This article will be permanently flagged as inappropriate and made unaccessible to everyone. Are you certain this article is inappropriate? Excessive Violence Sexual Content Political / Social
Email Address:
Article Id: WHEBN0000249623 Reproduction Date:
Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark: · Denmark proper France Iceland Luxembourg* Mexico: · CA, QR, · DF Netherlands: · Netherlands proper1 New Zealand: · New Zealand proper Norway Portugal
South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: · England and Wales · Scotland* United States: · AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, · DE, FL*, HI, ID, IL, · IN, IA, KS2, ME, MD, · MA, MN, MO3, MT, NV, · NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, · OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, · UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, · WI, WY, · DC, 20 tribes Uruguay
Andorra Australia: · ACT, NSW, QLD, · SA, TAS, VIC Austria Colombia Croatia Czech Republic Denmark: · Greenland Ecuador Estonia* Finland Germany Gibraltar Hungary
Ireland Isle of Man Jersey Liechtenstein Malta Mexico: · CM, CL, JA Slovenia Switzerland United Kingdom: ·Northern Ireland United States: ·various jurisdictions Venezuela: · Mérida
*Not yet in effect
In the United States, same-sex marriages are recognized by the U.S. federal government and are legal in 35 U.S. states,[1] the District of Columbia, select local jurisdictions in Missouri, and 20 Native American tribal jurisdictions.[2] In addition, Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. Marriage licenses are widely available to same-sex couples in Kansas, though the state does not recognize their validity. Several hundred marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Michigan and Arkansas between the time their bans were struck down by federal or state courts and when those rulings were stayed. Most Americans live in a jurisdiction where same-sex couples can legally marry.
The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s,[2] but became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Lewin that declared that state's prohibition to be unconstitutional.[3] During the 21st century, public support for same-sex marriage has grown considerably,[4][5] and national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health six months earlier.[6] On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.[7] On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.
People seeking court-ordered recognition of their same-sex marriages based on their specific circumstances have had varying degrees of success. The Seventh Circuit and a U.S. district court have each required Indiana to recognize a marriage where one plaintiff is terminally ill.[8][9] U.S. district courts in Arizona and Florida have each required a state to recognize a same-sex marriage for the purpose of issuing or amending a death certificate.[10][11] and a U.S. district court in Ohio issued a similar order with respect to four birth certificates before the case was reversed on appeal.[12] A Florida state court has recognized an out-of state same-sex marriage to allow a widower to serve as executor of his spouse's estate.[13] Similar plaintiffs have appealed adverse decisions or had rulings in their favor stayed pending appeal in several states.[3]
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, U.S. district courts in 23 states[4] and state courts in six states,[5] plus one state court ruling addressing only the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,[6] have found that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, while two U.S. district courts[7] and one state court[8] have found that they do not. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have affirmed the unconstitutionality of such bans. The Sixth Circuit, in contrast, did not. The panel reversed six U.S. district court rulings that found bans on same-sex marriage or its recognition unconstitutional in the four states served by the Sixth Circuit.[9][44] Most court-ordered injunctions that enforce the right to same-sex marriage, where the court has ruled in favor of such, have taken effect. The main exceptions are from U.S. district court cases in Texas and Mississippi on appeal to the Fifth Circuit,[10] U.S. district court cases from Arkansas and Missouri pending resolution in the Eighth Circuit,[11] and in one case each before the Arkansas Supreme Court and Louisiana Supreme Court[12]—those have been stayed indefinitely. A temporary stay is in effect on an injunction ordered by a U.S. district court in Florida.[13]
On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in cases from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, leading to legal same-sex marriage those states, as well as in Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. A decision on October 7, 2014, by the Ninth Circuit invalidating bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada has also affected Alaska, Arizona, and Montana.
