Same-sex marriage in the United States

Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. In its legal connotation, marriage confers rights, privileges and responsibilities upon both spouses. Without access to these, homosexuals in long-term relationships sometimes encounter difficulty with the following: visiting a partner in the hospital, accessing to many private companies' health insurance plans, immigrating a foreign partner, and inheriting from a partner if the partner does not have a will.

The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s. As of June 2006 in the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Vermont grant persons in same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in a civil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.

Twenty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. On May 18 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed in committee by a party line vote. The measure was subsequently debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006.

The framing of the debate around marriage in the United States may have been partly responsible for the defeat of a number of measures by sparking opposition from many conservative and religious groups. For example, in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger says he supports full legal protection for gay couples - but that the issue of gay marriage is best decided by the people or in the courts. In Europe, governments have dealt with the same issue by legislating for civil unions.

The legal implications of the debate extend beyond the lesbian and gay population in that that some self-identified heterosexual couples have been found to be legally of the same-sex in court due to genetics as the result of birth defect, intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery. In Texas, Florida, Ohio and and Kansas, couples where one partner was a post-op transexual have had their marriages voided by laws that ban same-sex marriage.

The 2004 presidential election

In the 2004 presidential election campaign, legal recognition of same-sex unions became a major issue. Incumbent George W. Bush, the Republican Party candidate supported banning marriages between those of the same-sex on a federal level, through the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), while supporting state-sanctioned civil unions, reciprocal benefits, or domestic partnerships. However, this amendment would have nulled state-recognized marriages in Massachusetts. Challenger John F. Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate took a similar position supporting the ban of marriages between same-sex couples on a state level while supporting civil unions, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnerships. However, Kerry opposed the FMA. It should be noted that many legal scholars believe that the FMA would render civil unions unconstitutional as well.

President George W. Bush disagrees with that specific part of the party platform, calling it “wrong.”. During the 2004 Republican National Convention GOP platform called for a ban on all forms of legal recognition of same-sex unions. After his re-election, President Bush indicated to the Washington Post that he saw little prospect for Congressional passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution banning marriages between same-sex couples unless the Defense of Marriage Act were ruled unconstitutional.

Strong opposition to gay marriage was likely a major factor in helping Bush get re-elected, especially since Kerry was from Massachusetts, the state where gay marriage had just been legalized. Several states passed constitutional amendments against gay marriage on election day, most notably Ohio, which was the deciding state in the presidential race. The gay marriage issue probably either swung enough undecided voters in favor of Bush to secure his victory, or enhanced turnout among conservative voters who were encouraged to go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. When they did so, they also cast a vote for Bush. This is contested by some as there was not complete correlation between Bush voters and opposers of gay marriage. In some states Bush got more votes than the ban on same-sex marriage, indicating some of those who voted for him also voted against banning same-sex marriage. And the number of voters citing moral values as a deciding issue in their vote remained the same as in the 2000 according to exit polls.

The debate

Gay rights organizations

Evan Wolfson, the director of the Freedom to Marry coalition, contends that banning gay and bisexual Americans from legally marrying the one they romantically love constitutes "discrimination." He states that same-sex marriage would promote equality and fairness among all Americans by allowing same-sex couples to have the same legal protections as afforded to married, opposite-sex couples.

Gay families also deserve health care, retirement protections, the ability to use scarcely needed funds to afford education or a home and the ability to give kids the security to openly and proudly describe their families. This would make our nation stronger.

Conservative publications

A writer of The Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, blames same-sex marriage in the Netherlands for an increase in parental cohabitation contracts. He asserts that same-sex marriage has detached procreation from marriage in the Dutch mind and would likely do the same in the United States.

Using anecdotal evidence, such as a Dutch man and two women who entered a cohabitation agreement together, and a small Unitarian Church group that advocates polygamy, Stanley states that allowing a monogamous same-sex marriage will create a social disorder that will eventually lead to polygamy.

