Same-sex marriage in the United States
From Free net encyclopedia
| Same-sex marriage |
|---|
| Performed nationwide in |
| Belgium (2003) |
| Canada (2005) |
| Netherlands (2001) |
| Spain (2005) |
| Performed statewide in |
| Massachusetts, USA (2004) |
| To be performed in |
| South Africa (by 2006) |
| Debate in other countries and regions |
| Aruba |
| Australia |
| China |
| Estonia |
| France |
| Ireland |
| Latvia |
| Lithuania |
| New Zealand |
| Portugal |
| Romania |
| United Kingdom |
| United States: CA NY WA |
| See also |
| Civil union |
| Registered partnership |
| Domestic partnership |
| Same-sex marriage timeline |
| Listings by country |
Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States.
The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex families began in the early 1970s. It is supported by an assortment of groups and individuals. Those supporting same-sex marriage include the Human Rights Campaign; the late Coretta Scott King; the mayors of several large cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Seattle, and New York; the American Civil Liberties Union; the American Psychiatric Association; and Reform Judaism. Several political parties such as the Communist Party USA [1], the U.S. Green Party, the United States Libertarian Party and several state Democratic Parties also support gay marriage.
Those supporting the creation of a separate but equal legal status for same-sex couples in the form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation include some state governors such as those of Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Connecticut, the national Democratic Party, and a simple majority of the American public has found in most opinion polls. Some also support enacting reciprocal beneficiary legislation that would give some of the same legal rights as marriage but not all. They include the state governor of Utah, and Focus on the Family.
Groups that oppose giving a legal status to same-sex-marriages include the Southern Baptist Convention [2], the Seventh-day Adventist Church [3], the Evangelical Methodist Church [4] [5], Unification Church, the Moral Majority, the Christian Voice, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Republican Party, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. There are also many other groups who have voiced opinions against same-sex marriage, such as the Ku Klux Klan.
As of February 2006 in the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Vermont grant persons in same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in a civil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.
Nineteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
The 2004 presidential election
In the 2004 presidential election campaign, legal recognition of same-sex unions became a major issue. Incumbent George W. Bush, the Republican Party candidate supported banning marriages between those of the same-sex on a federal level, through the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), while supporting state-sanctioned civil unions, reciprocal benefits, or domestic partnerships. However, this amendment would have nulled state-recognized marriages in Massachusetts. Challenger John F. Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate took a similar position supporting the ban of marriages between same-sex couples on a state level while supporting civil unions, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnerships. However, Kerry opposed the FMA. It should be noted that many legal scholars believe that the FMA would render civil unions unconstitutional as well.
The position of President George W. Bush conflicts with that of his political party. During the 2004 Republican National Convention GOP platform called for a ban on all forms of legal recognition of same-sex unions. President George W. Bush has called that specific part of the party platform “wrong.” After his re-election President Bush indicated to the Washington Times that he would no longer lobby for the Federal Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution banning marriages between same-sex couples unless the Defense of Marriage Act were ruled unconstitutional.
Strong opposition to gay marriage was likely a major factor in helping Bush get re-elected, especially since Kerry was from Massachusetts, the state where gay marriage had just been legalized. Several states passed constitutional amendments against gay marriage on election day, most notably Ohio, which was the deciding state in the presidential race. The gay marriage issue probably either swung enough undecided voters in favor of Bush to secure his victory, or enhanced turnout among conservative voters who were encouraged to go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. When they did so, they also cast a vote for Bush. This is contested by some as there was not complete correlation between Bush voters and opposers of gay marriage. In some states Bush got more votes than the ban on same-sex marriage, indicating some of those who voted for him also voted against banning same-sex marriage. And the number of voters citing moral values as a deciding issue in their vote remained the same as in the 2000 according to exit polls.
The debate
Gay rights organizations
Evan Wolfson, the director of the Freedom to Marry coalition, contends that banning gay and bisexual Americans from legally marrying the one they romantically love constitutes discrimination. He states that same-sex marriage would promote equality and fairness among all Americans by allowing same-sex families to have the same legal protections as afforded to opposite-sex families.
- Gay families also deserve health care, retirement protections, the ability to use scarcely needed funds to afford education or a home and the ability to give kids the security to openly and proudly describe their families. This would make our nation stronger.
Conservative publications
A writer of The Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, blames same-sex marriage in the Netherlands for an increase in parental cohabition contracts. He asserts that same-sex marriage has detached procreation from marriage in the Dutch mind and would likely do the same in the United States.