Litigation seeking to reverse court decisions that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage continues in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina.[14]
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are determined by the nation's federal system of government, in which the status of a person, including marital status, is determined in large measure by the individual states. 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 states, as was the case until 1967 with interracial marriage which some states banned by statute.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996. DOMA's Section 2 says that no state need recognize the legal validity of a same-sex relationship even if recognized as marriage by another state. It purports to relieve a state of its reciprocal obligation to honor the laws of other states as required by the Constitution's full faith and credit clause.[56] Even before DOMA, however, states sometimes refused to recognize a marriage from another jurisdiction if it was counter to its "strongly held public policies".[57] Most lawsuits that seek to require a state to recognize a marriage established in another jurisdiction argue on the basis of equal protection and due process, not the full faith and credit clause.[15]
DOMA's Section 3 defined marriage for the purposes of federal law as a union of one man and one woman.[60] It was challenged in the [61][62] Beginning in 2010, eight federal courts found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[63][64][65] On October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court[66] to hold sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification and applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States.[67] Asked to consider several cases that found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Windsor on June 26, 2013, that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment.[68][16]
As a result of the Windsor decision, married same-sex couples–regardless of domicile–have tax benefits (including the ability to file joint federal income tax returns), military benefits, federal employment benefits for employees of the U.S Government and immigration benefits.[72][73][74][75] In February 2014, the Justice Department expanded recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits, survivor benefits and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse.[76][77] Likewise in June 2014, family medical leave benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act 1975 were extended to married same-sex couples in all of the U.S.[78][79] With respect to social security and veterans benefits, same-sex married couples who live in states where same-sex marriage is recognized are eligible for full benefits from the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The VA and SSA can provide only limited benefits to married same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, with Congress required to amend federal law to rectify that inequity.[79][80][81]
The federal government has announced that it recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who married in certain states in which same-sex marriage was legal for brief periods between the time a court order allowed such couples to marry and that court order was stayed, including Michigan and Utah. It has yet to take a position with respect to similar marriages in Arkansas, Indiana, and Wisconsin.[82]
According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2004, 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.[83]
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court declined an appeal in Baker v. Nelson, a same-sex marriage case from Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question."[84] The Baker precedent for many years closed the federal courts to legal advocacy on behalf of same-sex marriage rights. Since the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, however, most federal courts that have considered same-sex marriage cases have held that Baker is no longer binding precedent, because, as a district judge in Pennsylvania wrote in November 2013, "[t]he jurisprudence of equal protection and substantive due process has undergone what can only be characterized as a sea change since 1972".[85]
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 Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[86] On April 2, 2014, the Alabama State House adopted a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide.[87]
Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings,[88] tribal council rulings,[89] and popular vote in statewide referenda.[90][91]
As of November 20, 2014, 34 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
As of November 20, 2014, 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas), as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, neither license same-sex marriages nor recognize them from other jurisdictions.
In two states (Missouri and Kansas) the situation is more complex. Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions.[92] A state court ruling striking down Missouri's same-sex marriage ban required St. Louis, an independent city, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. St. Louis County and Jackson County also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In Kansas, a federal court injunction bars the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and clerks in two counties from enforcing Kansas's same-sex marriage ban. State judges have authorized the issuance of licenses to same-sex couples in at least thirty-five other counties, but the state government otherwise refuses to recognize same-sex marriages.
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have any law prohibiting or recognizing same-sex marriage.[17] Even with no prohibition, none of these territories recognizes same-sex marriage.
Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas have one or more state or federal judicial rulings striking down their same-sex marriage bans that have been stayed pending appeal. Florida has a judicial ruling striking down the same-sex marriage ban where the stay expires on January 5, 2015, as well as several other cases making their way through state court that have been stayed pending appeal.[95]
In the United States, federally recognized Native American tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws.[96] There are 20 tribal jurisdictions that legally recognize same-sex marriage. Some tribes have passed legislation specifically addressing same-sex relationships and some tribes specify that state law and jurisdiction govern tribal marriages. The Blackfeet Tribe,[97][98] the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes,[99] the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,[100] the Coquille Tribe,[101] the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation,[102][103][104] the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,[105][106] the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa,[107][108] the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa[109][110] the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe,[111] the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians,[112] the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe,[113] the Pascua Yaqui Tribe,[114][115] the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians,[116] the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe,[117] the Puyallup tribe,[118] the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, [119][120] the San Carlos Apache Tribe[121][122] the Santa Ysabel Tribe,[123] the Suquamish tribe,[124] and the Wind River Indian Reservation.[125]
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that Minnesota's laws prohibiting marriages between same-sex partners did not violate the federal constitution. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case, Baker v. Nelson, "for want of a substantial federal question."
In April 1993, as part of the demonstrations surrounding the National Museum of Natural History to call for marriage rights for gays and lesbians.[126]
In 1998, in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Miike, Hawaii voters approved a state constitutional amendment allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[127] This constitutional amendment was unique due to the fact it did not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, it simply allowed the legislature the option. Every other constitutional ban passed by states explicitly banned same-sex marriage.
