Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Same Sex Marriage in the U.S.' -wikipedia

Same-sex marriage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legal status of
same-sex relationships
Marriage
Performed
Recognized
  1. Can be registered also in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten
  2. Licensed in some counties in Kansas but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state
  3. Only legal in St. Louis, Missouri
  4. When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage
  5. Most counties in Alabama issued same-sex marriage licenses for several weeks after a federal court found that state's ban unconstitutional, but all stopped by 4 March 2015 following an order by the state supreme court
  6. Only if married in Michigan when same-sex marriage was legal
*Not yet in effect
LGBT portal
In the United States, same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government and has been legalized in 36 U.S. states,[a] the District of Columbia and 22 Native American tribal jurisdictions. More than 70% of the population live in jurisdictions where same-sex couples can legally marry.[4]
Among the 38 states where same-sex marriage is legal to at least some degree, marriage is open to same-sex couples statewide in 35 of those, while it is restricted in 3 of them. Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages from out-of-state and same-sex marriages licensed by the City of St. Louis under a state court order; two other jurisdictions issue such licenses as well. In Kansas, marriage licenses are available to same-sex couples in most counties, but the state does not recognize their validity. Some counties in Alabama issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples for three weeks until the state Supreme Court ordered probate judges to stop doing so. That court's ruling did not address the recognition of same-sex marriages already licensed in Alabama, but referred to them as "purported 'marriage licenses'".[5] In two additional states, same-sex marriages were previously legal between the time their bans were struck down and then stayed. Michigan recognizes the validity of more than 300 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples and those marriages. Arkansas does not recognize the more than 500 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples there, and the federal government has not taken a position on the Arkansas' marriage licenses.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a state may refuse to license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. It has scheduled oral argument for April 28.

Legal issues[edit]

See also: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
Civil same-sex marriage ceremony being performed in San Francisco City Hall in June 2008.
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.

Federal law[edit]

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.[6] Even before DOMA, however, states sometimes refused to recognize a marriage from another jurisdiction if it was counter to its "strongly held public policies".[7] 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.[b]
DOMA's Section 3 defined marriage for the purposes of federal law as a union of one man and one woman.[10] It was challenged in the federal courts. 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 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.[11]Beginning in 2010, eight federal courts found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in cases involving bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[12][13][14] On October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court 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.[15] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Windsor on June 26, 2013, that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment.[16][c]
As a result of the Windsor decision, married same-sex couples—regardless of domicile—have federal tax benefits (including the ability to file joint federal income tax returns), military benefits, federal employment benefits, and immigration benefits.[17][18][19][20] In February 2014, the Justice Department expanded federal recognition of same-sex marriages to include bankruptcies, prison visits, survivor benefits and refusing to testify against a spouse.[21] Likewise in June 2014, family medical leave benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act 1975 were extended to married same-sex couples.[22] 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 is not legal.[23][24] Effective March 27, 2015, the definition of spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993[25] includes employees in a same-sex marriage regardless of state of residence.[26]
The federal government 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. The federal government also recognized marriages performed in Utah from December 20, 2013 to January 6, 2014, even while the state didn't. Under similar circumstances, the federal government never took a position on Indiana or Wisconsin's marriages performed in brief periods, though it did recognize them once the respective states announced they would do so. It has yet to take a position with respect to similar marriages in Arkansas.[27]
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.[28]
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.[29] 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.[30]

State law[edit]

Further information: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States1
  Same-sex marriage legal
  Same-sex marriage not prohibited or recognized
  Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed indefinitely
  Same-sex marriage banned
  Same-sex marriage legality complicated2,3,4
1 Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law. The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence.
2 Most counties in Alabama had issued same-sex marriage licenses for several weeks after a federal court legalized same-sex marriage, but all have stopped in response to a conflicting order by the state supreme court. However, the state court did not nullify same-sex marriage recognition.
3 Many jurisdictions in Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government.
4 Same-sex marriage licenses are issued by three jurisdictions within Missouri. Legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government. The state's same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, but the decision is stayed indefinitely.

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,[31] tribal council rulings,[32] and popular vote in statewide referenda.[33][34]
There are three components to the legalization of same-sex marriage: the licensing of same-sex marriages, recognizing the legal validity of those licenses, and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,
As of March 4, 2015, jurisdictions where marriage licenses are issued to same-sex couples include 37 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, 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, except that in Kansas marriage licenses are not available in all counties.[35] All those jurisdictions recognize the validity of their licenses, except for Kansas, where the state government refuses to recognize same-sex marriages (except for the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and clerks in two counties who are under federal court order not to enforce the state's same-sex marriage ban). Kansas is also the only one of the above listed jurisdictions that fails to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. In Missouri, only Jackson County, St. Louis County, and the city of St. Louis issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Missouri does recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions.[36]
Most counties in Alabama issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a federal court ruling struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban. However, all counties have stopped issuing licenses to same-sex couples following a ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama contrary to the federal judgment. The status of same-sex marriages performed before the state court ruling, as well as the state's recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, is unclear.[37]
Twelve states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas), as well as two territories (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), prohibit the licensing of same-sex marriages and their recognition from other jurisdictions. Michigan recognizes 323 same-sex marriages performed on March 22, 2014 in the state, the only day the ban was legally unenforceable.[38]
Three territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not have any law prohibiting or recognizing same-sex marriage.[d] Even with no prohibition, none of these territories license same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Five states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas) have one or more state or federal court rulings striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, and all have been stayed pending appeal. In Louisiana, a state court decision striking down the state's ban, affecting 3 parishes, has been stayed pending appeal.