Using anecdotal evidence, such as a Dutch man and two women who entered a cohabitation agreement together, and a small Unitarian Church group that advocates polygamy, Stanley states that allowing a monogamous same-sex marriage will create a social disorder that will eventually lead to polygamy.
- ...the American media are correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted the innovation (same-sex marriage). The press has simply missed the meaning of that public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means that marriage as an institution has been detached from parenthood in the public mind. That is why the practice of parental cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding (cohabitation) story shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is now a real possibility.
Liberal publications
Christopher Ott, a reporter for The Progressive, has characterized the social conservatives' predictions of legalized polygamy in states such as Massachusetts that have same-sex marriage as false. He confronts the common argument that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and stating that it did not devalue the electoral process. Ott describes the prohibtion of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.
- ...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?
Popular opinion
Advocates of same-sex marriage generally hold that marriage and its benefits should not be denied to same-sex couples, and that such a denial infringes one or more of their rights as American citizens. Critics of same-sex marriage generally hold that marriage should be defined as only consisting of a union of one man and one woman, a so-called "traditional marriage," and that no rights exist that should compel a state to recognize any relationships to the contrary of that definition
Many people make a distinction between same-sex marriage and civil unions, which would provide same-sex couples some legal rights. Although only about 4 in 10 Americans think gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry, there is larger support for permitting civil unions. All in all, over half of Americans support some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples who wish to make a long-term commitment. Forty percent think same-sex couples' relationships ought to have no legal recognition. [6]
Opposition correlated with level of religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation and residing in the southern states. Levels of support were higher among the young, non-church going, Democratic Party affiliated and those who lived in the Western states as well as New England. On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ endorsed a same-sex marriage resolution making the UCC the first major U.S. Christian denomination to approve same-sex marriages.
In some states, particularly in New England and some western states, a majority of people have expressed support for same-sex marriage. A Massachusetts poll conducted in October 2003 estimated that 59 percent of registered voters believed that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to enter into civil marriage [7]. Previous polls in Hawaii, California and New Jersey have shown majorities supporting same-sex marriage.
Polls
[8] The most recent national poll on same-sex marriage in the United States was conducted in March 2006 by Pew. It found support for allowing same-sex marriages to be legally recognized increased sharply. Those against allowing such marriages had their numbers drop from 63% to 51% and those in favor of marriage rights for gay couples increased from 30% to 39%. The previous question had been asked February 2004.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 29-May 1, 2005. Adults nationwide.
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=492, MoE ± 5 (Form A)
In the following table, "Y" means "Should Be Valid"; "N" means "Should Not Be Valid"; and "U" means "Unsure".
| Poll Date | Y | N | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4/29-5/1/2005 | 39 | 56 | 5 |
| 3/18-3/20/2005 | 28 | 68 | 4 |
| 7/19-7/21/2004 | 32 | 62 | 6 |
| 3/5-3/7/2004 | 33 | 61 | 6 |
| 2/16-2/17/2004 | 32 | 64 | 4 |
| 2/6-2/8/2004 | 36 | 59 | 5 |
| 12/2003 | 31 | 65 | 4 |
| 10/2003 | 35 | 61 | 4 |
| 6/2003 | 39 | 55 | 6 |
| 1/2000 | 34 | 62 | 4 |
| 2/1999 | 35 | 62 | 3 |
| 3/1996 | 27 | 68 | 5 |
April 19, 2005 Gallup Poll: Support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as "being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples," has risen to 57%.
CBS
CBS News poll conducted February 24-28, 2005 asking[9]:
- "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."