The next decade saw lasting change. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law in Lawrence v. Texas.[128] The ruling rendered same-sex sodomy laws in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri and broader sodomy laws in nine other states unenforceable.[129]
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the Massachusetts Constitution. [130] Massachusetts became the first United States jurisdiction to license and recognize same-sex marriages beginning May 17, 2004.[131]
In February and March 2004, city officials in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to about 4000 same-sex couples before being ordered to stop by the Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah–approved state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[135]
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision that legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.[136] To overturn the decision, opponents of same-sex marriage placed a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot.[137] Known as Proposition 8, it passed in November 2008, as did similar marriage-restriction amendments in Florida and Arizona.[138] Thus gay marriage started and stopped in California in 2008.
On August 4, 2010, a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.[139] The decision in that case was upheld at appeal and – as the State of California decided not to appeal or defend Proposition 8 – the voters who initially instigated the initiative appealed to the Supreme Court, which asked to be briefed for arguments concerning the appellants' standing, and heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.[140] The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of standing on June 26, 2013,[141] after which same-sex marriage once again became legal in California.[142] Same-sex marriages resumed on June 28, 2013.[143]
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state's civil unions statute discriminated against same-sex couples and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.[144] On November 12, 2008, the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples were issued and the following year, the state enacted gender-neutral marriage legislation.[145]
On April 3, 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling upheld a lower court ruling in Varnum v. Brien that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution,[146] and licenses became available on April 27.[147]
On December 18, 2009, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted legislation legalizing same-sex marriage[148] and same-sex marriage licenses became available on March 3, 2010.[149]
By 2009,
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four—Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri—prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.
However, it should be noted that counsel for the Defendants has informed the Grimsley Plaintiffs that the Defendants oppose the Grimsley Plaintiffs' similar motion seeking to lift the stay as well.
Texas: In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L.
Texas: In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.
Missouri: State of Missouri v. Florida
Mississippi: Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon
Louisiana: In Re Costanza and Brewer
Kansas: Nelson v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
Florida: Pareto v. Ruvin and Huntsman v. Heavilin
Arkansas: Wright v. Arkansas
Note: In the United States, the name of the court where a civil complaint or a petition is initially filed, and the trial is held, varies by state. The term used may be county court, circuit court, district court, or superior court.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in cases from four states (DeBoer, Obergefell and Henry, Bourke and Love, and Tanco) on August 6, 2014.[491] On November 6, it upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.[447] The cases from all four states have since been petitioned to the Supreme Court.
The Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in Robicheaux v. George for January 9, 2015.
On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari without recorded dissent in all the cases it had been asked to consider from appellate courts in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, allowing the circuit court decisions striking down marriage bans to stand. The cases were: Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana); Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin); Herbert v. Kitchen (Utah); McQuigg v. Bostic (Virginia); Rainey v. Bostic (Virginia); Schaefer v. Bostic (Virginia); and Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma).[244] On November 13, commenting in an unrelated case on behalf of himself and Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "often review[s] decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts.... But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months". He referenced denials of certiorari or denials of a stay in Herbert, Bishop, Bostic, Walker v. Wolf, Otter v. Latta, and Parnell v. Hamby.[444]
Lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts to challenge same-sex marriage bans in every state that prohibits the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples or the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere,[443] as well as in Puerto Rico.
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:
A study by the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health found that gay men in Massachusetts visited health clinics significantly less often following the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state.[423]
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.[421][422] 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.
At the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, expert witness Ilan Meyer testified that the mental health outcomes for gays and lesbians would improve if laws such as Proposition 8 did not exist because "when people are exposed to more stress...they are more likely to get sick..." and that particular situation is consistent with laws that say to gay people "you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued." Such laws have "significant power", he said.[420]
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. 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.[419]
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.[418]
Several psychological studies[415][416][417] 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.