Tribal law[edit]

Main article: Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions
In the United States, federally recognized Native American tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws.[41] There are 22 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, including the Blackfoot Tribe,[42][43] the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska,[44] the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes,[45] the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,[46] the Coquille Tribe,[47] the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation,[48][49][50] the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,[51][52] the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa,[53][54] the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community,[55] the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa[56][57] the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe,[58] the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians,[59] the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe,[60] the Pascua Yaqui Tribe,[61][62] the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians,[63] the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe,[64] the Puyallup tribe,[65] the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,[66][67] the San Carlos Apache Tribe[68][69] the Santa Ysabel Tribe,[70] the Suquamish tribe[71] and the Wind River Indian Reservation.[72]

History[edit]

Main article: History of same-sex marriage in the United States
See also: Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States
The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s,[73] 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.[74] During the 21st century, public support for same-sex marriage has grown considerably,[75][76] 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.[77] On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.[78] On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.
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 27 states[e] and state courts in six states,[f] plus one state court ruling addressing only the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,[g] have found that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, while two U.S. district courts[h] and one state court[i] 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.[j][113]
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 in those states, and indirectly 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 10 states.[k]
On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear four cases, on appeal from the Sixth Circuit, on whether states may constitutionally ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize such marriages legally performed in another state. Final briefs are due April 17. The cases are: Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), and Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky).

States that fully license and recognize same-sex marriage[edit]