| Legal marriage | Civil union | No recognition | Unsure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All political parties | 23% | 34% | 41% | 2% |
| Republicans | 8% | 37% | 54% | 1% |
| Democrats | 29% | 35% | 34% | 2% |
| Independents | 30% | 29% | 37% | 4% |
| Trend over time | ||||
| November 18-21, 2004 | 21% | 32% | 44% | 3% |
| July 11-15, 2004 | 28% | 31% | 38% | 3% |
| May 20-23, 2004 | 28% | 29% | 40% | 3% |
| March 10-14, 2004 | 22% | 33% | 40% | 5% |
- The same CBS News Poll highlighting regional, political party affiliations and age differences in views. May 20 - 23, 2004. Nationwide:
| Demographic | Marriage | Civil union | No recognition |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 28% | 29% | 40% |
| Republicans | 13% | 33% | 53% |
| Democrats | 32% | 28% | 36% |
| Independents | 37% | 27% | 33% |
| 18-29 years | 43% | 32% | 25% |
| 30-44 | 29% | 25% | 44% |
| 45-64 | 26% | 29% | 41% |
| 65 & older | 12% | 32% | 51% |
| Northeast | 35% | 31% | 33% |
| Midwest | 26% | 23% | 47% |
| South | 23% | 26% | 48% |
| West | 31% | 36% | 28% |
Pew Research
The Pew Research Center/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey poll asking[10]:
- "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" (Margin of error three percent)
| Date | Favor | Oppose | Unsure |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 13-17 2005 | 36% | 53% | 11% |
| December 1-16, 2004 | 32% | 61% | 7% |
| August 5-10, 2004 | 29% | 60% | 11% |
| July 2004 | 32% | 56% | 12% |
| March 2004 | 32% | 59% | 9% |
| February 2004 | 30% | 63% | 7% |
| November 2003 | 30% | 62% | 8% |
| October 2004 | 30% | 58% | 12% |
- "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples? (Margin of error three percent)
| Date | Favor | Oppose | Unsure |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 13-17, 2005 | 53% | 40% | 7% |
| August 5-10, 2005 | 48% | 45% | 7% |
| July 2004 | 49% | 43% | 8% |
| March 2004 | 49% | 44% | 7% |
| Octobr 2003 | 45% | 47% | 8% |
Pew has since done another study in March 2006 and found that only 51% oppose gay marriage, with 39% supporting it, and the level of "strongly opposing" gay marriage has fallen from 42% to 28%.[11]
Government Action on Same-Sex Unions
The United States
In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Clinton signed Public Law 106-199, the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Act defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law.
The Act also codifies the judicially-created public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This portion of the Act was redundant and, thus, ineffective, since the Clause has never been used to validate a sister-state marriage in the first place; and the states already had the right to refuse recognition on public policy grounds anyway.
The Several States
Votes by state legislatures to recognize various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:
- Template:Fnb Granted limited rights.
- Template:Fnb Expanded rights included.
- Template:Fnb Gave domestic partnerships legal rights of married couples.
- Template:Fnb Did not come to up and down floor vote.
- Template:Fnb Maryland Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
- Template:Fnb The vote failed to receive the absolute majority (40 votes) required to pass.
- Template:Fnb The bill failed to come to a floor vote in the House of Representatives.
- Template:Fnb California Governor vetoed legislation; a veto override would require two-thirds support.
U.S. Federal Legal Issues
In the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor, as well as state and private benefits (family memberships, discounts, etc) denied same-sex couples by excluding them from participating in marriage. A legal denial of federal rights or benefits, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law: rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another.
In the 2003 case before the Supreme Court of the United States titled Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage believe that this ruling, especially when combined with the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia that eliminated anti-miscegenation laws, paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. However, these proponents often do not mention, or are not aware, of the United States Supreme Court's summary affirmance in the case of Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810. This decision, binding on all lower federal courts, clearly distinguishes Loving, and establishes the right of the individual States to uphold traditional opposite-sex marriage.
Despite Baker, many proponents of same-sex marriage hope for a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the high court has consistently ruled that government-sponsored discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not subject to strict scrutiny or even heightened scrutiny; thus such discrimination is generally permissible under the federal Constitution.
Challenges to DOMA have already been rejected by several federal courts, including a decision by Judge James S. Moody in the case of Wilson v. Ake. Most legal experts expect these challenges to fail, especially given the conservative tilt of the federal courts.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed with the support of President Clinton in 1996. This bill defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman," refuses federal recognition to same-sex marriages, and allows U.S. states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (currently only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) or other countries. Since then, various states have passed a law to assert that they do not recognize same-sex unions, nor will they recognize such unions legally recognized in other states. These laws are sometimes referred to as "Mini-DOMAs."
Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.
The amendment was debated in the United States Senate, but on July 14, 2004, a procedural motion to end debate failed by a wider-than-expected margin of 48 votes to 50. [12] This effectively prevented the amendment from facing a full Senate vote.
Also in 2003, lesbian comedian Rosie O'Donnell's court case with ex-colleagues raised another new issue when O'Donnell's life partner, Kelli, was forced to testify against O'Donnell. Under United States law, spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other; but because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, they are denied this courtroom right, part of a long list of benefits of marriage in the United States. They married on February 26, 2004 in San Francisco, but this was later nullified by the California Supreme Court.
As of April, 2006, California same-sex couple Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer have a marriage-rights case pending in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gay-rights groups including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union are not supporting the lawsuit, on the grounds that it is likely to lose in the Supreme Court and set an unfavorable precedent.<ref>"Two paths toward one goal: same-sex marriage." By David Kravets, Associated Press. 2006 April 2. [13]</ref>
U.S. State Legal Issues
Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all or most of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil union or domestic partnership.
