Same-sex marriage in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage or marriage equality, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The federal government of the United States does not recognize the marriages of same sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Nationwide, four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their respective state legislatures. New York and the District of Columbia do not grant but recognize legal out-of-state same-sex marriages. In California, same-sex marriage was legal from June to November 2008, after the California Supreme Court held the statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state constitution; but the California electorate then approved a voter initiative that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage as part of the constitution. Marriages performed during the period remain legally valid.
Same-sex marriage is permitted in six of the 50 states:
- In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed.
- In Maine, same-sex marriages were going to begin on or around September 11, 2009, but due to a people's veto are in flux. A vote on the issue will be on the ballot for November.
- In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.
- In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized.
- In New York, Washington, D.C. and California, same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed.
- In Rhode Island two Attorney General's opinions suggest that same-sex marriages should be recognized, but a state Supreme Court opinion appears to contradict this position; same-sex marriages are not performed in Rhode Island.
The movement to obtain marriages rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became prominent in U.S. politics in the 1990s, with New England being the center of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Contents |
[edit] Legal issues
[edit] Federal law
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.
The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question".
[edit] State law
1May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
2The bill that legalized same-sex marriage in Maine has been stayed and will be subject to referendum on November 3, 2009.
3The bill that gave domestic partnerships all the rights of married couples in Washington has been stayed and will be subject to referendum on November 3, 2009.
See Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since November 18, 2003; in Connecticut since October 10, 2008 (having previously legalized civil unions in October 2005);[1] in Iowa since April 27, 2009;[2][3] and in Vermont since September 1, 2009. Same-sex marriages will be performed in New Hampshire starting January 1, 2010, and would have started in Maine starting September 14, 2009, but was put on hold pending a people's veto.[4] Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly bars federal recognition of such marriages.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted 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 Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[5]
The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, in Massachusetts by a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling.[6]
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.[7][8] Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage;[9] Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona.[10] The California amendment was challenged in a court proceeding, but was upheld by the state supreme court, in a 6-1 vote, on May 26, 2009. The court ruled, however, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008 would remain valid.
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa following the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien on April 3, 2009. [11] This was initially to take effect on April 24, but the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons.[12]
On April 7, 2009 Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation, as opposed to litigation, albeit without the governor's signature. On the same day, the City Council of the federal District of Columbia passed a bill by a 12–1 vote that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, although the bill is subject to Congressional approval.[13]
On May 6, 2009, Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage.[14] This legislation however, is subject to a people's veto.[15]
On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.[16]
As of June 1, 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.
As of January 1, 2009, thirty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, defining civil marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.[17] More than forty states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage", e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships.[citation needed] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.[18] New York courts have ruled that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes do not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses — as a result New York now has same-sex divorces without allowing same-sex weddings.[19] New Jersey only recognized same-sex marriages for the purpose of divorce, otherwise they are converted to Civil Unions.[20]
Pennsylvania state senator John Eichelberger plans to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. However, Senator Daylin Leach has introduced a bill that would legalize same sex marriage.[21][22]
[edit] Impact of foreign laws
The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has raised questions about U.S. law, because of Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike Belgium and the Netherlands). 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 went or planned to go 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.[citation needed]
Same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Sweden. Nepal is waiting to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, after a Supreme Court decision. Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in Israel, the U.S. State of New York, and the U.S. federal District of Columbia. Only Dutch same-sex marriages are recognized in Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.[23]
[edit] Debate
Barack Obama, like most national Democratic politicians, is against same-sex marriage[24] while remaining sympathetic to gay-rights.[25] The president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."[26] He opposes a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, but also opposes the proposed federal ban[27] on gay marriage, arguing that the individual states should decide.[28][29] Obama opposed Proposition 8--California's constitutional ban on gay marriage--in 2008, and may have made comments in support of same-sex marriage during his Illinois Senate race in the 1990's,[30] while he subsequently opposed same-sex marriage in the 2008 presidential election.[31]
[edit] Support
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Advocates of same-sex marriage sometimes liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[32] Some same-sex marriage supporters argue that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group.[33]
Christopher Ott argues against the position that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.[34]
[edit] Opposition
Opponents of same-sex marriage hold that same-sex marriage harms the family structure of society, and that same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father.[35] Maggie Gallagher takes the view that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different from marriages, and that any comparison with interracial marriage is unjustified.[36] Some opponents to same sex marriage argue that judicial rulings such as the California Supreme Court's decision in the In re Marriage Cases has amounted to unconstitutional judicial activism.[37]
[edit] Popular opinion
[edit] Timeline of major events
- October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".