Based in part on research that has been conducted on the adverse effects of stigmatization of gays and lesbians, 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.[346]
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.[411]
Same-sex couples face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples, including the marriage penalty in taxation.[411] 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.[411]
Some 7,400 companies were offering spousal benefits to same-sex couples as of 2008. In states that recognized same-sex marriages, same-sex couples could continue to receive those same benefits only if they married.[414] Only 18% of private employers offered domestic partner health care benefits.[412]
Compared to similarly situated opposite-sex married couples, same-sex couples faced the following financial and legal disadvantages:
Until the Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor required the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples on an equal basis with heterosexual married couples, same-sex married couples faced severe disadvantages. The federal government did not recognize those marriages for any purpose. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study, at least 1,049 U.S. federal laws and regulations include references to marital status.[410] A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'"[411] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits and are ineligible for the benefits due the spouse of a federal government employee.[411] One study found that the difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was US$5,588 per year.[412]
A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion.[406] In May 2013, a Gallup poll showed that 53% of Americans would vote for a law legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Three previous readings over the course of a year consistently showed support at 50% or above. Gallup noted: "Just three years ago, support for gay marriage was 44%. The current 53% level of support is essentially double the 27% in Gallup's initial measurement on gay marriage, in 1996."[407] Some commentators, however, have noted instances where polling data has understated voter opposition to referendums banning same-sex marriage.[408] One 2010 study concluded that "polls on gay marriage ballot initiatives generally under-estimate the opposition to gay marriage by about seven percentage points".[409]
As of 2013, public support for same-sex marriage in the United States has solidified above 50%.[399][400][401] Public support for same-sex marriage has grown at an increasing pace since the 1990s.[4] In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported legalization of same-sex marriage. Polls have shown that support is identical among whites and Hispanics, while support for same-sex marriage trails among blacks.[402] Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 showed support for same-sex marriage gaining a majority, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[403] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country.[404] 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."[405]
On his radio show in August 2010, commentator Rush Limbaugh said: "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."[398]
In an interview on The O'Reilly Factor in August 2010, when Glenn 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?'"[396][397]
When a U.S. district court invalidated the California referendum that ended same-sex marriages there in 2008, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said it showed "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".[394] By the end of 2012, Gingrich was prepared to accept civil—but not religious—same-sex marriages and encouraged the Republican Party to accept the fact of same-sex marriage was certain to become legal in more and more states.[395]
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Republican 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."[393]
Former presidents Barbara have served as witnesses to a same-sex wedding, but neither has publicly stated whether this means they support same-sex marriage in general.[386] In May 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting President to support same-sex marriage.[7] Fifteen U.S. senators announced their support in the spring of 2013.[387] By April 2013 a majority of the Senate had expressed support for same-sex marriage.[388] Senator Rob Portman of Ohio became the first sitting Republican senator to endorse same-sex marriage in March 2013,[389] followed by Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois in April,[390] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in June,[391] and Susan Collins of Maine a year later.[392]
Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states. But, as you know, courts have always been strategic. There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like Brown v. Board of Education, but that's pretty rare. And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.
President Obama's views on same-sex marriage have varied over the course of his political career and become more consistently supportive of same-sex marriage rights over time. In the 1990s, he had supported same-sex marriage while campaigning for the Illinois Senate.[369][370] During the 2008 presidential campaign, he said: "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."[371] He opposed the 2008 California referendum that aimed at reversing a court ruling establishing same-sex marriage there.[372] In 2009, he opposed two opposing federal legislative proposals that would have banned or established same-sex marriage nationally, stating that each state had to decide the issue.[373][374] In December 2010, he expressed support for civil unions with rights equivalent to marriage and for federal recognition of same-sex relationships. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[375] He also stated that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving" and that he recognized that civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples was "not enough".[376] On May 9, 2012, President Obama became the first sitting president to say he believed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. He still said the legal question belonged to the states.[7][377] In October 2014, Obama told an interviewer that his view had changed:[378]
[368] have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity. In February 2012, the [367] and the IRS[366][365] The funding of the amendment referendum campaigns has been an issue of great dispute. Both judges
[364], in the United States.group marriage, or polyamory and polygamy has written that same-sex marriage would eventually lead to the legalization of Weekly Standard Stanley Kurtz of the [363][362] Opponents of same-sex marriage have claimed that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would have harmful effects on biological family, children's rights, and social welfare.[361] [356] The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a statement in June 2003 that legalizing same-sex relationships would "convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large".[355] Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States ground their arguments on parenting concerns, religious concerns, concerns that changes to the definition of marriage would lead to the inclusion of polygamy or incest, and in natural law-based reasoning.
