Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) |
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.
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. Five years after the Loving decision, however, the Court summarily dismissed an appeal by two men who unsuccessfully challenged Minnesota’s marriage statutes. Because the case, Baker v. Nelson, came to the Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal established the case as a binding precedent.[1]
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.[2]
[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 |
|||
 Vermont |
April 1994 | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship | 27 | 14 | 87 | 42 | Signed | Yes |
 California |
September 1994 | Domestic Partnership (limited)[3] | 21 | 17 | 41 | 26 | Vetoed |  No[4] |
 Hawaii |
March 1996 | Domestic Partnership (limited)[5] | 14 | 11 | Failed | - | No |
|
| Hawaii |
June 1997 | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship | 24 | 7 | 43 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| California |
September 1999 | Domestic Partnership (limited) | 22 | 14 | 41 | 36 | Signed | Yes [4] |
| Vermont |
April 2000 | Civil Union | 19 | 11 | 79 | 68 | Signed | Yes |
| California |
October 2001 | Domestic Partnership (expansion) | 23 | 11 | 41 | 32 | Signed | Yes [5] |
| California |
September 2003 | Domestic Partnership (expansion) | 23 | 14 | 41 | 33 | Signed | Yes [6] |
 New Jersey |
January 2004 | Domestic Partnership (limited) | 23 | 9 | 41 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
 Maine |
April 2004 | Domestic Partnership (limited) | 19 | 14 | 84 | 58 | Signed | Yes |
 Utah |
February 2005 | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship | 10 | 18 | - | - | - | No |
 Connecticut |
April 2005 | Civil Union | 27 | 9 | 85 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
 Maryland |
May 2005 | Domestic Partnership (limited) | 31 | 16 | 83 | 50 | Vetoed | No [7] |
| California |
June 2005 | Same-Sex Marriage | - | - | 37 | 36 | - | No [8] |
 Oregon |
July 2005 | Civil Union | 19 | 10 | - | - | - | No [9] |
| California |
September 2005 | Same-Sex Marriage | 21 | 15 | 41 | 35 | Vetoed | No [10] |
| District of Columbia |
April 2006 | Domestic Partnership (expansion) | Passed [11] | Signed [12] | Yes |
|||
 Colorado |
November 2006 | Domestic Partnership | Statewide Voter Referendum (47% to 53%) | No |
||||
| New Jersey |
December 2006 | Civil Union[6] | 23 | 12 | 56 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
 Washington |
April 2007 | Domestic Partnership (limited)[7] | 28 | 19 | 63 | 35 | Signed | Yes |
| Oregon |
May 2007 | Domestic Partnership[8] | 21 | 9 | 34 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
 New Hampshire |
May 2007 | Civil Union | 14 | 10 | 243 | 129 | Signed | Yes |
 New York |
June 2007 | Same-Sex Marriage[9] | - | - | 85 | 61 | - | No |
| California |
September 2007 | Same-Sex Marriage | 22 | 15 | 42 | 34 | Vetoed | No [13] |
 New Mexico |
January 2008 | Domestic Partnership[10] | - | - | 33 | 31 | - | No |
| Washington |
March 2008 | Domestic Partnership (expansion)[11] | 29 | 20 | 62 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland |
May 2008 | Domestic Partnership (limited) | 39 | 19 | 44 | 39 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia |
May 2008 | Domestic Partnership (expansion)[12] | Passed [14] | Signed [15] | Yes |
|||
 Massachusetts |
July 2008 | 1913 law (repealed)[13] | Passed | 118 | 35 | Signed | Yes |
|
| New Mexico |
February 2009 | Domestic Partnership[14] | 17 | 25 | - | - | - | No [16] |
| Hawaii |
March 2009 | Civil Union[15] | - | - | 33 | 17 | - | No |
| Vermont |
April 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[16] | 23 | 5 | 100 | 49 | Vetoed | Veto overridden |
 Montana |
April 2009 | Domestic partnership (limited)[17] | - | - | Failed | - | No |
|
| Colorado |
April 2009 | Designated Beneficiary Relationship | 23 | 10 | 41 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| Connecticut |
April 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[18] | 28 | 7 | 100 | 44 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine |
May 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[19] | 21 | 14 | 89 | 58 | Signed | People's Veto |
| District of Columbia |
May 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage (recognition only)[20] |
Passed [17] | Signed [18] | Yes |
|||
| Washington |
May 2009 | Domestic Partnership (expansion)[21] | 30 | 18 | 62 | 35 | Signed | Yes, upheld by voters |
 Nevada |
May 2009 | Domestic Partnership[22] | 14 | 7 | 28 | 14 | Vetoed | Veto overridden |
| New Hampshire |
June 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[23] | 14 | 10 | 198 | 176 | Signed | Yes |
 Wisconsin |
June 2009 | Domestic Partnership (limited)[24] | 17 | 16 | 50 | 48 | Signed | Yes |
| California |
October 2009 | Foreign Pre-Prop 8 marriage recognition[19][25][dead link] |
