Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships
Marriage Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark France Iceland Netherlands New Zealand† Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden Uruguay† Performed in some jurisdictions Mexico: DF, QR United States: CT, DC, DE†, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN†, NH, NY, RI†, VT, WA, 3 tribal jurisdictions Recognized, not performed Aruba, Curaçao, St Maarten (NL only) Israel Mexico (other Mexican states only) United States: CA (conditional)
Civil unions and registered partnerships Andorra Austria Colombia Czech Republic Ecuador Finland Germany Greenland Hungary Ireland Isle of Man Jersey Liechtenstein Luxembourg Slovenia Switzerland United Kingdom Performed in some jurisdictions Australia: ACT, NSW, QLD, TAS, VIC Mexico: COA United States: CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, NV, OR, WI Venezuela: Mérida
Unregistered cohabitation Australia Croatia Israel
See also Same-sex union legislation Same-sex union court cases Timeline of same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe Recognition of same-sex unions in North America Recognition of same-sex unions in South America Marriage privatization Divorce of same-sex couples Domestic partnership Military policy Listings by country
†Note: Not yet in effect
LGBT portal

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 same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.

Federal level

In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 106-199, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3(a) of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of both federal law and any ruling, regulation, or interpretation by an administrative bureau or agency of the United States government. The impact of Section 2(a) of DOMA, which reads as follows, is less clear.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

On March 16, 2011, companion bills were introduced by House and Senate Democrats to repeal DOMA. The bills were named the Respect for Marriage Act.

U.S. v. Windsor

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman violates equal protection. Both cases also involve procedural issues that could see either or both of the cases dismissed without a determination on the equal protection questions involved.

