Jump to content

Same-sex marriage in the United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
[pending revision][pending revision]
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 64.33.165.94 (talk) to last version by Roscelese
Line 11: Line 11:
==Legal issues==
==Legal issues==
{{See also|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States}}
{{See also|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States}}
''[[File:'''GAY MARRIAGE IS STUPID!''']]===''Federal law===

===Federal law===
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's [[federalism|federal]] system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a [[U.S. state|state]] was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with [[Anti-miscegenation laws|interracial marriage]] before 1967 due to [[anti-miscegenation laws]]). With the passage of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. (See {{usc|1|7}}.)
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's [[federalism|federal]] system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a [[U.S. state|state]] was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with [[Anti-miscegenation laws|interracial marriage]] before 1967 due to [[anti-miscegenation laws]]). With the passage of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. (See {{usc|1|7}}.)


Revision as of 17:32, 19 November 2011

Civil same-sex marriage ceremony being performed in San Francisco City Hall

The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage in the United States, but such marriages are recognized by some individual states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act, before Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Such licenses are granted by six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and Oregon's Coquille and Washington state's Suquamish Indian tribes. Same-sex marriages could be legally performed in California between June 16, 2008, and November 4, 2008, after which voters passed Proposition 8 prohibiting same-sex marriages. Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages but does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1][2] The legalization of same-sex marriage has been driven by court rulings and legislative action, rather than voter referendums.[3]

As of June 2011, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 29 via the state's constitution.[4]

The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s.[5] The issue became more prominent in U.S. politics once Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. However, in the opening decade of the 21st century, public support for its legalization grew considerably.[6] Several recent polls have shown support for legalized same-sex marriage above 50%, but the issue remains politically divisive.[7]

Part of the LGBT rights series
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. ^ a b Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
  3. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
  4. ^ a b Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. ^ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. ^ a b c d e The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. ^ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
  8. ^ Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. ^ Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. ^ Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. ^ Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. ^ Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights.
  13. ^ Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
  1. ^ a b Not yet in effect.
LGBTQ portal
See also: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
File:GAY MARRIAGE IS STUPID!===Federal law===

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[8][9] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted. If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.

According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.[10]

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.

The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question". The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as marriage laws in 45 states, could be affected by the outcome of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case challenging the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution.[11]

State law

Further information: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Status of same-sex marriage in the United States
  Performed and recognized
  Recognized when performed elsewhere
  Recognized by state and federal governments, but not by tribal government
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed by tribal government)
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed or recognized by tribal government)

Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly bars federal recognition of such marriages.

Six state governments (along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and the Suquamish tribe) have passed laws offering same-sex marriage: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.[12] In all six states, same-sex marriage has been legalized through legislation or court ruling.[12] Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004; in Connecticut since November 12, 2008;[13] in Iowa since April 27, 2009;[14][15] in Vermont since September 1, 2009; New Hampshire since January 1, 2010; and New York since July 24, 2011.[16] In 2009, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage,[17] with four of the six states in that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry.

Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a voter referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments.[18] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[19] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[20] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[21] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[22]

As of January 2010, 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had laws "restricting marriage to one man and one woman."[23] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.[24]

Opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[25]

The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, by a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts.[26]

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.[27][28] Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage.[29] Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona.[30] On August 4, 2010, a decision by the U.S. District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.[31] The decision in that case is currently being appealed and the case is ultimately expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[32]

On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa following the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien on April 3, 2009.[33] This decision was initially scheduled to take effect on April 24, but the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons.[15]

On April 7, 2009, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor of Vermont had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative means rather than litigation.

On May 6, 2009, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the first state governor to do so.[34] However, the legislation was stayed pending a vote and never went into effect. It was repealed by referendum in November 2009.[12]

On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.[35]

On December 18, 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was signed into law by the Mayor of the District of Columbia;[36] same-sex marriage licenses became available in Washington, D.C. on March 3, 2010.[37]

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. As of 1 June 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples.

Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages formed in other jurisdictions, but does not allow forming such marriages within their own borders.[1][2] New York had been in a similar situation as its courts had held that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes did not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses,[38] a situation which changed when its legislature legalized granting licenses to same-sex couples in 2011.

The laws of New Mexico are largely silent on the subject of same-sex marriage, as they do not specifically allow nor prohibit same-sex marriages or other types of same-sex unions.