- May 5, 1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of rights under the Hawaii Constitution. The case is sent back to the lower courts for a trial on these two issues.
- September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
- December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial-court judge holds that no compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He stays the decision pending review by the Hawaii Supreme Court.[38][39]
- November 3, 1998: Hawaii voters amend the Hawaii Constitution to give the Hawaii State Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
- December 9, 1999: In light of the constitutional amendment, the Hawaii Supreme Court dismisses the case challenging Hawaii's law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court thus never decided whether the law was constitutional.[40]
- December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.
- November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.
- February 11, 2004: The Massachusetts General Court (legislature) completes the first step in a process that would ban same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
- February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco issues same-sex marriage licenses.
- May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in Massachusetts.
- August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are void.
- September 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill.
- October 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage bill.
- May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
- June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in California.
- September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
- October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized.
- November 4, 2008: California voters pass Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
- November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect in California, stopping new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued after this date.
- November 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in Connecticut.
- March 26, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
- April 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
- April 6, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill is passed by the Vermont General Assembly and then vetoed by the governor.
- April 7, 2009: The Vermont General Assembly overrides the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill.
- April 23, 2009: Connecticut governor signs legislation which statutorily legalizes same-sex marriage (see Oct. 10 and Nov. 12, 2008), and also converts any existing civil unions into marriages as of October 1, 2010.
- April 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Iowa.
- April 29, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire Senate with minor amendments.
- May 6, 2009: Maine Governor Baldacci signs Marriage Equality Bill. The New Hampshire House of Representatives concurs with the Senate's amendments to HB436, and the bill supporting same-sex marriage advances to Governor John Lynch.
- May 12, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill passes in the lower house New York Assembly.
- May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, but also upholds the marriage rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples married while same-sex marriage had been briefly legalized.
- June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.
- September 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Vermont.
- September 11, 2009: Same-sex marriage was supposed to start on this day in Maine, but is subject to a people's veto.
- October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional while presiding over the divorce proceedings for two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, clearing the way for both Texas' first same-sex divorce and a legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.[41]
- October 11, 2009: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs into law recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.[42][43]
- January 1, 2010: Same-sex marriage to start in New Hampshire and out of state same-sex marriage becomes recognized in California.
[edit] Case law
United States case law regarding marriage equality:
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
- Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination; because the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry)
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
- De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)(same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
- In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (holding that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly tailored, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
- Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling 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. Ct. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
- Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
- Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
- Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
- Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
- In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
- Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.)
- Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure.")
- Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
- Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (New York State Constitution does not require that marriage be extended to same-sex couples).
- Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a "man" and a "woman,")
- Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county was refused leave to appeal on a technicality.[44])
- In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.)[45]; overruled by Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) (California Proposition 8, codified as Marriage Protection Act, functionally reverses In re Marriage by holding that same-sex couples do not have equal access to "marriage" designation and that such a holding does not violate California's privacy, equal protection, or due process laws)[46]
- Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, (Ia. 2009) (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples.)
[edit] See also
- A Union In Wait (documentary)
- Same-sex marriage
- Timeline of same-sex marriage
- Status of same-sex marriage
- Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States
[edit] Legislation
- Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
- Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
- Same-sex unions in the United States
- Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Marriage Protection Act of 2007
- Defense of marriage amendment
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnership in the United States
[edit] Supporting organizations
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Empowering Spirits Foundation
- Freedom to Marry
- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
- Human Rights Campaign
- Marriage Equality USA
- National Organization for Women
[edit] Opposing organizations
- Alliance Defense Fund
- Alliance for Marriage
- American Family Association
- Concerned Women for America
- Family Research Council
- Focus on the Family
- Liberty Counsel
- National Organization for Marriage
- Renew America
[edit] References
- ^ "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage", Hartford Courant
- ^ http://www.365gay.com/news/iowa-supreme-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
- ^ http://www.365gay.com/news/iowa-gay-marriages-delayed/
- ^ http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/pets02-1.htm
- ^ "Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban", CNN, June 7, 2006, (Accessed July 5, 2006)
- ^ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/
- ^ California same-sex marriage ban struck down
- ^ Mintz, Howard (May 15, 2008). "California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage" (in en). Mercury News. http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9269719. Retrieved 2008-05-15.