State level

See also: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state

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	Domestic partnership	Passed				Signed	Yes
California	September 1994	Domestic partnership	21	17	41	26	Vetoed	No
Hawaii	March 1996	Domestic partnership	14	11	Failed		n/a	No
Hawaii	June 1997	Reciprocal beneficiary relationship	24	7	43	27	Signed	Yes
California	September 1998	Domestic partnership	21	17	41	36	Vetoed	No
California	October 1999	Domestic partnership	23	13	41	38	Vetoed	No
California	October 1999	Domestic partnership	22	14	41	36	Signed	Yes
Vermont	April 2000	Civil union	19	11	79	68	Signed	Yes
California	August 2001	Domestic partnership (expansion)	22	12	41	27	Signed	Yes
California	October 2001	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	11	41	32	Signed	Yes
California	September 2002	Domestic partnership (expansion)	26	11	41	31	Signed	Yes
California	September 2002	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	13	43	27	Signed	Yes
California	September 2003	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	14	41	33	Signed	Yes
New Jersey	January 2004	Domestic partnership	23	9	41	28	Signed	Yes
Maine	April 2004	Domestic partnership	18	14	84	58	Signed	Yes
California	September 2004	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	12	46	29	Signed	Yes
Connecticut	April 2005	Civil union	27	9	85	63	Signed	Yes
Maryland	May 2005	Domestic partnership	31	16	83	50	Vetoed	No
California	June 2005	Marriage	n/a	n/a	Failed		n/a	No
California	September 2005	Marriage	21	15	41	35	Vetoed	No
California	September 2005	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	15	47	28	Signed	Yes
California	September 2005	Domestic partnership (expansion)	21	14	47	32	Signed	Yes
California	September 2006	Domestic partnership (expansion)	24	15	46	29	Signed	Yes
California	September 2006	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	15	47	31	Signed	Yes
New Jersey	December 2006	Civil union	23	12	56	19	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	April 2007	Civil union	n/a	n/a	Failed		n/a	No
Washington	April 2007	Domestic partnership	28	19	63	35	Signed	Yes
Oregon	May 2007	Domestic partnership	21	9	34	26	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	May 2007	Civil union	14	10	243	129	Signed	Yes
New York	June 2007	Marriage	n/a	n/a	85	61	n/a	No
California	September 2007	Marriage	22	15	42	34	Vetoed	No
California	October 2007	Domestic partnership (expansion)	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	January 2008	Contractual cohabitation	Failed		n/a	n/a	n/a	No
New Mexico	February 2008	Domestic partnership	n/a	n/a	33	31	n/a	No
Washington	March 2008	Domestic partnership (expansion)	29	20	62	32	Signed	Yes
Maryland	May 2008	Domestic partnership	30	17	88	46	Signed	Yes
District of Columbia	May 2008	Domestic partnership (expansion)	Passed				Signed	Yes
New Mexico	February 2009	Domestic partnership	17	25	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Vermont	April 2009	Marriage	23	5	100	49	Vetoed1	Yes
Colorado	April 2009	Designated beneficiary agreement	23	10	41	24	Signed	Yes
Connecticut	April 2009	Marriage (codification)	28	7	100	44	Signed	Yes
Maine	May 2009	Marriage	21	14	89	58	Signed	No2
District of Columbia	May 2009	Marriage (recognition only)	Passed				Signed	Yes
Washington	May 2009	Domestic partnership (expansion)	30	18	62	35	Signed	Yes3
Nevada	May 2009	Domestic partnership	14	7	28	14	Vetoed1	Yes
New Hampshire	June 2009	Marriage	14	10	198	176	Signed	Yes
Oregon	June 2009	Domestic partnership (expansion)	27	0	41	8	Signed	Yes
Wisconsin	June 2009	Domestic partnership	17	16	50	48	Signed	Yes
California	October 2009	Out-of-state pre-proposition 8 marriage recognition	24	14	44	27	Signed	Yes
New York	December 2009	Marriage	24	38	89	52	n/a	No
District of Columbia	December 2009	Marriage	n/a		11	2	Signed	Yes
Rhode Island	January 2010	Domestic partnership (only 1 entitlement)	31	3	67	3	Vetoed1	Yes
New Jersey	January 2010	Marriage	14	20	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Minnesota	May 2010	Domestic partnership (only 1 entitlement)	41	24	78	55	Vetoed	No
Hawaii	July 2010	Civil union	18	7	31	20	Vetoed	No
New York	July 2010	Domestic partnership (only 1 entitlement)	50	11	127	26	Signed	Yes
California	September 2010	Domestic partnership (expansion)	23	12	53	24	Signed	Yes
Illinois	January 2011	Civil union	32	24	61	52	Signed	Yes
Hawaii	February 2011	Civil union	18	5	31	19	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	March 2011	Domestic union	n/a	n/a	Failed		n/a	No
Maryland	March 2011	Marriage	25	21	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Colorado	March 2011	Civil union	23	12	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Washington	April 2011	Recognition of out-of-state union as domestic partnership	28	19	58	39	Signed	Yes
Delaware	May 2011	Civil union	13	6	26	15	Signed	Yes
New York	June 2011	Marriage	33	29	80	63	Signed	Yes
Rhode Island	July 2011	Civil union	21	16	62	11	Signed	Yes
California	September 2011	Domestic partnership (expansion)	22	13	52	25	Signed	Yes
California	October 2011	Domestic partnership (expansion)	25	15	Passed		Signed	Yes
California	October 2011	Domestic partnership (expansion)	24	13	Passed		Signed	Yes
Washington	February 2012	Marriage	28	21	55	43	Signed	Yes3
New Jersey	February 2012	Marriage	24	16	42	33	Vetoed	Pending4
Maryland	March 2012	Marriage	25	22	72	67	Signed	Yes3
Colorado	May 2012	Civil union	23	12	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Wyoming	January 2013	Domestic partnership	n/a	n/a	24	35	n/a	No
Colorado	March 2013	Civil union	21	14	39	26	Signed	Yes
Rhode Island	May 2013	Marriage	26	12	56	15	Signed	Yes
Delaware	May 2013	Marriage	12	9	23	18	Signed	Yes
Minnesota	May 2013	Marriage	37	30	75	59	Signed	Yes
Illinois	May 2013	Marriage	34	21	Pending
Pennsylvania	2013	Civil union			Pending
Hawaii	2013/2014	Marriage	Introduced		Introduced