24 | 14 | 44 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| New York |
December 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[26] | 24 | 38 | 89 | 52 | - | No |
| District of Columbia |
December 2009 | Same-Sex Marriage[27] | n/a | 11 | 2 | Signed [28] | Awaiting a 30 day Congress review period [20] | |
 Rhode Island |
January 2010 | Domestic Partnership (only 1 entitlement)[29] | 31 | 3 | 67 | 3 | Vetoed | Veto overridden |
| New Jersey |
January 2010 | Same-Sex Marriage[30] | Pending | - | - | - | ||
 Illinois |
January 2010 | Same-Sex Marriage[31] | Pending | - | - | - | ||
 Guam |
January 2010 | Civil Union | Pending | - | ||||
| Guam |
January 2010 | Designated Beneficiary Agreement[32][dead link] | Pending | - | ||||
 Pennsylvania |
January 2010 | Same-Sex Marriage[33] | Proposed[34] | - | - | - | ||
| Rhode Island |
January 2010 | Same-Sex Marriage[35] | Proposed | - | - | - | ||
| Rhode Island |
January 2010 | Designated Beneficiary Agreement [21] | Proposed | - | - | - | ||
| New Mexico |
January 2010 | Domestic partnership[36] | Proposed | - | - | - | ||
| Hawaii |
March 2010 | Civil union [37][dead link] | Proposed | - | - | - | ||
 Michigan |
May 2010 | Same-Sex Marriage[38] | Proposed | - | - | - | ||
- ^ 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.
- ^ Would recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad before the passage of Proposition 8; recognize marriages performed abroad after Proposition 8 without the designation of "marriage".
[edit] Attempts to establish same-sex unions via initiative or statewide referendum
| State | Intended date | Same-sex union | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado |
November 2006 | Domestic partnership | In 2006, an amendment that would have established domestic partnerships in Colorado was placed on the ballot after a vote from both houses. It was defeated 47% in favor to 53% opposed on election day. | No |
| Washington |
November 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) |
In November 2009, Washington voted to uphold an "Everything but Marriage" expansion to the domestic partnership law. It passed narrowly with 53% in favor and 47% opposed. | Yes |
| Maine |
November 2009 | Marriage | In November 2009, Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law that had been passed by the legislature.[39] | No |
| Michigan |
November 2010 | Marriage | Citing a recent poll that showed an overwhelming growth in support towards same-sex marriage, Pam Byrnes of the Michigan house has proposed a bill that would submit a statewide question on the 2010 ballot asking voters to amend the constitution to legalize same-sex marriage.[38] | Pending |
 Arizona |
November 2010 | Civil union | Supporters of same-sex civil unions are currently gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment implanting such to be placed on the 2010 ballot.[40] |  |
| Colorado |
November 2010 | Marriage | A signature drive is underway to push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between "two consenting, unrelated adults."[41] | |
| Colorado |
November 2010 | Civil union | A signature drive is also underway for an amendment implanting civil unions, which is currently receiving more progress.[citation needed] | |
 Ohio |
November 2010 | Marriage | A resolution that would repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed by voters in 2004 has been proposed in the house. Despite a strong possibility of passing the House, the Republican-dominated Senate, which put an anti-discrimination bill into deadlock earlier this year, is not expected to support such a measure.[42] | |
| California |
November 2010, 2012 | Marriage | Gay rights groups currently debate whether to push for a repeal of Proposition 8 for the 2010 or 2012 election. The front linter group, Equality California, has announced that they intend to wait until 2012. | Proposed |
| Oregon |
November 2012 | Marriage | Supporters of same-sex marriage are considering placing a reversal of Measure 36 on the 2012 ballot.[43] | Proposed |
[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 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 [22] |
| 2000: | ||||||
 Nebraska |
Initiative Measure 416 | Marriage and civil union and domestic partnership |
November 2000 | 70% (450,073) | 30% (189,555) | Yes [23] |
| 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 |
.svg){kind=small} Georgia |
Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union |
November 2004 | 76% (2,454,912) | 24% (768,703) | Yes [24] |
 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 [25] |
| Michigan |
State Proposal - 04-2 | Marriage and 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 |
Sanctity of Marriage Amendment | 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 and 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 and 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 |