Debate

President Barack Obama has stated that he supports the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage[39] although at a personal level his beliefs place him in opposition to it;[40] he has recently stated that his current position is "evolving."[41] Obama remains sympathetic to the rights of individuals who identify as gay or lesbian.[42] In a 1996 newspaper interview, Obama stated "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."[39] However, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix."[43] One report indicates that Obama may have made comments in support of same-sex marriage during his Illinois Senate race in the 1990s.[44] The president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage,"[42] but stated in December 2010 that these civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples are "not enough."[41] Obama opposes a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, and also opposes the Defense of Marriage Act,[45] stating that individual states should decide the issue.[46][47] Obama opposed Proposition 8—-California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage-—in 2008.[48] He has stated that he continues to personally wrestle with the issue of same-sex marriage.[41]

Many high-profile politicians and commentators have expressed their views on same-sex marriage. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are two of the most prominent conservative commentators based on recent listenership ratings.[49] In an O'Reilly Factor interview in August 2010, when Beck was asked if he "believe(s) that gay marriage is a threat to [this] country in any way", he stated, "No I don't…I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"[50]

On his radio show in August 2010, Rush Limbaugh made the following comments on the then-recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker regarding Proposition 8 in California: "Marriage? There's a definition of it, for it. It means something. Marriage is a union of a man and woman. It's always been that. If you want to get married and you're a man, marry a woman. Nobody's stopping you. This is about tearing apart an institution."[51] Commenting on the same court decision, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich issued a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage, which read, in part, as follows: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife... Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."[52] Then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for Judge Walker's decision: "I am extremely encouraged by the ruling today, which found that Proposition 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution. We must continue to fight against discriminatory marriage amendments and work toward the day when all American families are treated equally."[53] In 2009, Pelosi described the difficulty in repealing the Defense of Marriage Act: "I would like to get rid of all of it. But the fact is we have to make decisions on what we can pass at a given time. It doesn't mean the other issues are not important. It is a matter of getting the votes and the legislative floor time to do it."[54] Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank voiced his concern in September 2009 with regard to the ability to obtain sufficient votes to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act: "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."[55]

During the 2008 presidential election campaign, then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin stated: "I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage."[56]

Rachel Maddow, an openly gay commentator on MSNBC, expressed her frustration with the Obama Administration position on same-sex marriage in August 2010. In response to Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod's statement on President Obama's position: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples in benefits and other issues", Maddow said, "Got that? So the line from the administration is that Barack Obama does not want gay people to be allowed to be married, but when gay people can be married and other people are trying to take away that right like in California, he doesn't want the right to be taken away. But, he's not in favor of that right in the first place. You got it? The president is against gay marriage but he is also against constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, which means that he'd apparently prefer that gay marriage be banned through flimsier tactical means? That's the president's position. Clear as mud. Ripe for criticism much?"[57]

Advocacy groups have entered the same-sex marriage debate in recent years, including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Family Research Council (FRC), which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[58] NOM lists strategies on its website for supporters to use, including the following statement: "Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don't get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It's just common sense."[59] According to its website, the FRC opposes "the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in 'marriage' constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures."[60] The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is one of the leading advocacy groups in support of same-sex marriage. According to the HRC's website, "Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love – many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person – and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings."[61]

Support

See also: List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States
Rally for same-sex marriage (May 2009, San Francisco, California)

Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past U.S. prohibitions on interracial marriage.[62] Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group.[63] According to an American history scholar Nancy Cott "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."[64] Several mainstream social science organizations in the United States take the view that the stigma created by policies that they believe constitute differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts; those organizations aver that defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution invites the public to discriminate against individuals who identify as gay or lesbian and has adverse effects on children raised by same-sex partners.[65]

Opposition

See also: Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States
Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California (October 2008)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States ground their arguments on parenting concerns, religious concerns, and concerns about a "slippery slope" leading toward other changes to the definition of marriage. The Southern Baptist Convention says that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage.[66] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and National Organization for Marriage argue that children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children.[67][68][69][70] Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has raised concerns about the impact of same-sex marriage upon religious liberty and upon faith-based charities in the United States.[71] Other arguments against same-sex marriage are based upon concerns about a "slippery slope" toward other redefinitions of the institution. Stanley Kurtz of the Weekly Standard has written that same-sex marriage would eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory, or group marriage, in the United States.[72]