Notes:

• ¹Veto overridden
• ²People's veto (Maine Question 1, 2009)
• ³People's veto failed (Washington Referendum 71, Washington Referendum 74, Maryland Question 6)
• ⁴2013 proposal to override veto

Efforts to enable repeal amendment

State	Date	Type of same-sex union	Upper House		Lower house		Final outcome
			Yes	No	Yes	No
Nevada	May 2013	Repeals Question 2 and legalizes marriage	12	9	Pending
	TBD1
Texas (Proposed)	2013	Repeals Proposition 2 and legalizes civil unions

Notes:

• ¹Nevada Legislature would need to pass the measure by two separate sessions in order to amend their constitution.

Efforts to prohibit same-sex unions

Votes by state legislatures to prohibit recognition of 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
Maryland	May 1973	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Virginia	August 1975	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Florida	June 1977	Marriage	37	0	101	11	Signed	Yes
California	August 1977	Marriage	23	5	Passed		Signed	Yes
Wyoming	October 1977	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	1987	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	March 1994	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	11	12	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
Hawaii	June 1994	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Utah	March 1995	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Idaho	March 1996	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	28	4	59	6	Signed	Yes
Colorado	March 1996	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Vetoed	No
Kansas	April 1996	Marriage	39	1	Passed		Signed	Yes
Alaska	May 1996	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Not Signed	Yes
Illinois	May 1996	Marriage	42	9	87	13	Signed	Yes
South Carolina	May 1996	Marriage	Passed		82	0	Signed	Yes
Michigan	June 1996	Marriage	31	2	88	14	Signed	Yes
Michigan	June 1996	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	Passed		74	28	Signed	Yes
Delaware	June 1996	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
North Carolina	June 1996	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	41	4	98	10	Signed	Yes
Missouri	July 1996	Marriage	29	2	131	10	Signed	Yes
California	August 1996	Marriage	20	21	Passed		n/a	No
Pennsylvania	October 1996	Marriage	43	5	189	13	Signed	Yes
Texas	1997	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Mississippi	February 1997	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Washington	February 1997	Marriage	33	15	63	35	Vetoed	No
Maine	March 1997	Marriage	24	10	106	39	Not Signed	Yes
Florida	May 1997	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	33	5	97	19	Not Signed	Yes
Colorado	June 1997	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Vetoed	No
Washington	February 1998	Marriage	34	11	65	28	Vetoed 1	Yes
Alabama	May 1998	Marriage	30	0	79	12	Signed	Yes
Puerto Rico	March 1999	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
West Virginia	March 2000	Marriage	Passed		96	3	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	March 2000	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	n/a	n/a	128	232	n/a	No
Colorado	May 2000	Marriage	Passed		37	28	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	March 2001	Recognition of out-of-state civil union	n/a	n/a	88	276	n/a	No
Missouri	July 2001	Marriage	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
Texas	May 2003	Recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage and civil union	Passed		Passed		Signed	Yes
American Samoa	March 2003	Marriage	Failed		n/a	n/a	n/a	No
New Hampshire	March 2003	Recognition of out-of-state civil union	n/a	n/a	Failed		n/a	No
Wisconsin	November 2003	Marriage	22	10	68	29	Vetoed	No
Ohio	February 2004	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	72	22	18	15	Signed	Yes
New Hampshire	May 2004	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	16	7	215	137	Signed	Yes
Wyoming	February 2007	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	21	8	n/a	n/a	n/a	No
New Hampshire	March 2008	Recognition of out-of-state union	n/a	n/a	Failed		n/a	No
New Hampshire	March 2009	Civil union	n/a	n/a	136	205	n/a	No
New Hampshire	February 2010	Marriage	n/a	n/a	109	210	n/a	No
Wyoming	March 2011	Recognition of out-of-state marriage	14	16	31	28	n/a	No
New Hampshire	March 2012	Marriage	n/a	n/a	116	211	n/a	No

Notes:

• ¹Veto overridden.