One of the largest scale uses of social media to mobilize support for same-sex marriage preceded and coincided with the arrival at the US Supreme Court of high-profile legal cases for Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act in March 2013. The 'red equals sign' project started by the Human Rights Campaign was an electronic campaign primarily based on Facebook which encouraged users to change their profile images to a red equal sign to express support for same-sex marriage.[353] At the time of the court hearings it was estimated that approximately 2.5 million Facebook users changed their profile images to a red equals sign.[354]
Supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage have successfully used social media websites such as Facebook to help achieve that goal.[349][350][351] Some have argued that the successful use of social media websites by LGBT groups has played a key role in the defeat of religion-based opposition.[352]
Garden State Equality of New Jersey states that the wording "same-sex marriage" implies a separate, and therefore unequal, category of marriage.[347] The 2012 Democratic Party Platform used the term "marriage equality" in its support.[348]
In the United States such professional organizations as the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing and National Association of Social Workers have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children are inconsistent with the scientific evidence which supports the conclusions: that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships essentially equivalent to heterosexual relationships; that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children; and that the children of same-sex parents are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite-sex parents.[339][340][341][342][343][344][345] The body of research strongly supports the conclusion that discrimination by the federal government between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples in granting benefits unfairly stigmatizes same-sex couples. The research also contradicts the stereotype-based rationales advanced to support passage of DOMA that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit.[346]
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."[338]
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.[335] Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group.[336] According to an American history scholar, Nancy Cott, "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."[337]
Note: This table only lists states where a court has ruled the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples unconstitutional while staying enforcement of its ruling pending appeal.
Note: This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but do not license them.
On November 25, two U.S. district courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage in Arkansas in Jernigan v. Crane[35] and in Mississippi in Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant.[36]
On November 20, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for a stay in a South Carolina case, allowing the district court's order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage to take effect.[294] That same day, lawyers for the plaintiffs in a Louisiana case, Robicheaux v. Caldwell filed a petition for certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the recent conflicting opinions on same-sex marriage in the federal circuit courts.[295]
On November 19, District Court Judge Brian Morris ruled Montana's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Rolando v. Fox.[293]
On November 14, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a brief in Caspar v. Snyder that argued that the Sixth Circuit's decision in DeBoer voided all same-sex marriages previously licensed there.[292]
Several of Kansas's 105 counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time on November 13, though the state attorney general contended that the federal court order in Marie v. Moser only applied to two counties. The Kansas Supreme Court's temporary order in State v. Moriarty that one judicial district not issue such licenses remained in place,[287][288] until November 18, when the court ruled that Judge Moriarty was "within his jurisdiction" in ordering the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and lifted its stay.[289] By that date, 19 Kansas counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[290] By November 20, 25 counties comprising more than two-thirds of the state's population were doing so.[291]
On November 12, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Condon v. Haley. He issued a temporary stay of his ruling until noon on November 20.[33]
On November 7, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Lawson v. Jackson County that Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. He stayed enforcement of his ruling pending appeal, and the Attorney General announced plans to appeal to the Eighth Circuit.[285] In Jackson County, which includes Kansas City, officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the same day.[286]
On November 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.[44] Attorneys for the plaintiffs in all six of the cases planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than ask the Sixth Circuit to rehear the case en banc.[284]
On November 5, 2014, a state judge in St. Louis ruled Missouri's ban unconstitutional.[279] Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced plans to appeal the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court, but not to seek a stay of the ruling's implementation because "[f]ollowing decisions in Idaho and Alaska, the United States Supreme Court has refused to grant stays on identical facts."[280] The ruling directed St. Louis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the city's marriage license department immediately complied.[281] St. Louis County, where an official said "We believe it's a county-by-county decision",[282] began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the next day.[283] Koster and the Recorders' Association of Missouri said the decision only applied to the city of St. Louis.[282]
On November 4, 2014, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled in Marie v. Moser that Kansas' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and stayed enforcement of his ruling against state officials until 5 pm CST on November 11 unless the state defendants inform the court before then that they will not appeal the decision.[275][276] Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt announced the state planned to appeal and seek an initial hearing en banc from the Tenth Circuit.[277] He sought a temporary stay from the Tenth Circuit without success and then asked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit, to issue a stay pending appeal. On November 10 she granted a temporary stay pending consideration of their request. She referred the matter to the full court, which on November 12, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting, declined to issue a stay and lifted Sotomayor's temporary stay, leaving Judge Crabtree's order against the enforcement of Kansas' ban on same-sex marriage in place.[278]
On October 17, 2014, U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick declared Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal the ruling and instructed county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[273] On the same day, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled for the plaintiff same-sex couples in Wyoming in Guzzo v. Mead, but stayed enforcement of his ruling until October 23 or until the defendants informed the court that they will not appeal to the Tenth Circuit. The stay was lifted on October 21 when the state notified the court it would not appeal, ending enforcement of Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage.[274]