Marriage privatization

Main article: Marriage privatization

A libertarian argument for marriage privatization holds that government has no role in defining the terms whereby individuals contract to arrange their personal relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.[73][74][75] People holding this viewpoint argue that government should have a limited role or no role in defining marriage, only in enforcing those contracts people construct themselves and willfully enter. The rights granted to a married couple exceed those that can be mutually granted by two people to each other contractually, and also involve rights granted by government.[76][77][78]

Public opinion

Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

Public support for same-sex marriage has grown since the 1990s. In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported legalization. Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 show support for same-sex marriage outstripping opposition, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[79] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for gay marriage by a margin that exceeded the poll's margin of error.[80] In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans".[81]

Effects of same-sex marriage

Economic impact on same-sex couples

Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status.[82] A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'"[83] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples, whose marriages are not recognized by the state, are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.[83] Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits.[83] According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples.[84]

  • potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one[84]
  • costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-U.S. citizen[84]
  • higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits[84]
  • higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation[83]
  • legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage[84]
  • higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples[84]
  • current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner[83]
  • same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly[83]

While state laws grant full marriage rights (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (New Jersey, Washington, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions from other states.

One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential negative effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation.[83] Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.[83]

Economic impact on the federal government

The 2004 Congressional Budget Office study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.[83]

Mental health

Based in part on empirical research that has been conducted on the adverse effects of stigmatization, numerous prominent social science organizations have issued position statements supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; these organizations include the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association.[65]

Several psychological studies[85][86][87] have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.[88]

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.[89]

Physical health

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection.[90][91] The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

Timeline of major events

  • October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".[92]
  • May 5, 1993: The Supreme Court of Hawaii rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of rights under the Hawaii Constitution. The case is sent back to the lower courts for a trial on these two issues.[93]
  • September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
  • December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial court judge holds that no compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He stays the decision pending review by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.[94][95]
  • November 3, 1998: Hawaii voters pass a constitutional amendment to give the Hawaii State Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.[96] Voters in Alaska approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[97]
  • December 9, 1999: In light of the constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court of Hawaii in Baehr v. Miike reverses the decision of the trial court and remands the case with instructions to enter judgment for the state.[98]
  • December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.
  • November 2000: Voters in Nebraska approve Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[99]
  • November 2002: Voters in Nevada approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[100]
  • November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.
  • February 11, 2004: The Massachusetts General Court (legislature) completes the first step in a process that would ban same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
  • February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco issues same-sex marriage licenses.
  • March 3 – April 20, 2004: Several Oregon counties, led by Portland's Multnomah County, issue same-sex marriage licenses.
  • May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in Massachusetts.
  • August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are void.
  • August 3, 2004: Voters in Missouri approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[101]
  • September 18, 2004: Voters in Louisiana approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[102]
  • November 2004: Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[103]
  • April 5, 2005: Voters in Kansas, by a 70% to 30% margin, approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[104]
  • May 12, 2005: Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 overturned by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon as a unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause.
  • September 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill.
  • November 8, 2005: Voters in Texas approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[105]
  • June 6, 2006: Voters in Alabama approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with 81% of voters voting in favor.[106]
  • July 6, 2006: The New York Court of Appeals issues its decision in Hernández v. Robles, stating that same-sex partners do not have the right to marry under the New York Constitution.[107]
  • July 14, 2006: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules that Nebraska Initiative Measure 416's limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and was not a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause, reversing Judge Joseph F. Bataillon's 2005 decision.
  • November 2006: Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[108][109]
  • October 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage bill.
  • May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
  • June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in California.
  • September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
  • October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized.
  • November 4, 2008: Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[110]
  • November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect in California, stopping new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued after this date.
  • November 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in Connecticut.
  • March 26, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
  • April 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
  • April 6, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill is passed by the Vermont General Assembly and then vetoed by the governor.
  • April 7, 2009: The Vermont General Assembly overrides the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill.
  • April 23, 2009: Connecticut governor signs legislation which statutorily legalizes same-sex marriage (see Oct. 10 and Nov. 12, 2008), and also converts any existing civil unions into marriages as of October 1, 2010.
  • April 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Iowa.
  • April 29, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire Senate with minor amendments.
  • May 6, 2009: Maine Governor Baldacci signs the Marriage Equality Bill. The New Hampshire House of Representatives concurs with the Senate's amendments to HB436, and the bill supporting same-sex marriage advances to Governor John Lynch.
  • May 12, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill passes in the lower house New York Assembly.
  • May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, but also upholds the marriage rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples married while same-sex marriage had been briefly legalized.
  • June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.
  • September 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Vermont.
  • September 11, 2009: Same-sex marriage was supposed to start on this day in Maine, but is subject to a People's Veto.
  • October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional while presiding over the divorce proceedings for two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, clearing the way for both Texas's first same-sex divorce and a legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.[111]
  • October 11, 2009: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs into law recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.[112][113]
  • November 3, 2009: The same-sex marriage law passed in Maine is repealed through a popular referendum, with 53% in favor of repeal.[12][114]
  • December 1, 2009: The Council of the District of Columbia passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its first vote. The bill must pass a second vote on December 15 before it can go to Mayor Adrian Fenty for signature. Barring interference by the United States Congress within thirty legislative days after Mayor Fenty signs the bill, DC will allow same-sex marriage.[115]
  • December 2, 2009: Same-sex marriage legislation is defeated 38–24 in the New York State Senate.[116]
  • December 15, 2009: District of Columbia City Council passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its second vote. The bill was signed by Mayor Fenty on December 18, 2009.[117]
  • January 1, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in New Hampshire and all out-of-state same-sex marriages are given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed before November 5, 2008 are granted the designation "marriage".[118]
  • February 24, 2010: Maryland's attorney general issues an opinion requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.[119]
  • March 3, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in Washington, D.C.[120]
  • July 8, 2010: Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held in two related cases (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services) that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples in Massachusetts under the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.[8][9]
  • August 4, 2010: California's Proposition 8 is overturned by United States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
  • August 31, 2010: The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas reverses a 2009 ruling in a same-sex divorce case, ruling that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further rules that district courts in Texas do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case.[121]
  • October 12, 2010: The Department of Justice appealed against Tauro's July 8 decision (see above).[122]
  • February 23, 2011: The Obama Administration announced its determination that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny and when judged by that standard is unconstitutional. It will continue to enforce DOMA's provisions, will no longer defend challenges to the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA in court, and will cooperate with the courts if Congress decides to assert its right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court.[123]
  • March 4, 2011: Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he would exercise Congress's right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court by convening a bipartisan legal advisory group tasked with "initiating action by the House to defend this law."[124]
  • The moment of the Marriage Equality Act vote which brought same-sex marriage to New York, in the balcony of the state capital building, the evening of July 24, 2011
    June 24, 2011: The New York State Senate passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage by a vote of 33-29. The bill was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo and became law.[16]
  • July 24, 2011: Granting of same-sex marriages begins in New York.[125]
  • August 1, 2011: Washington state's Native American Suquamish tribe approves granting same-sex marriages.[126]