...the American media are correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted the innovation (same-sex marriage). The press has simply missed the meaning of that public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means that marriage as an institution has been detached from parenthood in the public mind. That is why the practice of parental cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding (cohabitation) story shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is now a real possibility.

Liberal publications

Christopher Ott, a reporter for The Progressive, has characterized the social conservatives' predictions of legalized polygamy in states such as Massachusetts that have same-sex marriage as false. He confronts the common argument that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and stating that it did not devalue the electoral process. Ott describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.

...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?

Groups supporting and opposing gay marriage

It is supported by an assortment of groups and individuals. Those supporting same-sex marriage include the Human Rights Campaign; the late Coretta Scott King; the mayors of several large cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Seattle, and New York; the American Civil Liberties Union; the American Psychiatric Association; Reform Judaism; the United Church of Christ; and the Unitarian Universalist religion. Several political parties such as the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, U.S. Green Party, the United States Libertarian Party and several state Democratic Parties also support gay marriage.

Those supporting the creation of a separate but equal legal status for same-sex couples in the form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation include some state governors such as those of Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Connecticut, the national Democratic Party. Some also support enacting reciprocal beneficiary legislation that would give some of the same legal rights as marriage but not all. They include the state governor of Utah, and Focus on the Family.

Groups that oppose giving a legal status to same-sex-marriages include the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Hutterite Brethren, the Conservative Mennonite Conference the Evangelical Methodist Church, Unification Church, the Moral Majority, the Christian Voice, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Orthodox Church in America, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), the Church of God (Anderson, IN), the Republican Party, and the Roman Catholic Church.

Popular opinion

Advocates of same-sex marriage generally hold that marriage and its benefits should not be denied to same-sex couples, and that such a denial infringes one or more of their rights as American citizens. Critics of same-sex marriage generally hold that marriage should be defined as only consisting of a union of one man and one woman, a so-called "traditional marriage," and that no rights exist that should compel a state to recognize any relationships to the contrary of that definition.

Many people make a distinction between same-sex marriage and civil unions, which would provide same-sex couples some legal rights. Although only about 4 in 10 Americans think gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry, there is larger support for permitting civil unions. All in all, over half of Americans support some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples who wish to make a long-term commitment. Forty percent think same-sex couples' relationships ought to have no legal recognition.

Opposition correlated with level of religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation and residing in the southern states. Levels of support were higher among the young, non-church going, Democratic Party affiliated and those who lived in the Western states as well as New England. On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ endorsed a same-sex marriage resolution making the UCC the first major U.S. Christian denomination to approve same-sex marriages.

In some states, particularly in New England and some western states, a majority of people have expressed support for same-sex marriage. A Massachusetts poll conducted in October 2003 estimated that 59 percent of registered voters believed that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to enter into civil marriage. Previous polls in Hawaii, California and New Jersey have shown majorities supporting same-sex marriage.

Polls

The most recent national poll on same-sex marriage in the United States was conducted in June 2006 by ABC News. The poll found that the majority (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them. However, on the question of a constitutional amendment, more are now opposed than for it. The majority (51%) of Americans say the issue should be left for the states to decide, while 43% would agree with amending the Constitution.

Prior to this poll, Gallup conducted a poll on the issue through May 2006. The poll found opposition to same-sex marriage had fallen slightly, as other polls found a sharper dip. In the poll, when asked if marriages between homosexuals should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 58% (down 1 point from Aug 2005, and 9 points from March 1996) of Americans responded that they should not be recognized. 39% (up 2 points from Aug 2005, and 12 points from 1996) felt same-sex marriages should be recognized by law. If "homosexuals" is replaced with "same-sex couples", 42% back same-sex marriage, 56% favour traditional marriage.

A similar poll conducted in March of 2006, a Princeton Survey Research Associates / Pew Research Center poll concluded 39% of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 51% oppose it, and 10% were undecided. In December 2004, a poll by the same company found 61% of Americans opposed - with 38% "strongly opposed". Now, less than 2 years later, just 23% are "strongly opposed".