Note: This table shows only states that license and recognize same-sex marriages or have legalized them. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but do not license them.
States (and D.C.) with same-sex marriage
State or federal districtPopulation[123]Date of Enactment/RulingDate EffectiveLegalization methodDetails
 Alaska736,732October 12, 2014October 17, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruling in Hamby v. Parnell.[124]
 Arizona6,731,484October 17, 2014October 17, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruling in Connolly v. Jeanes and in Majors v. Horne .[125]
 California38,802,500May 15, 2008June 16, 2008State court decision → (Overturned by constitutional ban)California Supreme Court ruling in In re Marriage Cases. Ceased via state constitutional amendment after Proposition 8 passed on November 5, 2008.
August 4, 2010June 28, 2013Federal court decision → legislative statuteU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Stayed during appeal, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as Perry v. Brown. Certiorari granted and appealed as Hollingsworth v. Perry to the U.S. Supreme Court; the high court dismissed Hollingsworth for lack of standing and vacated the Ninth Circuit decision below, resulting with the original decision in Perry left intact.[126] Gender-neutral marriage bill passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law took effect January 1, 2015.[127]
 Colorado5,355,866July 9, 2014October 7, 2014State court decisionColorado district court ruling in Brinkman v. Long
July 23, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruling in Burns v. Hickenlooper
 Connecticut3,596,677October 10, 2008November 12, 2008State court decision → legislative statuteConnecticut Supreme Court ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health; incorporated into state statutes in April 2009.
 Delaware935,614May 7, 2013July 1, 2013Legislative statutePassed by the Delaware General Assembly.
 Florida19,893,297August 21, 2014January 6, 2015Federal court decisionU.S. Northern District of Florida ruling in Brenner v. Scott. The case is under appeal.[citation needed]
 Hawaii1,419,561November 13, 2013December 2, 2013Legislative statuteHawaii Marriage Equality Act passed by Hawaii State Legislature.
 Idaho1,634,464October 7, 2014October 15, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruling in Latta v. Otter,[128] upheld by the Ninth Circuit.[129]
 Illinois12,880,580November 20, 2013June 1, 2014Legislative statutePassed by the Illinois General Assembly.
 Indiana6,596,855September 4, 2014October 6, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruling in Baskin v. Bogan. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.[130]
 Iowa3,107,126April 3, 2009April 27, 2009State court decisionIowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v. Brien. One same-sex couple obtained a marriage licensed and married before initial ruling was stayed.[131]
 Maine1,330,089November 6, 2012December 29, 2012Initiative statuteProposed by initiative as referendum Question 1, approved.
 Maryland5,976,407November 6, 2012January 1, 2013Legislative statute → referendumCivil Marriage Protection Act passed by the Maryland General Assembly; petitioned to referendum Question 6, upheld.
 Massachusetts6,745,408November 18, 2003May 17, 2004State court decisionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
 Minnesota5,457,173May 14, 2013August 1, 2013Legislative statutePassed by the Minnesota Legislature.
 Montana1,023,579November 19, 2014November 19, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Montana ruling in Rolando v. Fox.[101]
 Nevada2,839,099October 7, 2014October 9, 2014Federal court decisionNinth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Sevcik v. Sandoval. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada's ruling.[132]
 New Hampshire1,326,813June 3, 2009January 1, 2010Legislative statutePassed by New Hampshire General Court.
 New Jersey8,938,175September 27, 2013October 21, 2013State court decisionNew Jersey Superior Court ruling in Garden State Equality v. Dow
 New Mexico2,085,572December 19, 2013December 19, 2013State court decisionNew Mexico Supreme Court ruling in Griego v. Oliver.
 New York19,746,227June 24, 2011July 24, 2011Legislative statuteMarriage Equality Act passed by New York State Legislature.
 North Carolina9,943,964October 10, 2014October 10, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruling in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper.[133]
 Oklahoma3,878,051July 18, 2014October 6, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruling in Bishop v. Oklahoma. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the ruling in Bishop v. Smith.[134]
 Oregon3,970,239May 19, 2014May 19, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruling in Geiger v. Kitzhaber.
 Pennsylvania12,787,209May 20, 2014May 20, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf.
 Rhode Island1,055,173May 2, 2013August 1, 2013Legislative statutePassed by the Rhode Island General Assembly.
 South Carolina4,832,482November 12, 2014November 20, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruling in Condon v. Haley.[135]
 Utah2,942,902June 25, 2014October 6, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Utah ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert. Marriages licensed between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert.
 Vermont626,562April 7, 2009September 1, 2009Legislative statutePassed by the Vermont General Assembly, overriding Governor Jim Douglas' veto.
 Virginia8,326,289July 28, 2014October 6, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruling in Bostic v. Rainey.[136] The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. district court ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer.[137]
Washington (state) Washington7,061,530November 6, 2012December 6, 2012Legislative statute → referendumPassed by the Washington State Legislature; suspended by petition and referred to Referendum 74, approved.
 West Virginia1,850,326October 9, 2014October 9, 2014Binding federal court precedent → Actions of state officials → Federal court decisionGovernor Earl Ray Tomblin and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, recognizing the precedent established by the Fourth Circuit ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer, dropped their defense of the state's same-sex marriage ban.[138] The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in McGee v. Cole overturned West Virginia's statutory ban on same-sex marriage on November 7, 2014.[139]
 Wisconsin5,757,564September 4, 2014October 6, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruling in Wolf v. Walker. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.[140]
 Wyoming584,153October 17, 2014October 21, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruling in Guzzo v. Mead.[141]
 District of Columbia658,893December 18, 2009March 9, 2010Legislative statutePassed by the Council of the District of Columbia.
Total221,434,635 (69.4% of the U.S. population)

States where same-sex marriage licensing is legally complicated[edit]

Note: This table shows only states that partially license same-sex marriages or where the legal situation is unclear.
States with same-sex marriage in part of their territory
StatePopulation[123]Date of enactment/rulingDate partially effectiveLegalization methodDetails
1. Kansas2,904,021November 4, 2014November 12, 2014Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruling in Marie v. Moser. Stay denied by the Tenth Circuit and by the U.S. Supreme Court.[142][143] Only select counties are issuing licenses, and state officials continue to enforce Kansas' ban in all other respects during appeal.[144]
2. Missouri6,063,589November 5, 2014November 5, 2014State court decisionTwenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri ruling in Missouri v. Florida with no request for a stay.[145][146] The ruling applies to St. Louis City only.[147] St. Louis County is issuing based on its own interpretation of the state court ruling's effect and Jackson County is issuing in response to a federal court ruling that was stayed.
3. Alabama4,849,377January 23, 2015February 9, 2015Federal court decisionU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama rulings in Searcy v. Strange and Strawser v. Strange.[148][149] As of February 13, most counties were issuing licenses to same-sex couples; a few were issuing no marriage licenses at all.[150][151] On March 3, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered probate judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and they complied.[152]
Total13,816,987 (4.3% of the U.S. population)

States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage[edit]