Propositions 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) | Yes |
 Florida |
Amendment 2 | Marriage and civil union |
November 2008 | 62% (4,890,883) | 38% (3,008,026) | Yes |
[edit] Recent, pending, or proposed attempts to constitutionally block same-sex unions
| 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.[44] | Not considered |
 Iowa |
A bill failed to advance and was not considered [26]. | Not considered |
| Maryland |
A bill failed to advance as of February 2009. |  Dormant |
 North Carolina |
A bill was sponsored in February 2009, though failed to make it through legislative committee.[45][46] | Failed in committee |
 Wyoming |
In February 2009, a bill was voted down. | Voted down |
 Minnesota |
A bill was sponsored in 2009, but failed to be brought up for a vote.[47] | Not considered |
 Delaware |
A bill was voted down in March 2009. | Voted down |
| Washington |
A bill was introduced in 2009, though as of July 2009, has failed to advance.[48] | 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.[49] | Voted down |
| Pennsylvania |
The state Senate committee is considering a 2009 amendment proposal introduce in June 2009[50] | Dormant |
 West Virginia |
Senate discusses a proposal that would allow West Virginians to vote for a statewide constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[51] |
Pending |
| New Jersey |
New Jersey Republicans have proposed sending a constitutional amendment on the 2010 amendment, though this has been vehemently opposed by Democrats.[52] | Pending |
| New Hampshire |
New Hampshire Republicans drafted a bill to repeal the same-sex marriage law.[53] | Pending |
- ^ 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.[54] The ruling was appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis.[55] That Court issued a ruling that re-instated the ban, declaring in part that it was a legitimate state interest.[56][dead link]
- ^ 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.[57]
- ^ 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.[58][59][dead link]
[edit] Efforts to define marriage or other partnerships 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.[60][27] | Yes but ruled unconstitutional [28] |
| Colorado |
November 2006 | 47% (641,443) | 53% (727,433) | Colorado Referendum I (2006) : To allow same-sex couples to register as "domestic partners".[61] |
No |
| Maine |
November 2009 | 53% (299,021) | 47% (265,076) | Maine Question 1 (2009) : In November 2009, Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law that had been passed by the legislature.[39] |
No |
| Washington |
November 2009 | 53.2% (950,000) | 46.8% (804,032) | Referendum 71 (2009) : A veto has qualified for the November 2009 ballot and thus would overturn the domestic partnership expansion. |
Yes |
- ^ 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] Efforts to define marriage or other partnerships by state Supreme Court decisions
 |
This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (October 2009) |
The following consists of votes by state Supreme Court initiatives that allowed same-sex marriages or partnerships or even uphold bans on same-sex marriages:
| State | Date | Vote for | Vote against | Description | Restrictions unconstitutional? | Final outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota |
October 1971 | 0 | 7 | Court ruled that statutory ban on same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional. | No |
No |
| Hawaii |
December 1997 | 3 | 2 | Court ruled that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage was in violation of the state constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Ruling was stayed by the court the next day and later overturned via ballot measure. | Yes |
No |
| Vermont |
December 1999 | 5 | 0 | Same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. | Yes |
Civil unions |
| Massachusetts |
November 2003 | 4 | 3 | Court said that same-sex marriages must be legal in 180 days. | Yes |
Marriage |
| New York |
July 2006 | 2 | 4 | Court said that the ban on same-sex marriages is upheld. | No |
No |
| Washington |
July 2006 | 4 | 5 | Court said that the ban on same-sex marriages is upheld. | No |
No |
| New Jersey |
October 2006 | 4 | 3 | Same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. | Yes |
Civil union |
| Maryland |
September 2007 | 3 | 4 | Court said that the ban on same-sex marriages is upheld. | No |
No |
| California |
May 2008 | 4 | 3 | In 30 days same-sex marriages must be legal. | Yes |
Marriage; repealed |
| Connecticut |
October 2008 | 4 | 3 | In 30 days same-sex marriages must be legal. | Yes |
Marriage |
| Iowa |
April 2009 | 7 | 0 | In 27 days same-sex marriages must be legal. | Yes |
Marriage |
| California |
May 2009 | 1 | 6 | Consitutional amendment upheld - however the 18,000 same-sex marriages are also upheld. | No |
- |
| Texas |