Case law

United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:

  • Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
  • Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
  • Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination; because the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry)
  • Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
  • De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)(same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
  • In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (holding that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly tailored, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
  • Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
  • Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling would later be changed, and New York did recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states before legalizing granting marriage licenses to such couples)
  • In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same-sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
  • Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
  • Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
  • Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
  • Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
  • In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
  • Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
  • Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
  • Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest)
  • Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) (reversing 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005)) (Nebraska's Initiative Measure 416 does not violate Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, was not a bill of attainder, and does not violate the First Amendment; "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States")[127]
  • Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure")
  • Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
  • Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (New York State Constitution does not require that marriage be extended to same-sex couples)
  • Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 25 A.D.3d 90, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005), review denied, 850 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 2006) (denying survivor partner in Vermont officiated Civil Union standing as a "spouse" for purposes of New York's wrongful death statute)
  • Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a "man" and a "woman")
  • Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county was refused leave to appeal on a technicality.[128])
  • In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.);[129] overruled by Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) (holding that same-sex couples have all the rights of heterosexual couples, except the right to the "designation" of marriage and that such a holding does not violate California's privacy, equal protection, or due process laws)[130] For a review see: Thomas Kupka, Names and Designations in Law, in: The Journal Jurisprudence 6 (2010) 121-130.
  • Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, (Ia. 2009) (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court unanimously ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples)
  • Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), (California's Proposition 8 (2008) violates fundamental right to marry under Loving v. Virginia, violates Due Process and Equal Protection Causes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and illegally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Proposition 8 is driven only by animus against same-sex couples; therefore, does not survive rational basis review. Permanently enjoins CA from enforcing Prop 8; order stayed pending appeal to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