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.
States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage
StatePop.[123]RuledStayed fromJurisdictionCourt decision(s)Notes
1. Texas26,956,958February 26, 2014February 26, 2014U.S. Western District of TexasDe Leon v. PerryEnforcement stayed in initial ruling, referencing the Supreme Court's stay in Kitchen.[153] The case is before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Arkansas2,966,369May 9, 2014May 14, 2014Arkansas Sixth Circuit, Pulaski CountyWright v. ArkansasEnforcement temporarily stopped on May 14, 2014, after the Arkansas Supreme Court stated that Judge Piazza's order was silent about the state statutory same-sex marriage ban.[154][155]
May 15, 2014May 16, 2014Trial judge issued a clarified order on May 15, 2014, preventing enforcement of any ban on same-sex marriage in the state.[156]Licenses issued to same-sex couples again that day.[157] The state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which entered a stay on May 16, 2014.[158]
November 25, 2014November 25, 2014U.S. Eastern District of ArkansasJernigan v. CraneEnforcement stayed in initial ruling pending appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.[159]
3. Missouri6,063,589November 7, 2014November 7, 2014U.S. Western District of MissouriLawson v. KellyEnforcement stayed in the initial ruling.[160] State has filed notice of appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.[161]
4. Mississippi2,994,079November 25, 2014November 25, 2014U.S. Southern District of MississippiCampaign for Southern Equality v. BryantEnforcement stayed in the initial ruling until December 9, 2014,[162] and stayed indefinitely pending appeal by the Fifth Circuit on December 4.[163]
5. South Dakota853,175January 12, 2015January 12, 2015U.S. District of South DakotaRosenbrahn v. DaugaardEnforcement stayed in initial ruling by U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier pending the resolution of any appeals.[87]
6. Nebraska1,881,503March 2, 2015March 5, 2015U.S. District of NebraskaWaters v. RickettsEnforcement stayed in the initial ruling until March 9, 2015, and stayed pending appeal by the Eighth Circuit on March 5.[164]
Total41,815,673 (13.1% of the U.S. population)

Debate[edit]

Support[edit]

See also: List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States
2011 protest in New Jersey by Garden State Equality in support of marriage equality and against deportation of LGBT spouses.
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.[165]Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group.[166] According to an American history scholar, Nancy Cott, "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."[167]
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."[168]
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.[169][170][171][172][173][174][175] 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.[176]
The 2012 Democratic Party Platform used the term "marriage equality" in its expression of support.[177]

Role of social media[edit]

Supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage have successfully used social media websites such as Facebook to help achieve that goal.[178][179][180] 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.[181]
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.[182] 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.[183]

Opposition[edit]

Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California (October 2008)
See also: List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States
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.[184] 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".[185] 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 claim 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.[186][187][188][189] 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.[190] 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.[191][192] 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.[193]
The funding of the amendment referendum campaigns has been an issue of great dispute. Both judges[194][195] and the IRS[196] have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity. In February 2012, the National Organization for Marriage vowed to spend in Washington legislative races to defeat the Republican state senators who voted for same-sex marriage.[197]

Politicians and media figures[edit]

President Barack Obama interviewed by Robin Roberts of ABC's Good Morning America, in the Cabinet Room of the White House, May 9, 2012.
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.[198][199] 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."[200] He opposed the 2008 California referendum that aimed at reversing a court ruling establishing same-sex marriage there.[201] 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.[202][203] 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.[204] 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".[205] 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.[78][206] In October 2014, Obama told an interviewer that his view had changed:[207]
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.
Former presidents Bill Clinton[208] and Jimmy Carter,[209] former vice presidents Dick Cheney[210] and Al Gore,[211] Walter Mondale[212] and current Vice President Joe Biden have voiced their support for legal recognition, as have former first ladies Laura Bush[213] and Hillary Clinton.[214] Former president George H. W. Bush and his wife 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.[215] Fifteen U.S. senators announced their support in the spring of 2013.[216] By April 2013 a majority of the Senate had expressed support for same-sex marriage.[217] Senator Rob Portman of Ohio became the first sitting Republican senator to endorse same-sex marriage in March 2013,[218] followed by Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois in April,[219] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in June,[220] and Susan Collins of Maine a year later.[221]
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."[222]
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".[223] 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.[224]
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?'"[225][226]
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."[227]

Public opinion[edit]

Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
(95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  A poll shows a statistical tie between support of and opposition to same-sex marriage.
(Statistical tie: Not distinguishable at 95% confidence. Difference between support and opposition is < 0.842 of the 95% sampling error (< 1.65σ).)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
(95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.
  No polling data within the past two years.
When a jurisdiction is striped with light gray and another color, the color it's striped with indicates the result of the last poll for that jurisdiction, in the absence of data within the past two years.
A state that is split into two colors indicates recent polls with conflicting results.
A CNN poll in February 19, 2015 finds that 63% of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, up from 49% in August 2010.[228] 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.[229] 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."[230] Some commentators, however, have noted instances where polling data has understated voter opposition to referendums banning same-sex marriage.[231] One 2010 study concluded that "polls on gay marriage ballot initiatives generally under-estimate the opposition to gay marriage by about seven percentage points".[232]
As of 2013, public support for same-sex marriage in the United States has solidified above 50%.[233][234][235] Public support for same-sex marriage has grown at an increasing pace since the 1990s.[75] 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.[236] 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.[237] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country.[238] 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."[239]