On October 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay it had imposed on May 20, 2014, in Latta v. Otter, allowing the district court decision to take effect, preventing further enforcement of Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage as of October 15, 2014.[271] Also on October 13, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage asked the Ninth Circuit to rehear Sevcik en banc, charging that the Ninth Circuit's assignment of judges to cases that raise LGBT rights issues "did not result from a neutral judge-assignment process."[272]
On October 12, 2014, Judge Timothy M. Burgess ruled that Alaska's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional and issued an injunction to prevent state officials from continuing to enforce it.[269] Alaska Governor Sean Parnell immediately stated his intention to appeal the decision, and the head of the state Bureau of Vital Statistics said, "We expect our office will be busy tomorrow, (October 13) but we will make every effort to help customers as quickly as possible."[270]
The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Marie v. Moser, in U.S. district court in Kansas on October 10 on behalf of two lesbian couples who had been refused marriage licenses in the last few days. The suit named as defendants Robert Moser, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and two district court clerks.[268]
On October 9, West Virginia Governor Ray Tomblin announced he was ordering state agencies to act in compliance with the recent decisions of federal courts on the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.[265] On October 10, District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., ruling in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, struck down North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage, citing the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer.[266] Some North Carolina clerks began issuing marriage license to same-sex couple immediately.[267] The ban in West Virginia was officially declared unconstitutional on November 7, 2014, by U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers.[32]
Also on October 8, 2014, the chief judge of the state district court for Johnson County, Kansas, the most populous in the state, directed the court's clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[261] On October 10, Kansas Chief Justice Lawton Nuss ordered all court clerks not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but allowed the acceptance of applications for marriage licenses to continue.[262] Also on October 8, 2014, in South Carolina, some same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses,[263] but the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered a halt to their issuance the next day.[264]
On October 8, 2014, Idaho officials asked that the Ninth Circuit allow enforcement of Idaho's same-sex marriage ban to continue while they sought rehearing en banc. They also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay implementation of the Ninth Circuit's decision while they sought rehearing by the Ninth Circuit or consideration by the Supreme Court. They cited a circuit split on the question of whether government actions that make distinctions on the basis of sexual orientation require review under the "heightened scrutiny" standard, to which few circuits have adopted.[256] Justice Anthony Kennedy granted an emergency stay,[257] which he withdrew when the full Supreme Court denied the stay request.[258] Idaho Governor Butch Otter announced the state would no longer attempt to preserve the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples,[259] but Idaho sought another stay from the Ninth Circuit, which rejected the request on October 15.[260]
On October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled in two cases, overturning a district court in Nevada that had found that state's ban on same-sex marriage constitutional and affirming the decision of a district court in Idaho that had found that state's ban unconstitutional.[252] In the case of Idaho, it issued the lower court's order requiring Idaho to cease enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage immediately.[253] In the case of Nevada, the Ninth Circuit said it was ordering the district court in Nevada to issue a similar order with respect to that state.[254] In a joint statement, Nevada's Governor Brian Sandoval and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said the state would not appeal the decision. It said: "Same sex marriage is now law in Nevada".[255]
On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take action on all five cases it had been asked to consider from appellate courts in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, allowing the circuit court decisions striking down marriage bans to stand.[244] The Tenth Circuit, lifting its stays in two cases that same day, ordered Oklahoma and Utah to recognize same-sex marriage, as did the Fourth Circuit for Virginia.[245] The stays in the Seventh Circuit's cases expired automatically with the Supreme Court's dismissal of the certiorari petitions, allowing its rulings that Indiana and Wisconsin must recognize same-sex marriage to take effect.[246][247] Same-sex marriage bans were expected to end in the six other states in those circuits that still banned same-sex marriage[248]–Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming–as courts implemented the rulings in their circuits, but officials in South Carolina, Wyoming, and Kansas said they would continue to defend their states' bans.[249] Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, by contrast, asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss his appeal and lift its stay in Burns v. Hickenlooper. He asked the State Supreme Court to lift a stay preventing certain clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Both courts lifted their stays on October 7, 2014, and Suthers ordered all county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[250] As of October 6, 2014, most Americans live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.[251]
On September 3, District Judge Martin Feldman ruled against the plaintiff same-sex couples in Robicheaux v. Caldwell, upholding Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage.[243]
In July and August 2014, several state judges in Florida found the state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional; all their orders were stayed.[237][238] On August 21, 2014, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle made a similar ruling and stayed enforcement pending further appeals.[239] On July 28, 2014, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the unconstitutionality of Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage in Bostic v. Schaefer.[240] The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on August 20, 2014, one day before the Fourth Circuit's mandate was to go into effect. On September 4, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the unconstitutionality of Indiana and Wisconsin's bans on same-sex marriage in Baskin v. Bogan.[241] The Court stayed its decision before it took effect, pending action by U.S. Supreme Court.[242]
On July 9, 2014, a state judge struck down Colorado's same-sex marriage ban in Brinkman v. Long, staying the decision pending appeal.[235] A number of county clerks issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on July 29, 2014, before an order from the Colorado Supreme Court halted the practice a month after a handful of county clerks had defied a ban in the State Constitution.[236] On July 23, in Burns v. Hickenlooper, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore also ruled that Colorado's ban against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. On August 21, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the enforcement of Burns pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari in similar cases.