See also

Legislation

Supporting organizations

Opposing organizations

References

  1. ^ a b "States". Freedom to Marry. April 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  2. ^ a b The situation in Rhode Island is uncertain, despite a non-binding opinion by the state's Attorney General. New York Times: Katie Zezima, "Rhode Island Steps Toward Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage," February 22, 2007, accessed July 3, 2011: "Mr. Lynch said his interpretation permitted recognition of the marriages, although he acknowledged that it was just an opinion and did not have the force of law."; Human Rights Campaign: "Rhode Island Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law", accessed July 3, 2011: "This is not a binding opinion and the attorney general noted that this question will most likely be answered by the courts."; "Marriage FAQ". Marriage Equality Rhode Island. Retrieved July 3, 2011. it is still a complicated issue about whether these marriages will be respected in Rhode Island.; GLAD: "Marriage Guide for Rhode Island Same-Sex Couples", p. 8: "legal uncertainty remains in this area", accessed July 3, 2011
  3. ^ "A Setback in Maine for Gay Marriage, but Medical Marijuana Law Expands". The New York Times. November 4, 2009.
  4. ^ Schwartz, John (June 27, 2011). "After New York, New Look at Defense of Marriage Act". The New York Times. Retrieved June 29, 2011.
  5. ^ Gumbel, Andrew. "The Great Undoing?". Advocate. Retrieved July 31, 2011.
  6. ^ Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness
  7. ^ Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority
  8. ^ a b Goodnough, Abby; Schwartz, John (July 8, 2010). "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2011.
  9. ^ a b "Judge rules federal same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". CNN. July 9, 2010. Retrieved July 9, 2010.
  10. ^ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf 2004 updated report of the GAO PDF format
  11. ^ "Yes on 8 » Perry v. Schwarzenegger". Protect Marriage. June 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  12. ^ a b c d Glenn Adams and David Crary, "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law", November 4, 2009
  13. ^ "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage", Hartford Courant
  14. ^ "Iowa Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban | News Story on". 365gay.com. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  15. ^ a b "Iowa gay marriages delayed | News Story on". 365gay.com. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  16. ^ a b Confessore, Nicholas; Barbaro, Michael (June 24, 2011). "New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law". The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2011.
  17. ^ The Washington Times: Valerie Richardson, "Gay marriage backers target New England," January 4, 2009, Retrieved March 21, 2011
  18. ^ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States#Attempts_to_establish_same-sex_unions_via_initiative_or_statewide_referendum
  19. ^ "Arizona Secretary of State: 2006 general election results". Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  20. ^ "State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2008 General Election – November 4, 2008" (PDF). Secretary of State of Arizona. December 1, 2008. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  21. ^ "General Election 1998". Hawaii Office of Elections. November 3, 1998. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  22. ^ Miller, Kevin; Harrison, Judy (November 4, 2009). "Gay marriage repealed in Maine". Bangor Daily News.
  23. ^ "Statewide Marriage Prohibitions"
  24. ^ Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art15.html
  25. ^ "Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban[dead link]", CNN, June 7, 2006, . Retrieved July 5, 2006.
  26. ^ Burge, Kathleen (November 18, 2003). "SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass". The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  27. ^ "California same-sex marriage ban struck down". CNN. May 16, 2008. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  28. ^ Mintz, Howard (May 15, 2008). "California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage". Mercury News. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
  29. ^ "Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling". The New York Times. May 16, 2008.
  30. ^ "Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage". The New York Times. November 5, 2008.
  31. ^ Perry v. Schwarzenegger (US District Court, Northern California August 4, 2010), Text.
  32. ^ "Judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage". CNN. August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  33. ^ Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman, Des Moines Register, April 3, 2009.
  34. ^ "Office of the Governor: News & Events: News Releases". Maine.gov. May 6, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  35. ^ "House Bill 0436". Gencourt.state.nh.us. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  36. ^ Mayor Adrian Fenty Signs DC Marriage Bill
  37. ^ Post Store (March 3, 2010). "D.C. same-sex marriage law takes effect". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  38. ^ Martinez, Patricia v County Of Monroe Decision Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department
  39. ^ a b Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'
  40. ^ "ElectionCenter2008". CNN. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  41. ^ a b c Bacon Jr, Perry (December 23, 2010). "Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are evolving". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 5, 2011.