The most recent poll prior to this also showed opposition to gay marriages had fallen. An Opinion Dynamics / Fox News poll released April 06th of 2006. According to this poll, 55% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, 33% support it, and 11% are unsure of where they stand.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 29-May 1, 2005. Adults nationwide.

"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=492, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

In the following table, "Y" means "Should Be Valid"; "N" means "Should Not Be Valid"; and "U" means "Unsure".

Poll Date	Y	N	U
4/29-5/1/2005	39	56	5
3/18-3/20/2005	28	68	4
7/19-7/21/2004	32	62	6
3/5-3/7/2004	33	61	6
2/16-2/17/2004	32	64	4
2/6-2/8/2004	36	59	5
12/2003	31	65	4
10/2003	35	61	4
6/2003	39	55	6
1/2000	34	62	4
2/1999	35	62	3
3/1996	27	68	5

CBS

CBS News poll conducted February 24-28, 2005 asking:

• "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

	Legal marriage	Civil union	No recognition	Unsure
All political parties	23%	34%	41%	2%
Republicans	8%	37%	54%	1%
Democrats	29%	35%	34%	2%
Independents	30%	29%	37%	4%
Trend over time
November 18-21, 2004	21%	32%	44%	3%
July 11-15, 2004	28%	31%	38%	3%
May 20-23, 2004	28%	29%	40%	3%
March 10-14, 2004	22%	33%	40%	5%

• The same CBS News Poll highlighting regional, political party affiliations and age differences in views. May 20 - 23, 2004. Nationwide:

Demographic	Marriage	Civil union	No recognition
All	28%	29%	40%
Republicans	13%	33%	53%
Democrats	32%	28%	36%
Independents	37%	27%	33%
18-29 years	43%	32%	25%
30-44	29%	25%	44%
45-64	26%	29%	41%
65 & older	12%	32%	51%
Northeast	35%	31%	33%
Midwest	26%	23%	47%
South	23%	26%	48%
West	31%	36%	28%

Pew Research

The Pew Research Center/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey poll asking:

• "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" (Margin of error three percent)

Date	Favor	Oppose	Unsure
July 13-17 2005	36%	53%	11%
December 1-16, 2004	32%	61%	7%
August 5-10, 2004	29%	60%	11%
July 2004	32%	56%	12%
March 2004	32%	59%	9%
February 2004	30%	63%	7%
November 2003	30%	62%	8%
October 2004	30%	58%	12%

• "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples? (Margin of error three percent)

Date	Favor	Oppose	Unsure
July 13-17, 2005	53%	40%	7%
August 5-10, 2004	48%	45%	7%
July 2004	49%	43%	8%
March 2004	49%	44%	7%
October 2003	45%	47%	8%

Pew has since done another study in March 2006 and found that only 51% oppose gay marriage, with 39% supporting it, and the level of "strongly opposing" gay marriage has fallen from 42% to 28%.

February 2006 Zogby International poll of 802 likely New Jersey voters, MOE +/- 3.5 percent commissioned by Garden State Equality

56% of New Jersey supports marriage equality for same-sex couples

39% of New Jersey opposes marriage equality for same-sex couples

67% of New Jersey opposes a state constitutional ban on marriage equality for same-sex couples

28% of New Jersey supports a state constitutional ban on marriage equality for same-sex couples

Complete poll results at Garden State Equality's website, www.GardenStateEquality.org

Legal Issues

Federal-Level

File:SSM NorthAm 2006.PNG

Status of same-sex union laws in North America.

In the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor, as well as state and private benefits (family memberships, discounts, etc) 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 before the Supreme Court of the United States titled Lawrence v. Texas, 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 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.

Despite Baker, many proponents of same-sex marriage hope for a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the high court has consistently ruled that government-sponsored discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not subject to strict scrutiny or even heightened scrutiny; thus such discrimination is generally permissible under the federal Constitution.