Effects of same-sex marriage[edit]

Economic impact on same-sex couples[edit]

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.[240] 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.'"[241] 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.[241] One study found that the difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was per year.[242]
Compared to similarly situated opposite-sex married couples, same-sex couples faced the following financial and legal disadvantages:
  • Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain legal abilities granted automatically by legal marriage, including power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance[242]
  • A person can inherit an unlimited amount from a deceased spouse without incurring an estate tax, but is subject to taxes if inheriting from a same-sex partner[241]
  • Same-sex couples were not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus could not take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly[241][l]
  • Employer-provided health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner incurred federal income tax[241]
  • Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples had a member who was uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples[242]
  • Inability to protect jointly owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe[242]
  • Inability of a U.S. citizen to sponsor a same-sex spouse for citizenship[242]
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.[244] Only 18% of private employers offered domestic partner health care benefits.[242]
Same-sex couples face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples, including the marriage penalty in taxation.[241] 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.[241]

Economic impact on the federal government[edit]

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  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.[241]

Mental health[edit]

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.[176]
Several psychological studies[245][246][247] 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.[248]
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.[249]
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.[250]

Physical health[edit]

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.[251][252] 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.
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.[253]

Case law[edit]

See also: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States § Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:

1970s[edit]

  • Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). Upholds a Minnesota law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
  • Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973). Upholds the denial of a marriage license to two women in Kentucky based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes do not specify the gender of marriage partners.[254]
  • Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). A ban on same-sex marriage is a constitutional form of "gender discrimination"; the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, and same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry.

1980s[edit]

  • Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111. A 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 can not divorce because they cannot form a common law marriage.[255]

1990s[edit]

  • In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (Fam. Ct. 1990). The state has a compelling interest in fostering the traditional institution of marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage.
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). A statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is both justified by compelling state interests and also narrowly tailored. This ruling prompted the adoption of Hawaii's constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to restrict marriage to different-sex couples and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995). DC does not authorise same-sex marriage; denial of a marriage license does not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
  • Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (App. Div. 1996). New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage. Overturned in part by Martinez v. County of Monroe in 2008.
  • In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). Illinois does not recognize a same-sex marriage. The petitioner's claim to be in a same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law.
  • Baker v. Vermont, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999). The Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons, though it need not be called marriage.

2000s[edit]

  • Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002). Connecticut will not dissolve a Vermont civil union.
  • Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
  • Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002). The Florida constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under the Florida constitution.
  • In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002). A post-operative transgender woman, registered as male at birth certificate, may not marry a cisgender man, because the former is still male in the eyes of the law, and Kansas only recognizes the marriage of a man and a woman.
  • Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) The constitution of Arizona does not provide the right to same-sex marriage.
  • Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003). Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is valid.
  • Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
  • Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (App. Div. 2005). For the purposes of New York's wrongful death statute the survivor partner from a Vermont civil union lacks standing as a "spouse".
  • Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). 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.[256]
  • Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the New Jersey constitution, but the state must extend all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. The legislature has 180 days 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). The New York State Constitution does not require that marriage rights be extended to same-sex couples.[257]
  • Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). Upholds a Maryland law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
  • Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App. Div. 2008). Because New York recognizes the marriages of opposite-sex couples from other jurisdictions, it must do the same for same-sex couples.[258])
  • In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.[259]
  • Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). Proposition 8 was validly adopted, and marriages contracted before its adoption remain valid.[260]
  • Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). Barring same-sex couples from marriage 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.

2010s[edit]

Challenges to DOMA Section 3
California Proposition 8
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (2009–2013). California's Proposition 8, a voter-endorsed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The proposition's backers appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds the district court's finding of unconstitutionality in Perry v. Brown. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the proposition's backers lacked standing to appeal and left the district court ruling intact.[262]
Same-sex marriage rights
  • Christiansen v. Christiansen. On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court of Wyoming grants a divorce to two women who married in Canada, but says its decision does not apply "in any context other than divorce".[263]
  • Port v. Cowan (2010–2012). Maryland must recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under doctrine of comity.[264]
  • Garden State Equality v. Dow (2011–2013), New Jersey's civil unions violate due process guarantees; denying same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in state superior court. The N.J. Supreme Court refuses to stay the ruling and the state defendants drop their appeal.
  • Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013). the New Mexico Supreme Court rules that the state constitution requires marriage rights to be extended to same-sex couples.
  • Whitewood v. Wolf (Pennsylvania). On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III rules that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.[265]
  • Geiger v. Kitzhaber and Rummell v. Kitzhaber (Oregon). On May 19, 2014, District Judge Michael J. McShane declares Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.[266]
  • Bostic v. Schaefer (Virginia). The Fourth Circuit on July 28, 2014, in a 2–1 decision, affirms a district court ruling that Virginia's denial of marriage righst to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.[267] The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[268]
  • Baskin v. Bogan (Indiana) and Wolf v. Walker (Wisconsin). The Seventh Circuit consolidated these cases and on September 4, 2014, upheld two district court rulings that had found Indiana's and Wisconsin's bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.[269] The U.S. Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[268]
  • Bishop v. Smith (Oklahoma). On July 18, 2014, the Tenth Circuit upholds the district court ruling that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.[270] The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[268]
  • Kitchen v. Herbert (Utah). U.S. district court, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2013), rules the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds that ruling upheld on June 25, 2014. All parties support review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that court denied review on October 6.[268]
  • Barrier v. Vasterling (Missouri). State Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs rules on October 3, 2014, that Missouri's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violates the plaintiff same-sex couples' right to equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions.[271]
  • Caspar v. Snyder (Michigan). On January 15, 2015, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ruled that the state must recognize the validity of "window marriages" established on March 21 and 22, 2014, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a district court ruling in DeBoer v. Snyder that found Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, despite the fact that DeBoer was later reversed.[272] The state chose not to appeal.[273]