2010 | Pending | County judge ruled statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in violation of the US constitution; appealed to Supreme Court. On another note the statutory commission of Texas as quoted that; "all marriages are offically banned according to the Texas Constitution because the ban is very broard, covers all areas of how the law recognises relationships and does not contain any loopholes due to how and the way it was written". | /TBD |
TBD | |
| New York |
2010 | 3-2/TBD | The first case challenging the recognition of same-sex marriages in the state of New York was heard and upheld the rights that came with the recognition of same-sex marriages. The second case will be heard in front of the Court of Appeals, which begins its next session on 13 December 2009. | Recognition upheld/TBD |
Continuing the recognition of same sex marriages aboard/TBD |
|
| Wisconsin |
Summer 2010 | Pending | The Wisconsin supreme court is currently hearing arguments in a case that charges the 2006 referendum that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions was unconstitutional.[62] | TBD | TBD | |
[edit] 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 marriage legislation around the world
[edit] References
- ^ Project, Developments in the Law: The Constitution and the Family, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1156, 1274 (1980) (discussing Baker's posture as precedent); see, e.g. Pamela R. Winnick, Comment, The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda, 76 Colum. L. Rev. 508, 511 (1976); Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
- ^ Kravets, David (2006-04-02). "Two paths toward one goal: same-sex marriage". Associated Press. Gay and Lesbian Times. http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=7091. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ "Senate OKs Bill on Rights for Unwed Couples". PQSAB. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/59581689.html?dids=59581689:59581689&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+24%2C+1994&author=CARL+INGRAM&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Senate+OKs+Bill+on+Rights+for+Unwed+Couples&pqatl=google. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ "Wilson: no to domestic partnership bill". Newsbank. (September 12, 1994). http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SB&p_theme=sb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0DAE9F8A5FB1D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ "Gay marriages get thumps up in state senate". Google News. (March 6, 1996). http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e7wRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2906,3197079&dq=domestic-partnerships+hawaii. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Cloyd, Wendy ((December 15, 2006)). "New Jersey Legislature Adopts Civil Unions". Citizen Link. http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000003440.cfm. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "Washington State Passes Domestic Partnership Bill". US Politics. (April 12, 2007). http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/04/12/washington-state-passes-domestic-partnership-bill.htm7. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Sklar, Roberta ((May 2, 2007)). "Task Force hails Oregon Senate passage of domestic partnership legislation covering same-sex couples". The Task Force. http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prOR_050207. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "New York governor to propose legalizing same-sex marriage". CNN. (April 14, 2009). http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/ny.same.sex.marriage/index.html. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Sklar, Roberta ((February 21, 2008)). "Task Force Action Fund denounces New Mexico Senate’s rejection of comprehensive domestic partnership bill". The Task Force. http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/PR_022108. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Luna, Brad ((March 13, 2008)). "WA domestic partnership expansion bill signed into law". Free Press. http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/7/2008/3048. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Jantzen, M. V. ((May 16, 2008)). "D.C. Council Passes Domestic Partner Law Expansion". DCist. http://dcist.com/2008/05/dc_council_pass.php. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Jacobs, Ethan ((July 28, 2008)). "Victory! House passes 1913 law repeal in roll call vote". Bay Windows. http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=77951. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Terrell, Steven ((February 26, 2009)). "Domestic partnership bill fails in Senate". Santa Fe New Mexican. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Domestic-partnership-bill-fails-in-Senate. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "Civil Unions Bill Killed in Hawaii State Senate". Lez Get Real. http://lezgetreal.com/?p=7042. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Abel, David ((April 8, 2009)). "Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/08/vermont_legalizes_same_sex_marriage/. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Russell, Lauren ((April 9, 2009)). "Equality in Montana should be a right". Montana Kaimin. http://www.montanakaimin.com/index.php/opinion/opinion_article/equality_in_montana_should_be_a_right/3667. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Matthews, Chase ((April 23, 2009)). "Connecticut Gov. signs gay marriage into law". Chicago Pride. http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/7272400. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Goodnough, Abby ((May 5, 2009)). "Gay Marriage Advances in Maine". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/06marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Craig, Tim ((May 5, 2009)). "Uproar in D.C. as Same-Sex Marriage Gains". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050501618.html. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "Washington Expands Domestic Partnerships, Offers Almost-Marriage". Family Fairness. (April 16, 2009). http://familyfairness.org/blog/news/washington-expands-domestic-partnerships-offers-almost-marriage/. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "Nevada legalizing domestic partnerships". CNN. (May 31, 2009). http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/31/nevada.domestic.partnerships/index.html. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Love, Norma ((June 3, 2009)). "Gay Marriage: New Hampshire Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/gay-marriage-new-hampshir_0_n_211063.html. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Burroway, Jim ((June 17, 2009)). "Wisconsin Senate Approves Domestic Partnerships". Box Turtle Bulletin. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/17/12265. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "States Assembly approves law clarifying rights of same-sex couples married outside of California". Out in Hollywood. http://www.outinhollywood.com/home/news.asp?articleid=33591. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Honan, Edith (December 2, 2009). "NY Senate votes down gay marriage bill 38-24". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN023732820091202.
- ^ Gresko, Jessica (December 15, 2009). "DC City Council Votes To Legalize Gay Marriage". WSB-TV. Associated Press. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21972319/detail.html?treets=atl&tml=atl_natlbreak&ts=T&tmi=atl_natlbreak_1_01490112152009.
- ^ "Washington, D.C. Mayor Signs Law Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage". RTTNews. December 18, 2009. http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1161824.
- ^ RI Lawmakers Back Funeral Rights For Gays
- ^ "Gay marriage bill up for vote in NJ next week". Google. Associated Press. December 3, 2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h7ATCN30hf4tBjDjBy0Nddn9QaHwD9CC1FVO0.
- ^ "Bill Status of SB2468". Illinois General Assembly. (October 14, 2009). http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2468&GAID=10&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=48572&SessionID=76&GA=96. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ Hauswirth, Heather ((August 17, 2009)). "New proposed legislation for civil unions criticized". Kuam. http://www.kuam.com/bm/news/new-proposed-legislation-for-civil-unions-criticiz.shtml?15515. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Scott, Jason ((June 13, 2009)). "Gay marriage up for debate". Cumberlink. http://cumberlink.com/articles/2009/06/14/news/local/doc4a349052762db249620833.txt. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Colletta, Jen. "PA marriage bill gets another cosponsor". Philadelphia Gay News. 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. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Moroney, John ((June 6, 2009)). "Gay marriage debate heats up in Rhode Island". NECN. http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/06/05/Gay-marriage-debate-heats-up/1244236681.html. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ "Governor's last try for gay equality". KOB. (September 9, 2009). http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1166502.shtml?cat=517. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/default.asp
- ^ a b "Gay marriage rights lost in Maine, local fight persists". The State News. (November 5, 2009). http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/11/gay_marriage_rights_lost_in_maine_local_fight_persists/. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
- ^ a b Miller, Kevin; Harrison, Judy (November 4, 2009). "Gay marriage repealed in Maine". Bangor Daily News. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html.