Attempts to establish same-sex unions via initiative or statewide referendum

State	Intended date	Same-sex union	Description	Outcome
Maine	November 2012	Marriage	Initiative to establish same-sex marriage.	Yes
Ohio	November 2013	Marriage	Proposed constitutional amendment by initiative to remove ban and define marriage as "a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender".	Collecting
Oregon	November 2014	Marriage	Proposed constitutional amendment by initiative to remove ban and establish same-sex marriage.	Collecting
Arizona	November 2014	Marriage
Colorado	November 2014	Marriage
Michigan	November 2014	Marriage
Arkansas	November 2016	Marriage
South Dakota	TBD	Marriage

Efforts to ban same-sex unions by constitutional amendment

See also: List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type and U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

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 vote	No vote	Final outcome
1998:
Alaska	Ballot Measure 2	Marriage	November 1998	68% (152,965)	32% (71,631)	Yes
Hawaii	Constitutional Amendment 2	Marriage ban permitted	November 1998	69% (285,384)	31% (117,827)	Yes 1
2000:
Nebraska	Initiative Measure 416	Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership	November 2000	70% (450,073)	30% (189,555)	Yes 2
2002:
Nevada	Question 2	Marriage	November 2002	67% (337,183)	33% (164,555)	Yes
2004:
Arkansas	Constitutional Amendment 3	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	75% (753,770)	25% (251,914)	Yes
Georgia	Constitutional Amendment 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	76% (2,454,912)	24% (768,703)	Yes 3
Kentucky	Constitutional Amendment 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	75% (1,222,125)	25% (417,097)	Yes
Louisiana	Constitutional Amendment 1	Marriage and civil union	September 2004	78% (618,928)	22% (177,103)	Yes 4
Michigan	State Proposal - 04-2	Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership	November 2004	59% (2,698,077)	41% (1,904,319)	Yes
Mississippi	Amendment 1	Marriage	November 2004	86% (957,104)	14% (155,648)	Yes
Missouri	Constitutional Amendment 2	Marriage	August 2004	71% (1,055,771)	29% (439,529)	Yes
Montana	Initiative 96	Marriage	November 2004	67% (295,070)	33% (148,263)	Yes
North Dakota	Constitutional Measure 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	73% (223,572)	27% (81,716)	Yes
Ohio	State Issue 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	62% (3,329,335)	38% (2,065,462)	Yes
Oklahoma	State Question 711	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	76% (1,075,216)	24% (347,303)	Yes
Oregon	Measure 36	Marriage	November 2004	57% (1,028,546)	43% (787,556)	Yes
Utah	Constitutional Amendment 3	Marriage and civil union	November 2004	66% (593,297)	34% (307,488)	Yes
2005:
Kansas	Proposed amendment 1	Marriage and civil union	April 2005	70% (414,106)	30% (178,018)	Yes
Texas	Proposition 2	Marriage and civil union	November 2005	76% (1,718,513)	24% (536,052)	Yes
2006:
Alabama	Amendment 774	Marriage and civil union	June 2006	81% (734,746)	19% (170,399)	Yes
Arizona	Proposition 107	Marriage and civil union	November 2006	48% (721,489)	52% (775,498)	No
Colorado	Amendment 43	Marriage	November 2006	56% (768,700)	44% (612,155)	Yes
Idaho	Amendment 2	Marriage and civil union	November 2006	63% (281,823)	37% (163,191)	Yes
South Carolina	Amendment 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2006	78% (818,894)	22% (230,674)	Yes
South Dakota	Amendment C	Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership	November 2006	52% (172,237)	48% (160,756)	Yes
Tennessee	Amendment 1	Marriage	November 2006	81% (1,417,315)	19% (326,335)	Yes
Virginia	Marshall-Newman Amendment	Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership	November 2006	57% (1,325,668)	43% (1,003,967)	Yes
Wisconsin	Referendum 1	Marriage and civil union	November 2006	59% (1,260,554)	41% (861,554)	Yes
2008:
Arizona	Proposition 102	Marriage	November 2008	56% (1,258,355)	44% (980,753)	Yes
California	Proposition 8	Marriage	November 2008	52% (7,001,084)	48% (6,401,482)	Yes5
Florida	Amendment 2	Marriage and civil union	November 2008	62% (4,890,883)	38% (3,008,026)	Yes
2012:
North Carolina	Amendment 1	Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership	May 2012	61% (1,317,976)	39% (829,823)	Yes
Minnesota	Amendment 1	Marriage	November 2012	47% (1,399,676)	53% (1,549,676)	No