In litigation[edit]

Litigation against same-sex marriage bans in the United States
  Same-sex marriage legal (Litigation to reinstate SSM ban continues in several states.)
  Ruling against a SSM ban or recognition of SSM ban, stayed pending appeal
  Current litigation in US Supreme Court
  Current litigation in circuit court
  Current litigation in federal district court
Only the case before the highest court is coded per state.
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,[274] as well as in Puerto Rico.

U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

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).[275] 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.[276]
The Supreme Court rejected a petition for certiorari before judgment in Robicheaux v. George (Louisiana) on January 12, 2015,[277] and on January 16 agreed to hear the appeal in the four cases from the Sixth Circuit, consolidating them as one case titled Obergefell v. Hodges. It set a briefing schedule to be completed April 17, 2015, and scheduled oral argument for April 28.[278] It stated these questions to be addressed:[279]
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear (Kentucky)
Filed on July 26, 2013; the U.S. district court found the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause. Additional plaintiffs joined the lawsuit to challenge the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On July 1, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the equal protection clause. He found that homosexual persons constitute a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny and suggested the Sixth Circuit should adopt that standard of review. He found Kentucky's ban did not withstand even rational basis review.[280] The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Kentucky's ban on same sex marriage on November 6.[281] The couples filed an application for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17,[282] which Governor Beshear supported on December 9.[283]
DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan)
Filed on January 23, 2012; the U.S. district court found that the state's ban violates the equal protection clause, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich.) on March 21, 2014. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Michigan's ban on same sex marriage on November 6[281] and the same-sex couples filed an application for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17,[284] which Attorney General Bill Schuette supported on November 24,[285]
Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio)
In a case filed on July 19, 2013, the U.S. district court found that the state ban on same-sex marriage violates the due process clause, for the limited purpose of issuing death certificates. In a second case, on February 10, 2014, four same-sex couples legally married in other states asked a U.S. district court to require Ohio to record the names of both same-sex parents on their children's birth certificates. They amended their suit to challenge the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. On April 14, 2014, District Court Judge Timothy Black found for the plaintiffs. On May 29, 2014, the Sixth Circuit consolidated Obergefell and Henry. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Ohio's ban on same sex marriage on November 6,[281] and the same-sex couples filed an application for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 14,[286] which Ohio state officials endorsed on December 12.[287]
Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee)
Filed on October 21, 2013; the U.S. district court on March 14, 2014, required Tennessee to recognize the three plaintiff same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages until the court disposes of the case. The Sixth Circuit stayed that ruling.[288] The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's ban on same sex marriage on November 6.[281] The same-sex couples filed an application for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 14,[289] which Tennessee officials opposed on December 15.[290]

Courts of Appeals[edit]

Federal courts of appeal (numbered) and federal district courts (dashed lines and state boundaries)

First Circuit[edit]

Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla (Puerto Rico)
Same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in San Juan in late March 2014.[291] On October 21, Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez dismissed the suit, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal of Baker v. Nelson in 1972: "the plaintiffs constitutional claims challenging the Puerto Rico Civil Code's recognition of opposite-gender marriage fail to present a substantial federal question".[292] On March 20, 2015, Puerto Rico officials told the First Circuit Court of Appeals it would no longer defend the Commonwealth's ban on same-sex marriage and asked it to reverse the District Court's ruling.[293]

Fourth Circuit[edit]