  42. ^ a b "Civil Rights". The White House. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  43. ^ "Obama and Miss California aligned on same-sex marriage?". The Christian Science Monitor. May 12, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  44. ^ "Report: Obama Changed His View on Gay Marriage". FoxNews.com. April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  45. ^ Paterson, Penny (January 13, 2009). "Gay Supporters Petition Obama to Repeal DOMA". Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  46. ^ Eleveld, Kerry (April 3, 2009). "White House Responds to Iowa". The Advocate. Retrieved June 17, 2009.[dead link]
  47. ^ "Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com". CNN. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  48. ^ Post Store (August 5, 2010). "President Obama's beliefs meet his policy". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  49. ^ Talkers Magazine, "2010 Talkers 250[dead link]", Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  50. ^ Elizabeth Tenety, "Glenn Beck, Gay Marriage Advocate?", The Washington Post, August 12, 2010, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  51. ^ Rush Limbaugh's Website, "One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California," August 5, 2010, Retrieved October 31, 2010, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080510/content/01125106.guest.html.
  52. ^ Newt Gingrich's Website[dead link], Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  53. ^ Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website[dead link], Retrieved October, 31, 2010.
  54. ^ Matthew S. Bajko, "DOMA repeal unlikely in '09", EDGE, April 28, 2009, Retrieved November 1, 2010,
  55. ^ Politico, "Frank won't back Marriage Act repeal", September 13, 2010, Retrieved November 1, 2010.
  56. ^ Scott Conroy, "Palin Breaks With McCain On Gay Marriage Ban", CBS News, October 20, 2008, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  57. ^ SheWired.com, "Rachel Maddow on Obama's 'Tortured Logic' Over Gay Marriage: Video", August 6, 2010, Retrieved November 1, 2010, .
  58. ^ "SPLC Responds to Attack by Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center". Splcenter.org. December 15, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  59. ^ < National Organization for Marriage Website, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  60. ^ Family Research Council website, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  61. ^ Human Rights Campaign website, Retrieved November 1, 2010.
  62. ^ Mathabane, Gail (January 25, 2004). "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought". USA Today. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  63. ^ "Commentary: Latinos should see gay marriage a civil right - CNN.com". CNN. November 7, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  64. ^ "Perry v. Schwarzenegger"
  65. ^ a b Brief of Amici Curiae American Anthropological Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, American Sociological Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics, California, supporting plaintiffs-appellees and urging affirmance - Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)
  66. ^ Southern Baptist Convention, On Same-Sex Marriage (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).
  67. ^ "The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom". Beta-newsroom.lds.org. August 13, 2008. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  68. ^ "(FLWY)". USCCB. November 12, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  69. ^ "Obama celebrates gay dads on Father's Day - Florida Baptist Witness". Gofbw.com. July 2, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  70. ^ "Why Marriage Matters"
  71. ^ "Banned in Boston". The Weekly Standard. May 15, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  72. ^ "Beyond Gay Marriage". The Weekly Standard. August 4, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  73. ^ Lindenberger, M., "A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?" Time, March 16, 2009.
  74. ^ Kinsella, S. "Libertarian View on Gay Marriage" in LewRockwell.com, June 6, 2006.
  75. ^ Libertarian David Boaz on Gay Marriage on YouTube
  76. ^ "A Modest (Marriage) Proposal". The Atlantic. April 9, 2004. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  77. ^ "The Libertarian Argument For Gay Marriage". The Atlantic. May 28, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  78. ^ Boaz, David (April 25, 1997). "Privatize Marriage". Slate.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  79. ^ Nate Silver. "Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority". The New York Times April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
  80. ^ For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage
  81. ^ [http://freemarry.3cdn.net/5ae85613318ade1b2e_8dm6bnq72.pdf The Rapid Increase in Support for Marriage Changes Political Equation: Emerging Majority Supports the Freedom to Marry]. Joel Benenson, Benenson Strategy Group, and Jan van Lohuizen, Voter Consumer Research. July 27, 2011. Retrieved August 2, 2011.
  82. ^ Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer.. "Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1 (Spring2005 2005): 521–530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Sep. 30, 2009