On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed Judge Robert Shelby's ruling striking Utah's same-sex marriage ban.[229][230] It was the first time a federal appeals court recognized that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.[230] The judgment was stayed pending review from the Supreme Court.[231][232] Boulder County in Colorado, a state in the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction, began issuing licenses despite the stay until ordered by the Colorado Supreme Court to stop. The same day, a federal district court in Indiana ruled Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Judge Richard L. Young did not issue a stay on his ruling and instructed all state agencies to provide marital benefits to same-sex couples.[233] Two days later, the order was stayed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pending appeal.[234]
On June 6, 2014, Judge Barbara Bandriff Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban in Wolf v. Walker.[225] No immediate injunction to stop enforcement of the ban was ordered,[226] and county clerks in at least 60 counties have begun to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[227] After Judge Barbara Crabb refused to stay her ruling, Wisconsin's attorney general J. B. Van Hollen requested a stay from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. On June 13, the judge put the ruling on hold, pending appeal.[228]
On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban in his ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf.[221] Governor Tom Corbett said he will not appeal the court decision, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.[222] One county clerk has decided to intervene in, appeal, and stay the decision. The trial court denied intervention and the stay of judgment, and the Third Circuit affirmed. On July 7, 2014, the clerk applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, denied the clerk's application for a stay on July 8, 2014, and the Third Circuit denied the clerk's petition to rehear her case for intervention on August 4, 2014.[223][224]
On May 19, U.S. District judge Supreme Court of the United States denied NOM's emergency request for a stay on Judge McShane's ruling, thereby permanently legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[218][219][220]
On May 13, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in Latta v. Otter issued a ruling striking down Idaho's ban on marriage for same-sex couples. She ordered the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[215] On May 20, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay pending appeal.[216]
On May 9, 2014, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza struck down Arkansas' constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Wright v. Arkansas.[213] As the details of his ruling and requests for a stay were considered, approximately 450 same-sex marriage licenses were issued. The Arkansas Supreme Court stayed enforcement of his ruling pending appeal on May 16.[214]
On March 21, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman found Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. He did not stay enforcement of his decision. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency request with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay pending appeal.[211] Hundreds of same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses and some married in Michigan on the morning of March 22 before the appeals court temporarily stayed enforcement of the ruling until March 26.[212] On March 25, the stay pending appeal was granted by the appellate court.
On March 4, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued an opinion that a recent court decision ordering Cook County to issue marriage licenses immediately did not apply to all county clerks, but advised clerks that they should find the decision "persuasive as you evaluate whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples." Governor Pat Quinn then announced that the Illinois Department of Public Health would record marriages issued by any county clerk.[209] Several of the state's 102 county clerks began, or announced plans to begin, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in March.[210]
On February 26, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled in De Leon v. Perry that Texas's ban on same-sex marriage is an unconstitutional "state-imposed inequality".[207] He immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, pending an appeal. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said that he would appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.[208]
On February 13, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. She stayed enforcement of her ruling in Bostic v. Rainey pending appeal.[206]
On February 12, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn declared Kentucky's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional.[200][201] On February 27, Judge Heyburn issued an order requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions,[202] but the next day he stayed that order until March 20.[203] On March 19, the stay was extended pending action by the Sixth Circuit, noting the stay granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kitchen v. Herbert.[204] Additionally, on July 1, a judge ruled in Love v. Beshear that the ban on performing same-sex marriage within Kentucky was unconstitutional, and also stayed the ruling.[205]
On January 14, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Terence C. Kern ruled in Bishop v. Oklahoma that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He stayed his ruling pending appeal.[15] On January 23, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced that the state was reversing its position and supporting a federal lawsuit challenging the Virginia state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage.[196] On January 21, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, considering issues unrelated to marriage in SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, ruled that distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review.[197] In response to that decision, on February 10, Nevada State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto withdrew the state's brief in Sevcik v. Sandoval, ending its defense of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.[198] Because the decision in SmithKline was not appealed, heightened scrutiny remains the standard of review in the Ninth Circuit for laws and government actions that draw distinctions based on sexual orientation.[199]
