] Recent or pending efforts to define marriage through constitutional amendment

State Description Outcome
Indiana The Indiana State Senate Republican Caucus on February 18, 2009, voted to not consider a resolution that would have proposed an amendment.[6] No Not considered
Iowa A bill failed to advance and was not considered [23]. No Not considered
Maryland A bill failed to advance as of February 2009.[7] No Dormant
North Carolina A bill was sponsored in February 2009, though failed to make it through legislative committee. [24] [8] No Failed in committee
Wyoming In February 2009, a bill was voted down.[9] No Voted down
West Virginia A bill was defeated in March 2009.[10] No Voted down
Minnesota A bill was sponsored in 2009, but failed to be brought up for a vote.[11] No Not considered
Delaware A bill was voted down in March 2009. [25]. No Voted down
Washington A bill was introduced in 2009, though as of July 2009, has failed to advance.[12] No Dormant
Puerto Rico A bill that would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriage was voted down in June 2009. [26] No Voted down
Pennsylvania The state Senate committee is considering a 2009 amendment proposal introduce in June 2009 [27]
California Opponents to the Proposition 8 amendment defining marriage as 'one man one woman' are gathering signatures to put a repeal amendment into the constitution.
Michigan A bill that would place a repeal (and establish) of the same-sex marriage ban is currently pending before the legislature. [28]
Colorado A signature drive is underway to repeal the same-sex marriage ban and legalize same-sex marriage in the state. [29]
Illinois Protect Marriage Illinois stated its intent to collect the necessary number of petition signatures to have an advisory measure calling for a constitutional
amendment appear on the 2010 general election ballot.[13]
  • ^  Does not explicitly define marriage, but allows the legislature to define marriage.
  • ^  Ban declared unconstitutional by Judge Joseph Bataillon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.[14] The ruling was appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis.[15] That Court issued a ruling that re-instated the ban, declaring in part that it was a legitimate state interest.[16]
  • ^  On October 6, 2004 a Louisiana district judge tossed out the approved amendment saying it addressed two subjects: marriage and civil unions. Shortly after, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned that ruling and found the amendment valid.[17]
  • ^  Ban declared unconstitutional on May 16, 2006 by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell, who said it violated the single-subject rule in Georgia's constitution. Governor Sonny Perdue said he was disappointed by the decision, which he said ran contrary to the voice of Georgia voters. The following day, the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. On July 6, 2006 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the ban did not violate the single-subject rule.[18][19]

[edit] Efforts to define marriage by statutory initiative

The following consists of votes by statutory initiatives that ban same-sex marriage and/or civil unions and domestic partnerships:

State Date Yes Yes vote No No vote Description Final outcome
West:
California March 2000 61% (4,618,673) 39% (2,909,370) Proposition 22. Amend the Family Code to say: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[20][30] NoYes but ruled unconstitutional [31]
Colorado November 2006 47% (641,443) 53% (727,433) Colorado Referendum I (2006) :
To allow same-sex couples to register as "domestic partners".[21]
NoNo
  • ^  There is a debate as to whether the adoption of Prop 22 only prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
  • ^  In March 2005, Judge Richard Kramer ruled there appeared to be no rational state compelling interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. His ruling was appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the 1st District, which upheld Proposition 22 on October 5, 2006. The Supreme Court of California ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional and it was struck down by the state's highest court.

[edit] General

[edit] United States

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Kravets, David (2006-04-02). "Two paths toward one goal: same-sex marriage". Associated Press (The Boston Globe). http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/04/02/two_paths_toward_one_goal_same_sex_marriage/. Retrieved on 2009-02-15. 
  2. ^ http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/06/05/Gay-marriage-debate-heats-up/1244236681.html
  3. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/2009/07/12/stories/2009071256351400.htm
  4. ^ http://cumberlink.com/articles/2009/06/14/news/local/doc4a349052762db249620833.txt
  5. ^ http://epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-PA+marriage+bill+gets+another+cosponsor%20&id=2918792-PA+marriage+bill+gets+another+cosponsor&instance=2nd_top_story
  6. ^ Johnson, Chris (2009-02-18). "Anti-Marriage Amendment Stopped in Indiana Legislature". Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/02/anti-marriage-amendment-stopped-in-indiana-legislature/. Retrieved on 2009-02-26. 
  7. ^ Smitherman, Laura (2009-02-03). "Senator suggests deal on death penalty measure". The Baltimore Sun. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-md.penalty03feb03,3,4741490.story. Retrieved on 2009-02-14. 
  8. ^ Boniti, Loretta (2009-02-24). "NC lawmaker proposes ban on gay marriage". News 14 Carolina. http://news14.com/content/politics/605506/nc-lawmaker-proposes-ban-on-gay-marriage/Default.aspx. Retrieved on 2009-02-26. 
  9. ^ "Wyo. House kills gay marriage bill". Associated Press (KIFI-TV). 2009-02-06. http://www.localnews8.com/global/story.asp?s=9802795&ClientType=Printable. Retrieved on 2009-02-07. 
  10. ^ "WVa House rejects anti-gay marriage gambit". Associated Press (Charleston Daily Mail). 2009-03-30. http://www.dailymail.com/News/200903300289. Retrieved on 2009-03-31. 
  11. ^ Duchschere, Kevin; von Sternberg, Bob (2009-03-18). "Gay marriage ban is back on agenda at Capitol". Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/41366017.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-31. 
  12. ^ "HJR 4204 - 2009-10". Washington State Legislature. 2009-01-30. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=4204&year=2009. Retrieved on 2009-02-15. 
  13. ^ Saunders, Rhys (2008-11-16). "Gay marriage foes to try again in Illinois". The State Journal-Register. http://www.sj-r.com/homepage/x1772950620/Gay-marriage-foes-to-try-again-in-Illinois. Retrieved on 2009-02-14. 
  14. ^ Neb. gay marriage ban struck down - Politics - MSNBC.com
  15. ^ LJWorld.com / Appeal filed to restore Nebraska’s prohibition of same-sex marriage
  16. ^ Washington Post
  17. ^ ADF: Marriage unanimously affirmed in Louisiana - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty
  18. ^ WIStv.com Columbia, SC: Georgia governor vows special session if gay marriage appeal slows
  19. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/MF.gay.marriage.ap/
  20. ^ Full Results
  21. ^ Colorado Referendum I full results

[edit] External links

Personal tools