Notes:

• ¹ Does not explicitly define marriage, but allows the legislature to define marriage.

• ² Ban declared unconstitutional by Judge Joseph Bataillon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The ruling was appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis. That Court issued a ruling that re-instated the ban, declaring in part that it was a legitimate state interest.

• ³ 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.

• ⁴ 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.

• ⁵ Ban declared unconstitutional pending appeal on August 4, 2010, by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, former Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Recent, pending, or proposed attempts to constitutionally block same-sex unions

State	2000s	2010s	2013	Details
Delaware	2009			The proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage failed. It was known as Senate Bill 27.	Failed
Indiana	2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009	2010 2011		The Indiana senate voted 38-10 by Republican party lines for Senate Joint Resolution 13 to approve a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 that defines marriage as "1 man and 1 woman". The amendment died in the house of representatives. Since 2004, amendements have been proposed or voted on. The amendment died in the house. On February 15, 2011, the house approved a ban on civil unions and marriage (70-26). The bill passed the senate by a 40-10 vote. According to state law, the bill must be approved by the next, separately elected legislatures before voters are allowed to decide its fate. If approved by the next legislature, voters will see the measure on the 2014 ballot.
Iowa	2004 2005	2010 2011		After the Iowa Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in 2009, a backlash quickly developed that resulted in three of the justices losing their seats in the 2010 election. Additionally, Republicans took control of the state house and fell one seat short of taking over the state senate. For a proposed constitutional amendment to come before Iowa voters, it has to be approved in exactly the same form by two consecutive general assemblies.	Failed
Minnesota	2004 2005 2006 2007 2009	2011		A bill was sponsored in 2009 but failed to be brought up for a vote. An amendment was introduced again in 2011. The house and senate bills passed. Both are referred to other area. The bill would have been approved by majority by both the senate and house by May 23, 2011. On May 11, 2011, the senate passed the bill 38-27. On May 22, 2011, an amendment was passed by the house by a vote of 70-62 and will be on the ballot in November 2012.	Rejected in referendum
New Hampshire	2006 2007	2010		On February 17, 2010, a proposed constitutional amendment failed in the house by a 201-135 margin. Constitutional amendments in New Hampshire require two-thirds approval from voters.	Failed
New Jersey	2006 2007 2008	2010		Bills to place an amendment on the ballot have all failed in the house or senate Judiciary Committee.	Failed
New Mexico	2007 2008 2009	2010 2011	2013	The New Mexico legislature considered four bills to restrict in-state same-sex marriage in 2011 and all were killed by a house committee on February 18, 2011. A similar bill was killed on February 5, 2013.	Failed
Pennsylvania	2006 2008 2009	2010 2011	2013	A joint resolution was introduced in the house of representatives with record low sponsorship on May 8, 2013. The bill would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. Pennsylvania would become the first northeastern state with a marriage amendment. According to state law, the bill must be approved by the next, separately elected legislature before voters are allowed to decide its fate. If approved by the next legislature, voters will see the measure on the ballot in 2015.
West Virginia	2009	2010 2011		West Virginia senate lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment for the 2010 ballot that would have defined marriage as "a union between and man and a woman". The amendment was defeated. Another proposition was introduced in January 2011 but failed to advance.	Failed
Wyoming	2009	2011		In 2009, the house of representatives considered an amendment to the state constitution, House Joint Resolution 17 (also known as the "Defense of Marriage" resolution), defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The measure was defeated in the house on February 6, with 35 votes against and 25 in favor. On January 27, 2011, the senate approved an amendment, but it died in the house.	Failed