On December 20, 2013, Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for Utah struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional in Kitchen v. Herbert.[190] Salt Lake County began issuing marriage licenses immediately, followed by other counties.[191] After failing to get the District Court or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the decision pending appeal, Utah state officials asked for a stay from the United States Supreme Court, which granted the request on January 6, 2014.[14][192] The stay allowed Utah to reinstate its ban on same-sex marriage and deny state services to married same-sex couples.[193] On January 10, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who married in Utah between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014.[194] The Tenth Circuit ordered the appeals process to be heard on an expedited basis.[195]
In 2013, certain New Mexico counties, either on the basis of a court decision or their clerks' own volition, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In August 2013, Doña Ana County[181] and Santa Fe County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the latter through a court order.[182][183][184][185][186] Although opponents filed for an injunction,[187] same-sex marriage expanded to a total of eight New Mexico counties.[188] On December 19, 2013, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, effective immediately, same-sex marriage would be permitted throughout the state.[189]
In October and November 2013, the Hawaii legislature enacted legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, which Governor Neil Abercrombie signed on November 13. The law took effect on December 2, 2013.[177] The Illinois General Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on November 5, 2013. The House of Representatives narrowly passed an amended version of an earlier Senate bill 61–54–2 with the Senate approving the House version 32–21 only about an hour later. Governor Pat Quinn signed the legislation on November 20.[178] On February 21, 2014 U.S District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled that same-sex couples in Cook County, which includes Illinois' largest city Chicago, can obtain marriage licenses immediately and need not wait until the law's June 1 effective date.[179] On February 26, 2014, a Champaign County clerk began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after consulting the State's Attorney and concluding that the Cook County order is applicable.[180]
New Jersey began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on October 21, 2013, following a September 27 state superior court decision that found an equal protection right of same-sex couples to marry.[175] Governor Chris Christie filed an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, but withdrew it after the court declined to stay the lower court's ruling.[176]
Several jurisdictions enacted same-sex marriage in 2013. The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians of Michigan voted in March 2013 to legalize same-sex marriages under their tribal jurisdiction, although the state maintained that it would not recognize the marriages.[89] Rhode Island enacted legislation on May 2, which took effect August 1;[170] Delaware enacted legislation on May 7, which took effect July 1;[171] and Minnesota enacted legislation on May 14, which took effect August 1.[172][173] In July 2013, a court clerk in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with the rationale that the state marriage statutes were unconstitutional, but his action was overruled by a state intermediate appellate court in September and he was ordered to cease issuing the licenses.[174]
In the regular November 2012 elections, voters for the first time approved the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote in three states: Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Maine's law took effect on December 29, 2012.[165] Maryland started allowing same-sex marriages on January 1, 2013,[166] In Washington state, the first licenses were distributed on December 6, with the first marriages on December 9 following the mandatory three day waiting period.[167][168] In the same election, Minnesota became the second state to reject a statewide constitutional ban against same-sex marriage by a popular vote.[169]
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as all other types of same-sex unions.[163][164] North Carolina already prohibited same-sex marriages by statute.
Prior to the November 2012 election, Maryland recognized same-sex marriages formed in other jurisdictions, but did not license such marriages.[161] Similarly, New York did not issue marriage license to same-sex couples but its courts had mandated the recognition of same-sex marriages established elsewhere,[162] a situation which changed when its legislature legalized same-sex marriage in 2011.
As of January 2010, 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had statutes that did so.[155] Nineteen states banned any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.[156] Voters approved 28 out of 30 popular referenda in which states asked voters to adopt a constitutional amendment or initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[18] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[157] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[158] In 2012, Minnesota became the second state to reject an amendment to its state constitution banning same-sex marriage.[159] A bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie on February 17, 2012.[160]
In September 2009, when several Democratic members of Congress proposed legislation to repeal DOMA, Barney Frank opposed the move because he thought its enactment impossible.[153] Nancy Pelosi had warned earlier in the year that the legislative calendar had no room for the issue.[154]
legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, the sixth and last state in that region to do so. Rhode Island [152] On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state nationally to legalize same-sex marriage.[88] Nonetheless, the legislation was stayed pending a vote and never went into effect. It was repealed by referendum in November 2009.[151] signed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the first state governor to do so.John Baldacci 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 was the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative means rather than litigation. On May 6, 2009, Maine Governor [150]
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Paterson, New Jersey, Bergen County, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey
United States, Mexico, Netherlands, France, Same-sex marriage in the United States