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. Most legal experts expect these challenges to fail, especially given the conservative tilt of the federal courts.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed with the support of President Clinton in 1996. This bill defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman," refuses federal recognition to same-sex marriages, and allows U.S. states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (currently only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) or other countries. Since then, various states have passed a law to assert that they do not recognize same-sex unions, nor will they recognize such unions legally recognized in other states. These laws are sometimes referred to as "Mini-DOMAs."

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. [1] 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.

State-Level

Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all or some of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil union or domestic partnership.

Hawaii and Maine's domestic partnership and reciprocal benefit laws provide similar benefits, but both stop short of full equality on a state level.

There are also bills in both chambers of the New York State legislature that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. These bills were introduced in early 2003 and are currently still in committee.

In all cases, no rights that originate with the federal government attach to civil union, domestic partnership, etc., because the several states do not have jurisdiction over the Government of the United States.

Impact of Foreign Laws

The legalization of same sex-marriages across all of Canada (see same-sex marriage in Canada) has raised questions about U.S. law, due to Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.

Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples headed or planned to head to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.

At present, same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide in the Netherlands (and possibly Aruba), Belgium, Spain and Canada. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effect by December 2006. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in parts of other countries.

Latvia and Uganda[2] have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, and Nigeria is planning to do the same.

Legislative Action on Same-Sex Unions

Federal-Level

In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President 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.

State-Level

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	Senate		Lower house		Governor signed or vetoed		Final outcome
			Yes	No	Yes	No	Signed	Vetoed
Hawaii	1996	Domestic Partnership	Passed		Failed		-		No
Hawaii	1997	Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship	Passed		Passed		Signed		Yes
California	1999	Domestic Partnership	Passed		Passed		Signed		Yes Template:Fn
District of Columbia	2000	Domestic Partnerships	Passed		Passed		Signed		Yes
Vermont	2000	Same-Sex Marriage	Failed		Failed		-		No
Vermont	April 2000	Civil Union	19	11	79	68	Signed		Yes
Vermont	April 2000	Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship (created Civil Unions)	19	11	79	68	Signed		Yes
California	2001	Domestic Partnership	Passed		Passed		Signed		Yes Template:Fn
California	2003	Domestic Partnership (expansion)	Passed		Passed		Signed		Yes Template:Fn
New Jersey	January 2004	Domestic Partnership	23	9	41	28	Signed		Yes
Maine	April 2004	Domestic Partnership	19	14	84	58	Signed		Yes
Utah	February 2005	Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship	10	18	-	-	-		No
New Mexico	March 2005	Civil Union	-	-	-	-	-		No Template:Fn
Arizona	April 2005	Domestic Partnership	-	-	-	-	-		No Template:Fn
Montana	April 2005	Civil Union	-	-	-	-	-		No Template:Fn
Connecticut	April 2005	Civil Union	27	9	85	63	Signed		Yes
Maryland	May 2005	Domestic Partnership	31	16	83	50	Vetoed		No Template:Fn
California	June 2005	Same-Sex Marriage	-	-	37	35	-		Template:Fn
Oregon	July 2005	Civil Union	19	10	-	-	-		No Template:Fn
California	September 2005	Same-Sex Marriage	21	15	41	35	Vetoed		No Template:Fn

• Template:Fnb Granted limited rights.
• Template:Fnb Expanded rights included.
• Template:Fnb Gave domestic partnerships legal rights of married couples.
• Template:Fnb Did not come to up and down floor vote.
• Template:Fnb Maryland Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
• Template:Fnb The vote failed to receive the absolute majority (40 votes) required to pass.
• Template:Fnb The bill failed to come to a floor vote in the House of Representatives.
• Template:Fnb California Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.