Efforts to ban same-sex unions 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 vote	No vote	Description	Final outcome
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.1	Yes but ruled unconstitutional.2

Notes:

• ¹ There is a debate as to whether the adoption of Prop 22 only prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

• ² 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.

Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans

The following consists of votes by state Supreme Court initiatives that allowed same-sex marriages or partnerships or uphold bans on same-sex marriages:

State	Case	Date	Vote for	Vote against	Description	Restrictions unconstitutional?	Final outcome
Minnesota	Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson	October 15, 1971	0	7	Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but dismissed on October 10, 1972.	No	No
Kentucky	Jones v. Callahan	November 9, 1973	0	7	Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that Kentucky's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples.	No	No
Washington	Singer v. Hara	October 1974	Failed		Washington Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license by their county clerk. Washington Court of Appeals's decision stating that state marriage statutes only applied to opposite-sex couples upheld.	No	No
District of Columbia	Dean v. District of Columbia'	January 1995	0	9	District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that District's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples.	No	No
Hawaii	Baehr v. Miike	December 9, 1999	0	5	Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on May 5, 1993, in a 3 in favor to 1 against decision, that state must provide a compelling interest to restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Remanded case to lower courts for trial on the subject. On December 3, 1996, Judge Chang ruled that the state had not established any compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry and that, even if it had, it failed to prove that the Hawaii statute was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He enjoined the state from refusing to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal. Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment.	No	No
Vermont	Baker v. Vermont	December 20, 1999	5	0	Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days.	Yes	Legalized civil unions in Vermont by Vermont General Assembly
Alaska	Brause v. Alaska Dept of Health & Social Services	April 17, 2001	0	5	Alaska Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment.	No	No
Massachusetts	Goodridge v. Department of Public Health	November 18, 2003	4	3	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 180 days.	Yes	Legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004
Arizona	Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner v. State of Arizon	May 2004	Failed		Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Arizona Appellate Court ruling upholding statutory marriage ban.	No	No
Louisiana	Forum for Equality v McKeithen	January 19, 2005	0	7	District Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Louisiana Supreme Court however upheld the constitutional amendment.	No	No
Oregon	Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy et al. v. State of Oregon et al.	April 2005	0	7	Oregon Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.	No	No
New York	Hernandez v. Robles	July 6, 2006	2	4	New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's marriage statute did not allow same-sex marriage, and that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.	No	No
Georgia	Perdue v. O'Kelley	July 7, 2006	0	7	On May 16, 2006, Constance C. Russell of Fulton County Superior Court struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Georgia Supreme Court however upheld the constitutional amendment.	No	No
Washington	Andersen v. King County	July 26, 2006	4	5	Washington Supreme Court upholds Washington's statute banning same-sex marriage.	No	No
New Jersey	Lewis v. Harris	October 25, 2006	7	0	New Jersey Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days.	Yes	Legalized civil unions in New Jersey by New Jersey General Assembly
Maryland	Conaway v. Deane & Polyak	September 2007	3	4	Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's statute banning same-sex marriage.	No	No
Michigan	Pride at Work v. Granholm	May 7, 2008	5	2	Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions also applies to domestic partner benefits.	No	Constitution of Michigan prohibits domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples
California	In re Marriage Cases	May 15, 2008	4	3	California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 22 and rules that in 30 days, same-sex marriages must be legal.	Yes	Same-sex marriage licenses issued in California from June 17, 2008 to November 5, 2008  On November 5, 2008, Proposition 8 goes into effect banning same-sex marriage in the Constitution of California
Connecticut	Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health	October 10, 2008	4	3	Connecticut Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 30 days.	Yes	Legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut on November 12, 2008