  83. ^ a b c d e f g h i "The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages". Congressional Budget Office. June 21, 2004. Retrieved March 8, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  84. ^ a b c d e f Badgett, M.V. Lee (2003). Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226034011.
  85. ^ Price, M. "UPFRONT — Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. [1]
  86. ^ Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), Oct 2007, 447–457.
  87. ^ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), Jul 2007, 306–319.
  88. ^ Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), Aug 2007, 392–400.
  89. ^ Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), Jan 2008, 40–54.
  90. ^ Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV infections[dead link]
  91. ^ Elaine Justice. "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections". Emory.edu. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  92. ^ Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (Supreme Court of the United States October 10, 1972).
  93. ^ Baehr v. Lewin 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993)
  94. ^ "Trial-court decision in Baehr v. Miike" (PDF). First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii. December 3, 1996. Retrieved June 6, 2009.
  95. ^ "Coverage of Hawaii same-sex marriage cases". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved June 6, 2009.
  96. ^ "General Election 1998" (Document). Hawaii Office of Elections. November 3, 1998. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  97. ^ "Same-sex marriage in Alaska". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  98. ^ Baehr v. Miike, No. 20371 (Supreme Court of Hawaii December 9, 1999).
  99. ^ Family Advocates: Judicial Activism Runs Amok in Nebraska - Jody Brown and Bill Fancher - Crosswalk.com
  100. ^ Experts: No change in sight for state's gay marriage ban - Friday, April 10, 2009 | 2:01 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun
  101. ^ Cooperman, Alan (August 5, 2004). "Gay Marriage Ban in Mo. May Resonate Nationwide". The Washington Post.
  102. ^ Baptist Press - 78-22%: Louisiana passes const. marriage amendment - News with a Christian Perspective
  103. ^ Font size Print E-mail Share By Joel Roberts (November 2, 2004). "11 States Ban Same-Sex Marriage". CBS News. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  104. ^ "Kansas Voters Approve Gay Nups Ban". Fox News. April 6, 2005.
  105. ^ Associated Baptist Press - Texas marriage amendment passes but debate continues over impact
  106. ^ "Baptist Press - Ala. becomes 20th state to pass marriage amendment - News with a Christian Perspective". Bpnews.net. June 7, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  107. ^ "86-89opn06.wpd" (PDF). Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  108. ^ "CNN.com - Elections 2006". CNN.
  109. ^ Mid-Term Election Results for Gays 2006 - Gay Election Results 2006 - Gay Ballot Measures
  110. ^ States decide on gay rights, abortion - politics - Decision '08 - Decision ’08 – ballot initiatives - msnbc.com
  111. ^ Dallas Morning News[dead link], October 2, 2009.
  112. ^ Raja, Vaishalee (October 12, 2009). "Governor Signs Harvey Milk Day and Marriage Recognition Bills". Common Dreams NewsCenter. Retrieved October 13, 2009.
  113. ^ "Marriage Recognition and Family Protection". Equality California. Retrieved October 13, 2009.
  114. ^ Sacchetti, Maria (November 4, 2009). "Maine voters overturn state's new same-sex marriage law". The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  115. ^ Craig, Tim (December 1, 2009). "District approves same-sex marriage". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 3, 2009.
  116. ^ Vick, Karl (December 3, 2009). "N.Y. State Senate votes down gay marriage bill by wide margin". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  117. ^ [2][dead link]
  118. ^ "Historic Bills Expanding LGBT Rights and Resources Become Law – Equality California". Eqca.org. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  119. ^ Davis, Aaron C.; Wagner, John (February 24, 2010). "Md. attorney general: State to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  120. ^ Chibbaro, Lou (February 24, 2010). "Couples plan courthouse visits to celebrate D.C. marriage law". dcagenda. Retrieved April 24, 2010. [dead link]
  121. ^ Appleton, Roy (August 31, 2010). "Dallas judge's ruling saying gay couple could divorce in Texas rejected on appeal". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  122. ^ "Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law", Associated Press, The Boston Globe, October 12, 2010. Retrieved October 13, 2010.
  123. ^ Department of Justice: Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act, February 23, 2011, Retrieved February 26, 2011
  124. ^ Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban Fox News Channel
  125. ^ Hakim, Danny (July 24, 2011). "Gay Marriage – In Albany, Wedding Bells Ring Repeatedly". The New York Times.
  126. ^ http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/aug/01/suquamish-tribe-approves-same-sex-marriage/
  127. ^ Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)
  128. ^ Louis, Tim. "GAY MARRIAGE: Technicality delays county's appeal". Rochestercitynewspaper.com. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  129. ^ [3][dead link]
  130. ^ Site Unavailable (Scheduled Maintenance)

Bibliography

  • Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
  • Murdoch, Joyce and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-01513-1.
  • Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
  • Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=461452705"