Efforts to Ban Same-sex Marriage

The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, grouped by region:

State	Date	Yes vote	No vote	Final outcome
Non-continental:
Alaska	November 1998	68% (152,965)	32% (71,631)	Yes
Hawaii	November 1998	69% (285,384)	31% (117,827)	Yes Template:Fn
West:
Nevada	November 2002	67% (337,183)	33% (164,555)	Yes
Montana	November 2004	67% (295,070)	33% (148,263)	Yes
Oregon	November 2004	57% (1,028,546)	43% (787,556)	Yes
Utah	November 2004	66% (593,297)	34% (307,488)	Yes
Idaho	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A
Midwest:
Nebraska	November 2000	70% (450,073)	30% (189,555)	Yes Template:Fn
Missouri	August 2004	71% (1,055,771)	29% (439,529)	Yes
Michigan	November 2004	59% (2,698,077)	41% (1,904,319)	Yes
North Dakota	November 2004	73% (223,572)	27% (81,716)	Yes
Ohio	November 2004	62% (3,329,335)	38% (2,065,462)	Yes
Kentucky	November 2004	75% (1,222,125)	25% (417,097)	Yes
Oklahoma	November 2004	76% (1,075,216)	24% (347,303)	Yes
Kansas	April 2005	70% (414,106)	30% (178,018)	Yes
Wisconsin	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A
South Dakota	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A
South:
Louisiana	September 2004	78% (618,928)	22% (177,103)	Yes Template:Fn
Arkansas	November 2004	75% (753,770)	25% (251,914)	Yes
Georgia	November 2004	76% (2,454,912)	24% (768,703)	Yes Template:Fn
Mississippi	November 2004	86% (957,104)	14% (155,648)	Yes
Texas	November 2005	76% (1,718,513)	24% (536,052)	Yes
Alabama	June 2006	81% (734,746)	19% (170,399)	Yes
South Carolina	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A
Tennessee	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A Template:Fn
Virginia	November 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A

• Template:FnbThe Supreme Court of Tennessee rejected arguments by the ALCU in its July 14th decision, ruling that they“failed to establish that they have standing to bring this lawsuit.”

The ACLU was attempting to stop the amendment on procedural grounds, alleging that the General Assembly did not strictly comply with public notice and publication requirements. Chattanooga Times Free Press

• Template:Fnb Unlike other states, it appears the constitutional amendment in Hawaii may not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, although clearly this was the intent. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage could be unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples simply because one partner is of the same sex as the other partner was sex discrimination and presumed facially unconstitutional under both the equal protection provision and the Equal Rights Amendment of the state constitution. The Court remanded the case for trial, ordering that on remand the burden of proof would be on the state to show that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples "furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights." In 1996, Mr. Chang, a Circuit Court Judge, declared Hawaii's marriage statute allowing only heterosexual marriage to be unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which ruled in 1999, the decision was moot due to passage of a constitutional amendment, which allows the Legislature to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

• Template:Fnb Ban declared unconstitutional by Judge Joseph Bataillon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. [3] The ruling was appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis[4]. That Court issued a ruling that re-instated the ban, declaring in part that it was a legitimate state interest. Washington Post

• Template:Fnb On October 06, 2004, a Louisiana judge tossed out the approved amendment saying it had more than one purpose: banning not only same-sex marriage, but other forms of partner recognition, such as civil unions. Shortly after, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the amendment valid, and thus it currently stands. [5]

• Template:Fnb Ban declared unconstitutional on May 16th, 2006 by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell saying 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 and overturned Judge Russell's ruling, reinstating the ban. [6] [7]

Timeline

File:OutMagazineCover.jpg

Out Magazine covers the marriage of Bob Paris and Rod Jackson in March 1994

Minnesota

1971: The Minnesota Supreme Court rules against the contention of plaintiffs Jack Baker and Mike McConnell that absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signified a legislative intent to recognize them. The court found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis". [8] This decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (see Baker v. Nelson), but was dismissed for failure to present a federal question. Such a dismissal constitutes a holding that the claimed Federal right-- a Constitutional mandate to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples identically-- does not exist.