Iowa	Varnum v. Brien	April 2009	7	0	Iowa Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 27 days.	Yes	Legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa on April 27, 2009
California	Strauss v. Horton	May 26, 2009	1	6	California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, however same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008 are also upheld.	No	California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, however same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008 are also upheld.
New York	Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service	November 2009	3	2	The case challenging the recognition of same-sex marriages in the state of New York was heard by New York Court of Appeals and upheld the rights that came with the recognition of same-sex marriages.	Recognition upheld	Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad.
Wisconsin	McConkey v. Van Hollen	June 30, 2010	0	7	Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds constitutional amendment.	No	No
Wyoming	Christiansen v. Christiansen	June 2011	Allowed		Wyoming Supreme Court allows two Wyoming residents to dissolve a legal relationship created under the laws of Canada.	Yes	Couple can divorce in Wyoming
Maryland	McConkey v. Van Hollen	May 18, 2012	7	0	Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's recognize same-sex marriage.	Recognition upheld	Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad.
Wisconsin	Appling v. Doyle	December 20, 2012	Failed		On November 4, 2009, Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to Wisconsin's domestic partnership. On June 20, 2011, the Circuit court Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry does not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage". On December 21, 2012, District 4 Court of Appeals affirms Judge Moeser's decision in a unanimous ruling.	Recognition upheld	Wisconsin's domestic partnership law is upheld.
Montana	Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana	December 2012	3	4	Montana Supreme Court has sided with a lower court judge who dismissed this case previously. The gay couples weren't asking for the same statutory scheme available to opposite-sex couples (inheritance rights, health care decisions and children’s custody). However the High Court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.	No	Pending (Ongoing in the Lewis and Clark County District Court)
Hawaii	Jackson v. Abercrombie	Pending			One same sex couple from Honolulu are suing the state of Hawaii for the right to marry after being told they could not file for a marriage license by the state health department. On August 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge Alan C. Kay ruled against the two women, who said they will appeal.	Pending
Illinois	Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr	Pending			Sixteen same sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the state law which prohibits same-sex couples from marriage.	Pending
Michigan	DeBoer v. Snyder	Pending			Two lesbians, both nurses, who are raising three children adopted by only one of them, filed a lawsuit in federal court in January 2012 seeking to have the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples overturned. At an August hearing on the state's motion to dismiss the suit, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman called the state's ban on same-sex marriage "the underlying issue" and gave the plaintiffs ten days amend their suit to challenge that as well, which they did on September 7. On March 7, 2013, after hearing arguments in the case, DeBoer v. Snyder, Friedman announced that he would delay ruling pending the outcome of two same-sex marriage cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court.	Pending
New Mexico	Griego v. Oliver	Pending			On 21 March 2013 ACLU filed a lawsuit in the Albuquerque District court on behalf of two New Mexico couples who are seeking the right to marry.	Pending
Texas	In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.	Pending			County judge ruled statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in violation of the US constitution; appealed to 5th Texas Court of Appeals. The court says Texas's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. The Fifth Circuit denied en banc review. J.B. sought review from the Texas Supreme Court in February 2011 and that court requested briefs in October. The appeal was still pending in December 2012.	Pending
Texas	State of Texas v. Angelique S. Naylor and Sabina Daly	Pending			On January 7, 2011, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin in the case of State of Texas v. Angelique S. Naylor and Sabina Daly rejected, on procedural grounds, the Texas attorney general's appeal of a divorce granted by a lower court to a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. The appeal was still pending in December 2012.	Pending

See also

• Same-sex marriage in the United States
• Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
• Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
• Same-sex union legislation