Hawaii and Maine's domestic partnership and reciprocal benefit laws provide similar benefits, but both stop short of full equality on a state level.
There are also bills in both chambers of the New York State legislature that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. These bills were introduced in early 2003 and are currently still in committee.
In all cases, no rights that originate with the federal government attach to civil union, domestic partnership, etc., because the several states do not have jurisdiction over the Government of the United States.
International Legal Issues
At present, same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide in the Netherlands (and possibly Aruba), Belgium, Spain and Canada. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effect by December 2006. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in parts of other countries.
Latvia and Uganda[14] have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, and Nigeria is planning to do the same.
The legalization of same sex-marriages across all of Canada (see same-sex marriage in Canada) has raised questions about U.S. law, due to Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.
Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples headed or planned to head to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.
Timeline
Minnesota
1971: The Minnesota Supreme Court rules against the contention of plaintiffs Jack Baker and Mike McConnell that absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signified a legislative intent to recognize them. The court found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis". [15] This decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (see Baker v. Nelson), but was dismissed for failure to present a federal question. Such a dismissal constitutes a holding that the claimed Federal right-- a Constitutional mandate to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples identically-- does not exist.
Arizona
1975: Two men from Phoenix, Arizona are granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided and revoked the marriage licence. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.[16]
Colorado
1975: Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed, after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it. [17]A law was quickely pushed through to prohibit gay marriages.
Washington, DC
1987: The American Civil Liberties Union commits to eliminating legal barriers against same-sex marriage. 2,000 gay and lesbian couples are "married" in a mass mock wedding outside the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington. [18]
Hawaii
1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason. (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341)
1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only, rendering the equal protection clause moot. [19]
Puerto Rico
1998: The island territory of Puerto Rico ratified a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998.
Alaska
February 27, 1998: The Alaska Superior Court judge Peter Michalski rules in favor of plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, saying that choosing a marital partner is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state without a compelling reason.
November 3, 1998: The state's voters amend their constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman.
Vermont
1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state's constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage.
2000: The legislature passes a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving them all rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law.
Massachusetts
Image:CambridgeSameSexMarriage.jpg
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
New Jersey
January 12, 2004: Governor James E. McGreevey signs New Jersey's domestic partnership law. It goes into effect July 10, 180 days after it was signed. The legislature passed the law in part to curtail a lawsuit seeking full marriage rights for gay people.
March 8, 2004: The Deputy Mayor of Asbury Park, New Jersey marries a same-sex couple who had a license issued by the town clerk. New Jersey has a 72-hour waiting period between issuing a license and performing a ceremony, and the original license was issued without fanfare on March 5.
March 9, 2004: Numerous same-sex couples converge on the clerk's office once it opens, determined to get their own licenses before a threatened injunction by State Attorney General Peter C. Harvey could halt the process. [20] By the end of the day, no such injunction had been issued, although the attorney general had sent letters to Asbury Park officials warning them that they could face prosecution if they continued.
March 10, 2004: In response, the city council votes unanimously to freeze all 16 pending license applications, and sue the state to have those licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid.
California
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California
New Mexico
February 20, 2004: Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, New Mexico, announces that she would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender.[21] The first same-sex marriages in Sandoval County are performed later the same day. By the end of the day, however, New Mexico state attorney general Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law," and the Sandoval County clerk's office stops issuing them. In the interim, 26 such licenses had been issued.
The state governor, Bill Richardson, has requested that the state legislature enact a civil union bill.
New York
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New York
Wisconsin
March 5, 2004: The Wisconsin State Assembly approved, by a vote of 68-27, a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions, and to counter efforts elsewhere to legalize such partnerships.
March 12, 2004: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 20-13 to pass that state's amendment, which must still be passed again in next year's legislature, and be voted on in a state-wide referendum. [22]
December 6, 2005: The Wisconsin State Senate voted a second time in favor of the amendment. The vote is 19-14 and is along party lines.
February 28, 2006: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted for the second time in favor of the amendment. The question will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot.
Oklahoma
May 13, 2004: A lesbian couple from Tulsa obtained a marriage application in the Cherokee tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation issues marriage applications, rather than licenses. Couples obtaining a license have it signed by the individual performing the ceremony before returning to tribal court to have the application certified. Cherokee Principal Chief Chad 'Corntassel' Smith stated that he believes that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Cherokee law, and the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.