Arizona

1975: Two men from Phoenix, Arizona are granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided and revoked the marriage licence. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.[9]

Colorado

1975: Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed, after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it. [10]A law was quickly pushed through to prohibit gay marriages.

Washington, DC

1987: The American Civil Liberties Union commits to eliminating legal barriers against same-sex marriage. 2,000 gay and lesbian couples are "married" in a mass mock wedding outside the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington. [11]

Hawaii

1996: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason. (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341) [12]

1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only, rendering the equal protection clause moot. [13]

Puerto Rico

1998: The island territory of Puerto Rico ratified a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998.

Alaska

February 27, 1998: The Alaska Superior Court judge Peter Michalski rules in favor of plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, saying that choosing a marital partner is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state without a compelling reason.

November 3, 1998: The state's voters amend their constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman.

Vermont

1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state's constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage.

2000: The legislature passes a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving them all rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law.

Massachusetts

File:CambridgeSameSexMarriage.jpg

People of all ages celebrate the first Same Sex marriages in Cambridge, MA on midnight of May 17, 2004

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

New Jersey

January 12, 2004: Governor James E. McGreevey signs New Jersey's domestic partnership law. It goes into effect July 10, 180 days after it was signed. The legislature passed the law in part to curtail a lawsuit seeking full marriage rights for gay people.

March 8, 2004: The Deputy Mayor of Asbury Park, New Jersey marries a same-sex couple who had a license issued by the town clerk. New Jersey has a 72-hour waiting period between issuing a license and performing a ceremony, and the original license was issued without fanfare on March 5.

March 9, 2004: Numerous same-sex couples converge on the clerk's office once it opens, determined to get their own licenses before a threatened injunction by State Attorney General Peter C. Harvey could halt the process. [14] By the end of the day, no such injunction had been issued, although the attorney general had sent letters to Asbury Park officials warning them that they could face prosecution if they continued.

March 10, 2004: In response, the city council votes unanimously to freeze all 16 pending license applications, and sue the state to have those licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid.

February 15, 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court hears case in favor of legalizing gay marriage in the State of New Jersey. The final Supreme Court decision is still pending.

California

Main article: Same-sex marriage in California

New Mexico

February 20, 2004: Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, New Mexico, announces that she would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender.[15] The first same-sex marriages in Sandoval County are performed later the same day. By the end of the day, however, New Mexico state attorney general Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law," and the Sandoval County clerk's office stops issuing them. In the interim, 26 such licenses had been issued.

The state governor, Bill Richardson, has requested that the state legislature enact a civil union bill.

New York

Main article: Same-sex marriage in New York

Wisconsin

March 5, 2004: The Wisconsin State Assembly approved, by a vote of 68-27, a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions, and to counter efforts elsewhere to legalize such partnerships.

March 12, 2004: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 20-13 to pass that state's amendment, which must still be passed again in next year's legislature, and be voted on in a state-wide referendum. [16]

December 6, 2005: The Wisconsin State Senate voted a second time in favor of the amendment. The vote is 19-14 and is along party lines.

February 28, 2006: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted for the second time in favor of the amendment. The question will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot.

Oklahoma

May 13, 2004: A lesbian couple from Tulsa obtained a marriage application in the Cherokee tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation issues marriage applications, rather than licenses. Couples obtaining a license have it signed by the individual performing the ceremony before returning to tribal court to have the application certified. Cherokee Principal Chief Chad 'Corntassel' Smith stated that he believes that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Cherokee law, and the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.

July, 2005: The tribe's Judicial Appeals Tribunal upheld the couple's right to marry, confirming that if they should refile for certification, it would be granted. [17] Although Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Oklahoma does recognize all Cherokee marriages. It is unclear how Oklahoma would react if the Cherokee tribal courts decide that this marriage is valid.

Oregon

File:20040303pdxorusa.jpg

Over four hundred same-sex marriage licenses were distributed in Multnomah County.