Condon v. Wilson (South Carolina)
The plaintiffs in Bradacs v. Haley seek to require South Carolina to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[294] On November 18, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban on Fourteenth Amendment grounds and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ban.[295] The state filed notice of appeal on December 5.
Lambda Legal and South Carolina Equality filed suit, Condon v. Haley, in federal district court seeking the right to marry. Judge Richard Gergel ruled for the plaintiffs and temporarily stayed his ruling.[100] The state defendants asked the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court for a stay but were denied by both.[296][297][298] On December 16, the Fourth Circuit consolidated these cases and put proceedings on hold pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court on cert petitions in Obergefell.[299]
General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper (North Carolina)
On April 28, 2014, the United Church of Christ and a coalition of Baptists and Lutherans filed a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by criminalizing its clergy members for blessing same-sex marriages.[300] On October 10, District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.[301] On December 12, Thom Tillis and Phil Berger, the leaders of the state legislature, asked the Fourth Circuit to suspend proceedings in their appeal because they plan to apply to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment.[302] The Fourth Circuit denied their request on January 5, 2015.[303] The Fourth Circuit has consolidated this case with related North Carolina cases as General Synod v. Tillis[304] and put proceedings on hold pending Supreme Court action in Obergefell.

Fifth Circuit[edit]

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, De Leon v. Perry, and Robicheaux v. George on January 9, 2015, before Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, Jerry E. Smith, and James E. Graves, Jr.[305]
Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant (Mississippi)
The Campaign for Southern Equality and two lesbian couples filed suit in federal district court on October 20, 2014, challenging Mississippi's statutory and constitutional denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples.[306] On November 25, Judge Carlton W. Reeves ruled for the plaintiffs, staying his decision for 14 days.[103] On December 4, the Fifth Circuit issued a stay pending appeal as the state defendants had requested.[163]
De Leon v. Perry (Texas)
Filed on October 28, 2013; preliminary injunction granted in U.S. district court on February 26, 2014. The district judge issued a stay pending appeal.[307] On December 12, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request to lift its stay, though the U.S. Supreme Court had denied stays in similar cases and dissolved stays by denying cert in several more.[308]
Robicheaux v. George (Louisiana)
A marriage recognition case, filed in July 2013. On September 3, 2014, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage.[309] On January 12, 2015, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari before judgment that both parties had supported.[310]

Sixth Circuit[edit]

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.[311] On November 6, it upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.[281] The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted all these cases for review.

Eighth Circuit[edit]

The Eighth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in these four cases for May 12, 2015.
Jernigan v. Crane (Arkansas)
In this case filed on July 15, 2013, by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in Arkansas and recognition of their out-of-state marriages by the state, Judge Kristine G. Baker ruled for the plaintiffs on November 25, 2014, and stayed her ruling pending appeal.[159] The state filed notice of appeal in the Eighth Circuit on December 23.[312]
Lawson v. Kelly (Missouri)
Lawson was filed by the ACLU in state circuit court on June 24, 2014, on behalf of two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses.[313] Attorney General Chris Koster intervened and had the case moved to federal court.[314] On November 7, 2014, District Judge Ortrie Smith ruled for the plaintiffs and declared Missouri's ban unconstitutional, but stayed the ruling pending final judgement. On January 22, 2015, the Eighth Circuit agreed to expedite the case as the couples had requested, while refusing their request to lift the district court's stay and rejecting the state's request to suspend proceedings pending action in similar cases by the U.S. Supreme Court.[315] On February 9, the plaintiffs again asked the Eighth Circuit to lift the stay, citing the Supreme Court's refusal to grant a stay that day in Searcy v. Strange (Alabama).[316]
Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard (South Dakota)
Five plaintiff couples, who filed suit on May 22, 2014, have valid out-of state marriages, and a sixth was denied a license in South Dakota.[317] On January 12, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that South Dakota was depriving them of their "fundamental right to marry". She stayed implementation of her ruling pending appeal.[318]
Waters v. Ricketts (Nebraska)
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on November 17, 2014, on behalf of seven same-sex couples.[319] Plaintiffs are seeking to overturn the Nebraska same-sex marriage ban and to have their out-of-state marriages recognized.[320] On January 27, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon denied the state's request to suspend proceedings. He ruled for the plaintiffs on March 2, setting March 9 as the effective date of his ruling "in an effort to assuage the State's concerns with respect to administrative turmoil". The defendants requested a stay pending appeal,[321] which the Eighth Circuit granted on March 5 while also scheduling oral argument for May 12.