July, 2005: The tribe's Judicial Appeals Tribunal upheld the couple's right to marry, confirming that if they should refile for certification, it would be granted. [23] Although Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Oklahoma does recognize all Cherokee marriages. It is unclear how Oklahoma would react if the Cherokee tribal courts decide that this marriage is valid.
Oregon
Main article: Same-sex unions in Oregon
Rhode Island
May 17, 2004: Attorney General Patrick Lynch issues an advisory opinion that Rhode Island would recognize any legal marriage performed in another state, as long as the marriage is not contrary to the "strong public policy" of Rhode Island. He said that the legislature and courts should decide which types of marriages fall within that category, while adding that same-sex marriages are not included among the types of marriages currently proscribed. While his opinion does not have the force of law, it appears to indicate that Rhode Island would, in fact, recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Washington
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Washington
Utah
2005: Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. proposed reciprocal benefits for all same-sex couples living in the state. The measure was defeated in the state Senate by 8 votes and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. In the meantime Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a same-sex marriage supporter, has created domestic partnerships for city employees.
Previously in 2004, a constitutional amendment was passed defining civil marriage to be limited to opposite-sex couples. It was approved by 66% of voters, a much lower than expected number in what analysts had thought would be a more socially conservative state. Two counties: Grand County and Summitt County rejected it outright while the state's most populated county with 1,000,000 residents, Salt Lake County narrowly approved it by less than 4%.
Ohio
March 24, 2005: Two judges rule that Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law cannot be used against unmarried heterosexual couples because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nebraska
May 12, 2005: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, Section 29 of the state constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be overturned.
Maryland
January 20, 2006: Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in favor of nine Maryland couples who had sued for the right to marry. The judge immediately stayed the decision pending an appeal by the state attorney general's office. Ultimately, the matter seems likely to be decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals. [24]
February 2, 2006: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage was rejected by the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates. In one particularly fiery exchange on the floor of the legislature a Maryland state senator, Nancy Jacobs, demanded of American University law professor Jamie Raskin, "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" In response, Raskin rebuffed, ""Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."[25] Prior to the vote, some committee members, who opposed the marriage ban, amended the bill to create civil unions in Maryland. This resulted in a unanimous vote to reject the proposed constitutional amendment. Maryland legislators who oppose same-sex marriage have indicated that they will introduce other measures during the legislative session. [26]
Constitutional Amendments
The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, grouped by region:
- Template:Fnb Ban declared unconstitutional by Judge Joseph Bataillon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. [27] The ruling was appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis[28].
Case law
United States case law regarding the rights of homosexual persons:
- Lawrence v. Texas, federal Supreme Court (2003), (a state cannot criminalize sex between two unrelated consenting adults, homosexuals have a right to dignity in their lives)
- Romer v. Evans (1998), federal Supreme Court, (a state cannot deem one class of persons a stranger to its laws and protections)
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982)
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971)
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973)
- Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
- De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
- In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (DC 1995)
- Jennings v. Jennings, 315 A.2d 816, 820 n.7 (Md. Ct. App. 1974) ("marriage is between only one man and one woman.")
- Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
- In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitoner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
- Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. App. 2002) (state will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman)
- In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
- Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2002) (state will not recognize Vermont civil union)
- Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
- Lewis v. Harris, 2005 WL 23191114 (New Jersey Appellate Division) (unpublished) (New Jersey is not requried to allow same-sex marriage, on appeal to Supreme Court)
- Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
- Andersen v Sims (August 2004 decision from the Superior Court in Washington State legalizing same-sex marriage. The decision awaits confirmation by the Washington Supreme Court before licences can be issued.)
References
- PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium
Bibliography
See also
- List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions
- Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States
- List of benefits of marriage in the United States
- Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Marriage Protection Act
- Defense of marriage amendment
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnerships in the United States
- Marriage Under Fire
- Freedom to Marry Coalition
- Gay rights in the United States
- 2004 in gay rights
External links
Supporting Same-sex Marriage
- Hawai`i Gay Marriage Bureau
- Freedom to Marry
- Independent Gay Forum: Marriage
- A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
- Marriage Equality USA
- Equality California
- Center for Policy Alternatives Marriage Equality Policy Model
- Connecticut Same-Sex Marriage Organization: Love Makes a Family
Against Same-sex Marriage
- Alliance for Marriage
- Viriginia for Marriage
- No Gay Marriage
- Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage
- Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition
- The Marriage Amendment Project
- Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
- The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage
- The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
- Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, by. Dr. James Dobson
- LDS First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage
- The Family: A Proclamation to the World (LDS)
- Southern Baptist Position Statement
- VoteYesMarriage.com: California Marriage Amendment
- President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
- Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage
- Family Research Council: Policy Publications on Same-sex Marriage