Main article: Same-sex unions in Oregon

Rhode Island

May 17, 2004: Attorney General Patrick Lynch issues an advisory opinion that Rhode Island would recognize any legal marriage performed in another state, as long as the marriage is not contrary to the "strong public policy" of Rhode Island. He said that the legislature and courts should decide which types of marriages fall within that category, while adding that same-sex marriages are not included among the types of marriages currently proscribed. While his opinion does not have the force of law, it appears to indicate that Rhode Island would, in fact, recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

Washington

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Washington

Utah

2005:

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. proposed reciprocal benefits for all same-sex couples living in the state. The measure was defeated in the state Senate by 8 votes and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. In the meantime Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a same-sex marriage supporter, has created domestic partnerships for city employees.

Previously in 2004, a constitutional amendment was passed defining civil marriage to be limited to opposite-sex couples. It was approved by 66% of voters, a much lower than expected number in what analysts had thought would be a more socially conservative state. Two counties: Grand County and Summitt County rejected it outright while the state's most populated county with 1,000,000 residents, Salt Lake County narrowly approved it by less than 4%.

The amendment defines marriage as "... the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." Many believe that the second part of the amendment is the reason why only 66% of voters approved the amendment. Nonetheless, other states with similar language such as Louisiana had 78% of the voters vote in favor of the bans. In the aftermath when the state governor introduced legislation creating reciprocal benefits some national religious conservative groups called on members nationwide to e-mail the Utah state legislature against the proposal. Polls conducted by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, the two major daily Utah newspapers found a simple majority of Utah residents support some form of legal recongition for same-sex couples, but not same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Census found that same-sex couples in Utah have among the highest percentage in the U.S. raising children together. Utah's gay community is also seen as powerful and caused the Salt Lake City area to be named one of the top 51 places in America for gay couples. Since the 1990s Salt Lake City has been marked by the elections of an openly gay woman and an openly gay man, representing the city in the State House and Senate, respectively. The leader of the Episcopal Church's Diocese of Utah from 1971 to 1986, which is based in Salt Lake, revealed that he had married his same-sex partner in 2004 and is an active member of the current Church and Utah's largest Jewish congregation, the Salt Lake Kol Ami, elected a gay woman in 2003 to be their Rabbi. Metropolitan Salt Lake City has also witnessed the election of two transgender officials, one in Sandy, and another in Tooele. The Utah Pride Festival is the state's second most attended parade, attracting about 60,000 participants in some years.

In 2006 the LDS Church stepped up its campaign against same-sex marriage by mailing letters to congregations asking them to lobby Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment. This resulted in a controversy when the prestigious Church owned Brigham Young University philosophy professor called banning same-sex marriage "immoral". The professor was subsequently fired without regarding to the unversity's own claim of its stand on academic freedom. In 2004 the state governor, a Church member, also said he did not know whether homosexuality was a sin at all.

Ohio

March 24, 2005: Two judges rule that Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law cannot be used against unmarried heterosexual couples because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Nebraska

May 12, 2005: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, Section 29 of the state constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be overturned.

July 14, 2006: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the ban [18]. The ruling states "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Connecticut

October 1, 2005: A law creating civil unions goes into effect. The legislation was passed and signed earlier in the year. [19]

Maryland

January 20, 2006: Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in favor of nine Maryland couples who had sued for the right to marry (Deane v. Conaway). The judge immediately stayed the decision pending an appeal by the state attorney general's office. Ultimately, the matter seems likely to be decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals. [20]

February 2, 2006: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage was rejected by the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates. In one particularly fiery exchange on the floor of the legislature a Maryland state senator, Nancy Jacobs, demanded of American University law professor Jamie Raskin, "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" In response, Raskin rebuffed, "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."[21] Prior to the vote, some committee members, who opposed the marriage ban, amended the bill to create civil unions in Maryland. This resulted in a unanimous vote to reject the proposed constitutional amendment. [22]

Georgia

6 July, 2006 Ban upheld: The state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling, deciding unanimously that the ban did not violate Georgia's single-subject rule for ballot measures. The ban had been approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004. [23]

Tennessee

1996: The Tennessee state legislature passes the The Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as a union between "one man and one woman."