- ^ nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling
- ^ "Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage"
- ^ Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman, Des Moines Register, April 3, 2009.
- ^ http://www.365gay.com/news/iowa-gay-marriages-delayed/
- ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/dc_council_votes_to_recognize.html
- ^ http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov+News&id=72146&v=Article-2006
- ^ http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/pets02-1.htm
- ^ http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html
- ^ "Number of states", NYTimes.com
- ^ Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art15.html
- ^ http://www.nycourts.gov/ad4/court/Decisions/2008/02-01-08/PDF/1562.pdf
- ^ "ACLU-NJ Wins Case Allowing Same-Sex Couple To Divorce in NJ". American Civil Liberties Union. 2009-02-06. http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/aclunjwinscaseallowingsame.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
- ^ "Pa. Senator Introduces Gay Marriage Ban". The Advocate. May 19, 2009. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid84636.asp. Retrieved 2009-05-19.
- ^ Bunch, Will (Tue, May. 19, 2009). "Polls show Pa. resisting tide favoring gay marriage". Philadelphia Daily News. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090519_Polls_show_Pa__resisting_tide_favoring_gay_marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-05-19.
- ^ Dutch island fights marriage ruling
- ^ "ElectionCenter2008". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html. Retrieved October 03, 2009.
- ^ "the WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Civil Rights". http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/CIVIL_RIGHTS/. Retrieved October 03, 2009.
- ^ "the WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Civil Rights". http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/CIVIL_RIGHTS/. Retrieved October 03, 2009.
- ^ Paterson, Penny (2009-01-13). "Gay Supporters Petition Obama to Repeal DOMA". Santa Barbara Independent. http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-supporters-petition-obama-repeal-doma/. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
- ^ Eleveld, Kerry (2009-04-03). "White House Responds to Iowa". The Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77464.asp. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/report-obama-changed-view-gay-marriage/
- ^ "Same sex marriage issues-election center 2008-CNN.com". http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html. Retrieved 14 September 2009.
- ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-25-couples_x.htm
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/espuelas.prop.eight/
- ^ Christopher Ott (2005-02-08). "Banning same-sex marriage would protect no one". The Progressive. http://www.progressive.org/media_324. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- ^ Protecting marriage to protect children - Los Angeles Times
- ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200407130859.asp
- ^ George, Robert P.. Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html. Retrieved 13 September 2009.
- ^ "Trial-court decision in Baehr v. Miike" (PDF). First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii. 1996-12-03. http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/baehr/baehr-v-miike-decision.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
- ^ "Coverage of Hawaii same-sex marriage cases". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. http://archives.starbulletin.com/specials/samesex.html. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
- ^ "Decision in Baehr v. Miike, No. 20371" (PDF). Hawaii Supreme Court. 1999-12-09. http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/baehr/baehr-v-miike-supreme-decision.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
- ^ Dallas Morning News, October 2, 2009.
- ^ Raja, Vaishalee (2009-10-12). "Governor Signs Harvey Milk Day and Marriage Recognition Bills". Common Dreams NewsCenter. http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/12-1. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
- ^ "Marriage Recognition and Family Protection". Equality California. http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5305359. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
- ^ GAY MARRIAGE: Technicality delays county's appeal
- ^ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
- ^ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S168047.PDF
[edit] Bibliography
- Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
- Murdoch, Joyce and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books. ISBN 0465015131.
- Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4.
- Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
[edit] External links
- Where Can Gays Wed? Newsweek's Interactive Map on same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, June 2008 by Marc Bain, Alicia Parlapiano and Xaquín G.V.
- LA Weekly feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer
- PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium
- American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008, Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