- ^ Liles, Robert ((August 19, 2009)). "It's a jump to the left: civil unions, other 2010 ballot initiatives need signatures now". Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/x-13562-Phoenix-GLBT-Events-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Its-a-jump-to-the-left-civil-unions-other-2010-ballot-initiatives-need-signatures-now. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ "Straight man promotes Gay Marriage In Colorado". 365Gay. (February 10, 2009). http://www.365gay.com/news/straight-man-promotes-gay-marriage-in-colorado/. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Mangum, Christopher (November 11, 2009). "Repealing Ohio’s Marriage Ban". The Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/11/Repealing_Ohio_Marriage_Ban.
- ^ Stone, Michael ((April 11, 2009)). "Same sex marriage in 2012 for Oregon". Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m4d11-Same-sex-marriage-in-2012-for-Oregon. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Johnson, Chris ((February 18, 2009)). "Anti-Marriage Amendment Stopped in Indiana Legislature". Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/02/anti-marriage-amendment-stopped-in-indiana-legislature/. Retrieved 2009-02-26.
- ^ "Gay marriage debate not simple". WRAL. 2009-05-28. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5229045/. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ Boniti, Loretta ((February 24, 2009)). "NC lawmaker proposes ban on gay marriage". News 14 Carolina. http://news14.com/charlotte-news-104-content/politics/605506/nc-lawmaker-proposes-ban-on-gay-marriage/. Retrieved 2009-02-26.
- ^ Duchschere, Kevin; von Sternberg, Bob ((March 18, 2009)). "Gay marriage ban is back on agenda at Capitol". Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/41366017.html. Retrieved 2009-03-31.
- ^ "HJR 4204 - 2009-10". Washington State Legislature. (January 30, 2009). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=4204&year=2009. Retrieved 2009-02-15.
- ^ W., Allison. "Good News for Gay Puerto Rico". Puerto Rico Lifestyle Magazine. http://www.puertoricolifestyle.com/arts/1426-gay-puerto-rico.php. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ "Bill would prohibit same-sex marriage". Post Gazette. (May 19, 2009). http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09139/971068-454.stm. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Saxton, Michelle ((July 15, 2009)). "Leaders' views on gay marriage proposal at odds". Dailymail. http://www.dailymail.com/News/statehouse/200907140765. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
- ^ Fuchs, Mary (September 29, 2009). "GOP wants public to vote on marriage". The Star-Ledger. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1254186913280920.xml&coll=1.
- ^ Keen, Lisa (11 November 2009). "The state of gay marriage: NY, NJ, NH, Ore., Mich. and DC". 365Gay. http://www.365gay.com/news/the-state-of-gay-marriage-ny-nj-nh-ore-mich-and-dc/.
- ^ Curry, Tom (2005-05-12). "Judge strikes down Nebraska gay marriage ban". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ Baur, Scott (2005-06-10). "Appeal filed to restore Nebraska’s prohibition of same-sex marriage". Lawrence Journal-World. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jun/10/nebraska_samesex/?kansas_legislature%20LJWorld.com. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ Washington Post
- ^ "Marriage unanimously affirmed in Louisiana". Alliance Defense Fund. 2005-01-19. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3297. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ "Georgia governor vows special session if gay marriage appeal slows". WIS News 10. 2006-05-17. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4920141. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/MF.gay.marriage.ap/
- ^ Full Results
- ^ "Colorado Referendum I full results". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CO/index.html. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
- ^ Mangum, Christopher ((November 4, 2009)). "Wis. Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case". Advocate. http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/03/Wisn_Supreme_Court_Hears_Gay_Marriage_Case/. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