2004: A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is passed by the state legislature. The House votes 85-5. The Senate votes 28-1. It must pass for two consecutive years before being put on the ballot.

2005: The constitutional amendment is passed for the second time. The House votes 88-7. The Senate votes 29-3. The amendment is scheduled to appear on the ballet in November 2006.

June 2006: The Tennessee Supreme Court hears arguments by the ACLU that the amendment should not go before voters because notice of the amendment was not made public at the required time.[24]

July 2006: The Tennessee Supreme Court decides that voters will be able to decide on the gay marriage amendment by vote in November. [25]

Case law

United States case law regarding the rights of homosexual persons:

• Lawrence v. Texas, federal Supreme Court (2003), (a state cannot criminalize sex between two unrelated consenting adults, homosexuals have a right to dignity in their lives)
• Romer v. Evans (1998), federal Supreme Court, (a state cannot deem one class of persons a stranger to its laws and protections)
• Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982)
• Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971)
• Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973)
• Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
• De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
• In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
• Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (DC 1995)
• Jennings v. Jennings, 315 A.2d 816, 820 n.7 (Md. Ct. App. 1974) ("marriage is between only one man and one woman.")
• Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
• In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitoner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
• Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. App. 2002) (state will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman)
• In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
• Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2002) (state will not recognize Vermont civil union)
• Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
• Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
• Lewis v. Harris, 2005 WL 23191114 (New Jersey Appellate Division) (unpublished) (New Jersey is not required to allow same-sex marriage, on appeal to Supreme Court)
• Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
• Andersen v Sims (August 2004 decision from the Superior Court in Washington State legalizing same-sex marriage. The decision awaits confirmation by the Washington Supreme Court before licences can be issued.)

References

• PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium

Bibliography

• Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743264592.
• Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465009573.
• Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1590524314.

See also

• List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions
• List of benefits of marriage in the United States
• Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Marriage Protection Act
• Defense of marriage amendment
• Federal Marriage Amendment
• Domestic partnerships in the United States
• Marriage Under Fire
• Freedom to Marry Coalition
• Gay rights in the United States
• 2004 in gay rights

External links

Supporting Same-sex Marriage

• The Democratic Party GLBT Community
• Hawai`i Gay Marriage Bureau
• Freedom to Marry
• Independent Gay Forum: Marriage
• A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
• Marriage Equality USA
• Equality California
• Center for Policy Alternatives Marriage Equality Policy Model
• Connecticut Same-Sex Marriage Organization: Love Makes a Family
• LGBT Political Investment Caucus
• Garden State Equality
• Human Rights Campaign
• National Organization for Women: Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue
• ACLU: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the Constitution
• Arnold Splits From Bush, Would Support Gay Marriage
• The American Psychiatric Association: Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage
• American Psychological Association
• Same-sex marriage gets New York support
• NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW: WHY WE SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A RESPONSE FROM OVER 450 CLERGY
• Equality California: EQCA MARRIAGE CENTER
• Lesbian and gay marriage: for better or for worse

Against Same-sex Marriage

• Alliance for Marriage
• Religious Coalition for Marriage
• Viriginia for Marriage
• No Gay Marriage
• Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage
• A Coalition to Protect Tennessee Marriage
• Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition
• The Marriage Amendment Project
• Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
• The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage
• The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
• Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, by. Dr. James Dobson
• LDS First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage
• Vote Against Same Sex Marriage in Mass.
• The Family: A Proclamation to the World (LDS)
• Southern Baptist Position Statement
• VoteYesMarriage.com: California Marriage Amendment
• President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
• Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage
• Massachusetts Family Institute
• MayDay for Marriage
• Family Research Council: Policy Publications on Same-sex Marriage
• Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy

Informational

• DOMA Watch
• Conclusions of a New Hampshire Legislative Panel on Same-Sex Marriage