Ninth Circuit[edit]

Hamby v. Parnell (Alaska)
On October 12, 2014, Judge Timothy M. Burgess ruled the Alaska ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The injunction was not stayed.[322] State officials have appealed[323] and on February 27, 2015, the court suspended proceedings pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Latta v. Otter (Idaho) and Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nevada)
In a single decision on October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Idaho's and Nevada's bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.[324] Nevada began licensing and recognizing same-sex marriages on October 9, Idaho on October 15. Attempts by other parties to intervene and requests for rehearing en banc have not succeeded. On December 30, Idaho filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.[325]
Rolando v. Fox (Montana)
Same-sex marriage case filed in Great Falls on May 21, 2014.[326] On October 15, citing the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Latta, the plaintiffs asked the court for summary judgment.[327] U.S. District Judge Brian Morris scheduled a hearing for November 20 and then cancelled it, as the parties to the lawsuit agreed he had enough information to make a decision.[328] He ruled for the plaintiffs on November 19 and did not stay the implementation of his decision.[101] Licenses were issued to same-sex couples that day.[329] The Ninth Circuit suspended proceedings in the state's appeal on February 9, 2015, pending action by the Supreme Court in Obergefell.[330]

Tenth Circuit[edit]

Marie v. Moser (Kansas)
The ACLU filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District of Kansas on October 10, 2014, on behalf of two lesbian couples who had been refused marriage licenses. The suit named as defendants Robert Moser, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and two district court clerks.[331] On November 4, 2014, Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled Kansas' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but temporarily stayed enforcement of his ruling for one week.[332] Kansas officials appealed the ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state continues to enforce the ban during its appeal.[142][143] Only select counties are issuing licenses, and state officials continue to enforce Kansas' ban in all other respects during appeal.[333]
On November 26, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add three same-sex couples as plaintiffs and three defendants: the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, the Director of the Division of Vehicles, and the Director of the State Employee Health Plan,[334] and asked the court to extend its injunction to those new defendants.[335] On March 17, Judge Crabtree rejected the defendants' motions to suspend proceedings pending action in similar cases by the U.S. Supreme Court. He gave them until April 13 to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.[336]

Eleventh Circuit[edit]

On February 4, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals put its same-sex marriage cases on hold until the Supreme Court rules in pending cases.[337]
Brenner v. Armstrong (Florida)
On August 21, 2014, U.S. District Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle found that the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. He stayed enforcement of his ruling temporarily.[338] The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state's request to have the district court's injunction stayed pending appeal on November 19[339] and by the Supreme Court on December 19.[340] On January 1, 2015, Judge Hinkle clarified his injunction, writing that his order applied only to the named defendants, but that his ruling explained that the U.S. Constitution required all clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He warned them of the many expensive lawsuits that would ensue if any refused to do so.[341]

Federal district courts[edit]

Alabama
Searcy v. Strange, Strawser v. Strange, Searcy v. Davis
In January 2015, Judge Callie V.S. Granade ruled in two cases that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Both the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme rejected requests to extend her stay. Her orders took effect on February 9 and most probate judges began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They all ceased doing so following an order to that effect from the Alabama Supreme Court on March 3 in another case. A new suit, Searcy v. Davis, seeks to force Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to comply with Granade's order and allow an adoption to proceed. In Strawser, a group of LGBT advocacy groups have asked Judge Granade to recognize the case as a class action with all Alabama probate judges as defendants.[342]
Georgia
Inniss v. Aderhold
Same-sex marriage class-action lawsuit filed on April 22, 2014.[343] On January 8, 2015, Judge William S. Duffey Jr. denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. His ruling left the plaintiffs with a claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the state defendants with the need to demonstrate how Georgia's ban on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in "child welfare and procreation" under rational basis review.[344] On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to suspend proceedings until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in pending same-sex marriage cases.[345]
North Dakota
Ramsay v. Dalrymple
On June 6, 2014, private counsel filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in North Dakota on behalf of six same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions and one unmarried same-sex couple that challenged the state's ban on same-sex marriage.[346] On January 20, 2015, the court suspended proceedings until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in pending same-sex marriage cases.[347]

State courts[edit]

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.
Arkansas: Wright v. Arkansas
A state trial court issued a ruling on May 9, 2014, striking down the state constitution's same-sex marriage ban and later clarified its order to include the statutory ban as well.[348] The Arkansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal on November 20.[349] Having failed to decide the case before the court's membership changed at the end of the year, it is now considering which judges should consider the case.[350]
Same-sex marriage recognition case filed in state district court, where the plaintiffs are seeking recognition of their out-of-state marriage licenses for the purpose of filing a joint state income tax return.[351][352]
A lesbian couple who married in California sought to have their marriage recognized for the purpose of adoption. After a state trial court enjoined the state from enforcing laws that "prohibit a person from marrying a person of the same sex",[353] state officials appealed directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court,[110] which heard oral argument on January 29, 2015.[354]
Same-sex divorce case that a trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 2, 2013. The Mississippi Supreme Court took jurisdiction of the appeal and heard oral argument on January 21, 2015.[355]
In June 2014, St. Louis officials licensed four same-sex marriages in order to provide the basis for a lawsuit when the state ordered them to stop the practice.[356] St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison held a hearing in the suit on September 29 in state circuit court.[357] He ruled for the plaintiffs on November 5, finding that Missouri's refusal to license same-sex marriages violates the Missouri and federal constitutions.[358]

See also[edit]

Portal iconLGBT portal
Portal iconUnited States portal
Legislation
Organizations
Miscellaneous
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered