↑ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
↑ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
↑ Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
↑ Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
Civil rights campaigning in support of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s.[1] In 1972, the now overturned Baker v. Nelson saw the Supreme Court of the United States decline to become involved.[2] The issue became prominent from around 1993, when the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that it was unconstitutional under the Constitution of Hawaii for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. That ruling led to federal and state actions to explicitly abridge marriage on the basis of sex in order to prevent the marriages of same-sex couples from being recognized by law, the most prominent of which was the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Constitution of Massachusetts for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. From 2004 through to 2015, as the tide of public opinion continued to move towards support of same-sex marriage, various state court rulings, state legislation, direct popular votes (referendums and initiatives), and federal court rulings established same-sex marriage in thirty-six of the fifty states.
The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are human rights and civil rights organizations, while the most prominent opponents are religious groups, though some religious organizations support marriage equality.[3] The first two decades of the 21st century saw same-sex marriage receive support from prominent figures in the civil rights movement, including Coretta Scott King, John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Mildred Loving.[4] In May 2012, the NAACP, the leading African-American civil rights organization, declared its support for same-sex marriage and stated that it is a civil right.[5]
A study of nationwide data from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens, with the effect being concentrated among teens of a minority sexual orientation, resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer teens attempting suicide each year in the United States.
A newlywed same-sex couple celebrate their marriage in New Orleans in 2017.
The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates from the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention, though they proved unsuccessful.[10] The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
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. Just as with the Hawaii decision, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts provoked a reaction from opponents that resulted in further legal restrictions being written into state statutes and constitutions. The movement to obtain marriage rights for same-sex couples expanded steadily from that time until, in late 2014, lawsuits had been brought in every state that still denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
By late 2014, same-sex marriage had become legal in states that contained more than 70% of the United States population. In some jurisdictions, legalization came through the action of state courts or the enactment of state legislation. More frequently, it came as the result of the decisions of federal courts. On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote. Same-sex marriage had been legalized in the District of Columbia and 21 Native American tribal nations as well.
The June 2013 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor striking down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage gave significant impetus to the progress of lawsuits that challenged state bans on same-sex marriage in federal court.[11] Since that decision, with only a few exceptions, U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeals have found state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, as have several state courts. The exceptions have been a state court in Tennessee, U.S. district courts in Louisiana and Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from that circuit's decision.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.[12] The United States was the seventeenth country in the world and the second in North America after Canada, to allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide.[13]
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, 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.
Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed or recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction, but subsequently began to be performed and recognized by law in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings,[14] tribal council rulings,[15] and popular referendums.[16][17][18]
The Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges ended all inter-state legal complications surrounding same-sex marriage, as it orders states to both perform the marriages of same-sex couples and to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states.[19]
Federal law
Status of same-sex marriage in the United States
Performed and recognized
Recognized when performed elsewhere
Recognized by state and federal governments, but not by tribal government
(mixed jurisdiction; not performed by tribal government)
(mixed jurisdiction; not performed or recognized by tribal government)
Since July 9, 2015, married same-sex couples throughout the United States have had equal access to all the federal benefits that married opposite-sex couples have.[21]
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996. DOMA's Section 2 says that no state needs to 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.[22] Even before DOMA, however, states sometimes refused to recognize a marriage from another jurisdiction if it was counter to its "strongly held public policies".[23] Most lawsuits that sought 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.[a]
DOMA's Section 3 defined marriage for the purposes of federal law as a union of one man and one woman.[26] 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.[27] Beginning in 2010, eight federal courts found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in cases involving bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[28][29][30] 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.[31] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Windsor on June 26, 2013, that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment.[32][b]
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.[33][34][35][36] 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.[37] Likewise in June 2014, family medical leave benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act 1975 were extended to married same-sex couples.[38] With respect to social security and veterans benefits, same-sex married couples are eligible for full benefits from the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, the VA and SSA could provide only limited benefits to married same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage was not legal.[39][40] Effective March 27, 2015, the definition of spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 includes employees in a same-sex marriage regardless of state of residence.[41][42] Following the Obergefell decision, the Justice Department extended all federal marriage benefits to married same-sex couples nationwide.[21]
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. It also recognized marriages performed in Utah from December 20, 2013, to January 6, 2014, even while the state didn't. Under similar circumstances, it 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 had not taken a position with respect to similar marriages in Arkansas prior to the Obergefell decision legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriages in all fifty states.[43] The State Marriage Defense Act was proposed in Congress to force the federal government to follow individual state laws regarding same-sex marriage although it never passed either chamber.[44]
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 restrict marriage to heterosexual unions. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have prohibited 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.[45] On April 2, 2014, the Alabama House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide.[46]
In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas named Obergefell v. Hodges as a case that should be revisited in his concurrence of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which had overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the basis that abortion protection was not a "deeply rooted" right in the Constitution. To prevent the loss of the right to same-sex marriage, the House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act which would nullify DOMA and protect existing same-sex and interracial marriage licenses. In July, the bill passed 267–157, with 47 Republican representatives joining the Democrats.[47] In December, the Senate passed the bill 61–36, and the House again voted 258–169 to pass it.[48] President Joe Biden signed it into law on December 13, 2022.[49]
Same-sex marriages are licensed in and recognized by all U.S. states and the District of Columbia, as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa.[50] However, under the Respect for Marriage Act, American Samoa must recognize all marriages between two people that were legally performed in another jurisdiction.
On January 6, 2016, Alabama's Chief Justice, Roy Moore, issued a ruling forbidding state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[51] The ruling had no effect as all Alabama counties continued either issuing marriage licenses to all couples or not issuing licenses at all. In May 2016, Moore was charged with ethics violations by the state Judicial Inquiry Commission for the ruling,[52] subsequently being suspended from the bench for the remainder of his term on September 30 of that year.[53]
Counties not issuing marriage licenses
As of 2020, there are apparently no counties in the United States that do not (or would not) register the marriages of same-sex couple.
Officials of one Texas county, Irion, issued marriage licenses, but claimed they would refuse same-sex couples.[54] Starting in 2017, they refused to comment on what they would do if a same-sex couple were to apply for license.[55] However, as of March 2020, the Irion County clerk stated she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the form available on the office's website was not gender specific and stated no restrictions as to the genders of the applicants.[56]
Officials in several Alabama counties initially stopped issuing any marriage licenses rather than issue them to same-sex couples. By 2017, the number of counties doing this to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples dropped to eight.[57][58] This was in accordance with a state law, which was passed in 1961 to preserve racial segregation by making it optional for county clerks to issue marriage licenses.[59] The Alabama Legislature passed a bill replacing marriage licenses with marriage certificates in May 2019.[60] These final eight counties resumed allowing couples to marry on August 29, 2019.
Several Kentucky counties initially refused to marry same-sex couples. In response, Kentucky reformed its marriage license forms and removed the name of the county clerk from the licenses. As of June 2016, Chris Hartmann, director of the Kentucky-based Fairness Campaign, said that to his knowledge "there are no counties where marriage licenses are being denied" in his state.[61]
Post-Obergefell, six states have, on occasion, attempted to deny same-sex couples full adoption rights to varying degrees. In Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Wisconsin, same-sex couples have been met with rejection when trying to get both parents' names listed on the birth certificate. In V.L. v. E.L., Alabama's highest court attempted to void an adoption decree obtained by a same-sex couple in Georgia, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, restoring joint custody to the adoptive mother on March 7, 2016. Mississippi had once banned same-sex couples from adopting, but the law requiring this was ruled unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 31, 2016. With that ruling, adoption by same-sex couples became legal in all fifty states.[62][63]
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote in the case of Pavan v. Smith that under their decision in Obergefell, same-sex couples must be treated equally to opposite-sex couples in the issuance of birth certificates. In December 2016, the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld a state law only allowing opposite-sex couples to be automatically listed as parents on their children's birth certificates, while prohibiting same-sex couples from being allowed the same on an equal basis. The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court, finding that the disparity in treatment violated their decision in Obergefell.[64]
The Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the states and territories did not legalize same-sex marriage in Native American tribal nations. In the United States, Congress (not the federal courts) has legal authority over Native reservations. Thus, unless Congress passes a law regarding same-sex marriage on such reservations, federally recognized Native American tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws.[65] As of the time of the Obergefell ruling, 25 tribal nations legally recognized same-sex marriage. Some tribes have passed legislation specifically addressing same-sex relationships and some specify that state law and jurisdiction govern tribal marriages. As of April 2022, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in at least 47 tribal nations.[66]
Local laws prior to Obergefell v. Hodges
State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell v. Hodges
Same-sex marriage legal (including by court decision)
Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed indefinitely
Same-sex marriage banned where federal circuit court has found similar bans unconstitutional
Same-sex marriage banned
Same-sex marriage legality complicated
Native American tribal nations 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.
Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal to at least some degree in 38 states, one territory (Guam) and the District of Columbia; of the states, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama had restrictions. Until United States v. Windsor, it was only legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia. Beginning in July 2013, over forty federal and state courts cited Windsor to strike down state bans on the licensing or recognition of same-sex marriage. Missouri recognized same-sex marriages from out of state and same-sex marriages licensed by the City of St. Louis under two separate state court orders; two other jurisdictions issued such licenses as well. In Kansas, marriage licenses were available to same-sex couples in most counties, but the state did 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'".[67] In two additional states, same-sex marriages were previously legal between the time their bans were struck down and then stayed. Michigan recognized the validity of more than 300 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples and those marriages. Arkansas recognized the more than 500 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples there,[68] and the Federal Government had not taken a position on Arkansas's marriage licenses.
Note: This table shows only states that licensed and recognized same-sex marriages or had legalized them, before Obergefell v. Hodges. It does not include states that recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but did not license them.
Prominent figures in the civil rights movement have expressed their support for same-sex marriage. In 2004, Coretta Scott King, a leader of the civil rights movement and the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., expressed her support for same-sex marriage and publicly denounced attempts to define marriage as the "union of a man and a woman" as a form of "gay bashing".[98] In 2007, Mildred Loving, the joint plaintiff alongside her husband Richard Loving in the landmarkcivil rights case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all state bans on inter-racial marriage, issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in which she expressed her support for same-sex marriage and described it as a civil right akin to inter-racial marriage, stating that "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry".[99] In 2009, Julian Bond, a leader of the civil rights movement and a chairman of the NAACP, expressed his support for same-sex marriage and stated that "gay rights are civil rights".[100] In 2015, John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement and a chairman of the SNCC, welcomed the outcome of the landmarkcivil rights case of Obergefell v. Hodges in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, stating that "races don't fall in love, genders don't fall in love—people fall in love".[101]
The NAACP, the leading African-American civil rights organization, has pledged its support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, stating that they "support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution", and has declared that same-sex marriage is a civil right.[5]
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ rights organization in the United States, states that "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."[102]
Journalist Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage in the United States.[103] Author Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because it recognizes the civil right of a minority.[104] Historian Nancy Cott rejects alternatives to same-sex marriage (such as civil unions), reasoning that "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."[105]
Role of social media
Supporters of same-sex marriage successfully utilized social media websites such as Facebook to help achieve their aims.[106] Some have argued that the successful use of social media by LGBTQ rights organizations played a key role in the defeat of religion-based opposition.[107]
One of the largest scale uses of social media to mobilize support for same-sex marriage preceded and coincided with the arrival at the U.S. Supreme Court of high-profile legal cases for Proposition 8 and DOMA in March 2013. The "red equal sign" project started by the Human Rights Campaign was an electronic campaign primarily based on Facebook that encouraged users to change their profile images to a red equal sign to express support for same-sex marriage.[108] At the time of the court hearings, an estimated 2.5million Facebook users changed their profile images to a red equal sign.[109]
Opposition
Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on claims such as the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples.[110] While some researchers question the definitiveness of the evidence, others assert that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well as children of opposite sex couples.[97]
Others argue that the word "marriage" has always had a very specific meaning, i.e. the union of a man and a woman. By this argument, calling same-sex unions "marriages" is not a question of law but an example of Newspeak: same-sex unions are an inherently different entity than a marriage, and that entity has only gained legitimacy through Orwellianbrainwashing.[111] Critics of this position counter that historical changes in marriage traditions negate any fixed definition, so the word "marriage" can be infinitely redefined according to the needs of the culture.[112]
Some of the opponents of same-sex marriage are religious groups such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention which desire for marriage to remain restricted to opposite-sex marriages.[113] However, there are faith-based supporters of same-sex marriage, and homosexual people of faith, within every faith group.[114]The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage[115] but in 2022, endorsed a federal bill[116] requiring states and territories to honor same-sex marriages solemnized in other states (though it reiterated that church doctrine would not change).[117]
Political donations in opposition of same-sex marriage have been an issue of great dispute. Both judges and the IRS have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity.[118][119][120]
President Barack Obama's views on same-sex marriage varied over the course of his political career and became more consistently supportive of it over time. In the 1990s, he had supported same-sex marriage while campaigning for the Illinois Senate.[121][122] During the 2008 presidential campaign, he was opposed to same-sex marriage,[123] but he also opposed the 2008 California referendum that aimed at reversing a court ruling establishing same-sex marriage there.[124] 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.[125][126] 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.[127] 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".[128] On May 9, 2012, President Obama became the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage. He still said the legal question belonged to the states.[129] In October 2014, Obama told an interviewer that his view had changed:
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 [1954], 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.[130]
Shortly after winning the 2016 election, President Donald Trump said he's "fine" with same-sex marriage and believes it to be settled law: "It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, it's done."[131] This somewhat contrasted with a previous statement he made in June 2015, after Obergefell v. Hodges, in which he said he's personally for "traditional marriage" and that he believed same-sex marriage should be left to the states.[132] In that same statement, however, Trump admitted that overturning Obergefell is not realistic. Several of his federal appointments have also, subsequently, announced they will uphold same-sex marriage and enforce the Supreme Court ruling, while still being personally against same-sex marriage,[133] namely Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.[134]
Prominent politicians who have shifted from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage include Republican Senator Rob Portman, and Republican Representative Bob Barr (the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act).
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?'"[152][153]
Studies
The overall effects of legal access to same-sex marriage have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors.[154] The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples in the US, and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities.
Adolescent attempted suicide
The establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teenagers, with the effect being concentrated among teens of a minority sexual orientation. A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the rate of attempted suicide among all students in grades 9–12 declined by 7% and the rate of attempted suicide among those of a minority sexual orientation in grades 9–12 declined by 14% in states which established same-sex marriage, resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer teens attempting suicide each year in the United States. The researchers took advantage of the gradual manner in which same-sex marriage was established in the United States (expanding from one state in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015) to compare the rate of attempted suicide among teens in each state over the time period studied. Once same-sex marriage was established in a particular state, the reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens in that state became permanent. No reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens occurred in a particular state until that state recognized same-sex marriage. The lead researcher of the study observed that "laws that have the greatest impact on gay adults may make gay kids feel more hopeful for the future".[155][156][157][158][159]
Economic impact on same-sex couples
Until the Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor required the Federal Government to treat lawfully married same-sex couples on an equal basis with lawfully married opposite-sex 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.[160] 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.'"[161] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples whose marriages were not recognized by the Federal Government were ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits and were ineligible for the benefits of the spouse of a federal government employee.[161] One study found that the difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was US$5,588 per year.[162]
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[162]
A person can inherit an unlimited amount from a deceased spouse without incurring an estate tax, but was subject to taxes if inheriting from a same-sex partner[161]
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[161][c]
Employer-provided health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner incurred federal income tax[161]
Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventive care: 20% of same-sex couples had a member who was uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples[162]
Inability to protect jointly owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe[162]
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.[164] Only 18% of private employers offered domestic partner health care benefits.[162]
Same-sex couples face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples, including the marriage penalty in taxation.[161] 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.[161]
A 2019 study found an increase in employment among same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage. The author of the study provided additional evidence suggesting that this change in employment was driven by a decline in discrimination.[165]
Economic impact on the state and federal governments
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 $1billion 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.[161]
According to a study published in May 2020 by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy, the legalization of same-sex marriage boosted state and local economies by an estimated 3.8billion dollars. The Williams Institute estimated that the 300,000 same-sex couples who married in the U.S. since 2015 generated about $3.2billion for local and state economies. In addition, traveling wedding guests spent an additional $544million, and about 45,000 jobs were supported by same-sex weddings. $244million was generated in state and local taxes.[166][167]
Mental health
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.[168]
Several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations, media messages, and negative reactions among peers about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for LGBTQ people that may affect their health and well-being, especially among its younger members.[169][170][171]
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.[172]
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBTQ 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.[173]
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.[174]
Physical health
In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV/AIDS infection.[175][176] 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.[177]
The 22nd season premier of the PBS animated-show Arthur featured the marriage of teacher Mr. Ratburn and his male partner.[181] Alabama's public television channel refused to air the episode.[182]
Marriage statistics
There is no complete data on the number of same-sex marriages conducted in the United States. Marriages and divorces are recorded by states, counties, and territories, plus New York City and the District of Columbia, but not by the Federal Government. States such as Oregon do not distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages in their official records. The legal records on marriage and divorce belong to the states.[183]
In August 2016, the Treasury Department estimated the number of same-sex marriages by linking the tax returns of same-sex couples who had filed jointly in 2014 with their Social Security records. (Although this method excluded couples who file singly, these are small in number; of all married couples who file taxes, 97.5% file jointly.) This research showed that in 2014 there were about 183,280 married same-sex couples in the country, or "roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages" according to The New York Times.[184] Numbers from 2015 showed a large increase to 250,450 marriages.[185] According to Census Bureau data, heterosexual marriages still accounted for about 98 percent of marriages for people under 35 in 2021.[186]
According to the 2015 statistics, female couples were four times more likely to have children than male couples. Additionally, male couples earned a pretax average of $165,960 per year, while lesbian couples earned $118,415 and straight couples earned $115,210. The highest rates of female same-sex marriage were found in Oakland (2.1% of all marriages), Seattle, San Francisco, Springfield (MA) and Portland (OR), whereas gay male marriages were most frequent in San Francisco (3.2%), Washington D.C., New York City, Seattle and Fort Lauderdale.[185]
The United States Census Bureau has collected data on unmarried same-sex households since 2005. Since 2013 following United States v. Windsor, the Bureau began recording married same-sex households in its Same-Sex Couples report.[187]
It recorded about 252,000 same-sex spouses in 2013; 335,000 in 2014; 425,000 in 2015; 487,000 in 2016; 555,000 in 2017; 593,000 in 2018. In 2018, the states of California, Texas and New York had the highest total number of same-sex households, whereas Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota and Connecticut had the most married same-sex households in comparison to unmarried households (92.4% of Wyoming same-sex households were married, followed by Vermont at 79.3%, South Dakota at 77.8% and Connecticut at 70.7%). Nationally, 59.5% of cohabiting same-sex couples were married.[187]
The Population Reference Bureau reported that by October 2015 approximately 486,000 same-sex marriages had taken place in the United States. It estimated that 45% of all same-sex couples in the country were married at that time.[188]
According to Gallup, the percent of cohabiting same-sex couples who are married rose from 38% in 2015 to 49% in 2016 and to 61% in 2017.[189]
United States federal and state case law regarding same-sex marriage:
1970s
Anonymous v. Anonymous, 67 Misc.2d 982 (N.Y. 1971). The law makes no provision for a "marriage" between persons of the same sex.
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. (Overruled by Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; see below)
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.[190]
Frances B. v. Mark B., 78 Misc.2d 112 (1974). Marriage is and always has been a contract between a man and a woman.
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). The historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, and same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry. This ban does not constitute sex discrimination.
1980s
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 cannot divorce because they cannot form a common law marriage.[191]
1990s
In re Estate of Cooper, 149 Misc.2d 282 (Sur. Ct. Kings Co. 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 State Legislature to restrict marriage to different-sex couples and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
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 Constitution of Vermont requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons, though it need not be called marriage.
2000s
Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2001). The Florida Constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002). A post-operative male-to-female transsexual is not a woman within the meaning of the statutes and cannot validly marry a man.
Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002). Connecticut will not dissolve a Vermont civil union.
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.
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 Massachusetts State Constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2005). Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is valid.
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".
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 New Jersey Legislature had 180 days to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure".
Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006). The New York Constitution does not require that marriage rights be extended to same-sex couples.[193]
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.[194]
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.[195]
Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). Proposition 8 was validly adopted, and marriages contracted before its adoption remain valid.[196]
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
Challenges to DOMA Section 3
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (2009–2013). Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that ruling and stays implementation pending appeal. Windsor finds Section 3 unconstitutional and appeal of Gill is denied by the Supreme Court.
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (2010–2013). Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court, which determines that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect classification requiring the court to apply intermediate scrutiny, that is, to determine whether Section 3 relates to an important government interest. On appeal, the case is held in abeyance pending the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor, which settles the issues raised in Golinski, the appeal of which to the Supreme Court is then denied.
United States v. Windsor (2010–2013). Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that ruling, as does the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Government began implementing the decision the same week.[197]
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.[198]
Port v. Cowan (2010–2012). Maryland must recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under doctrine of comity.[200]
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.
Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2013). U.S. district court rules Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds that ruling on June 25, 2014. All parties support review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that court denied review on October 6.[201]
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 rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.[204] The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[201]
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.[205] The U.S. Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[201]
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.[206] The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.[201]
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.[207]
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.[208] The state chose not to appeal.[209]
Obergefell v. Hodges (2013-2015). U.S. Supreme Court case finding state bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. (Overturned Baker v. Nelson)
Degree of public support for same-sex marriage by state in 2023:
80–81%
70–79%
60–69%
50–59%
49% (plurality support)
Americans began to be polled occasionally on the topic in the 1980s and more regularly in the 1990s. From 1988 to 2009, support for same-sex marriage increased between 1% and 1.5% per year. In the 2010s, it increased more quickly.[211]
Gallup found that nationwide public support reached 50% in May 2011,[6] 60% in May 2015,[7] and 70% in May 2021.[8]
As of 2016,[update] 83% of Americans aged 18–29 supported same-sex marriage.[213]
As of 2021,[update] there was majority support for same-sex marriage in 47 states, ranging from 50% in South Carolina to 85% in Massachusetts. There was plurality support in Alabama, with 49% supporting and 47% opposing. Only Mississippi and Arkansas had majority opposition to same-sex marriage; in Mississippi, 55% opposed and 44% supported, while in Arkansas, 52% opposed and 47% supported same-sex marriage.[210]
As of 2018,[update] 60% of Americans said they would not mind if their child married someone of the same gender.[214]
Annual polling conducted by Gallup each May in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 has found support for same-sex marriage stable, with two-thirds of Americans indicating that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid under law (a range of 63% to 67% was recorded).[215][216][217] In a 2024 Gallup poll, 69% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be legally recognized as valid under the law (83% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 46% of Republicans), while 29% were opposed.[218]
A Grinnell College National Poll in September 2022 indicated that 74% of Americans thought that same-sex marriage should be a guaranteed right – 13% thought it should be left to elected officials, and 13% were unsure.[219]
↑ Among many examples: (1) the U.S. District Court ruling in Bourke v. Beshear, which required Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages from Canada and several U.S. states, was decided on equal protection grounds alone. The plaintiffs claimed that Kentucky's ban violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but the court found it unnecessary to address that argument,[24] and (2) the plaintiffs in Robicheaux v. Caldwell, who sought Louisiana's recognition of their out-of-state marriages, argued only on the basis of equal protection and due process. One of the Louisiana statutes they challenged made clear the state's assertion of its right to deny recognition to the legal act of another state: "A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana". (emphasis added).[25]
↑ In early 2013, the IRS recognized the community property and income of same-sex partners in community property states.[163]
Related Research Articles
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada, which was approved by voters in 2002. The statutory ban on same-sex marriages was repealed by the Nevada Legislature in 2017, and the constitutional ban was repealed by voters in 2020 by 62–38 percent.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. New Orleans, the state's largest city, is regarded as a hotspot for the LGBTQ community.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Michigan since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The U.S. state of Michigan had previously banned the recognition of same-sex unions in any form after a popular vote added an amendment to the Constitution of Michigan in 2004. A statute enacted in 1996 also banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the Attorney General, ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12, with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Louisiana since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, invalidating Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling clarified conflicting court rulings on whether state officials are obligated to license same-sex marriages. Governor Bobby Jindal confirmed on June 28 that Louisiana would comply with the ruling once the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its decision in a Louisiana case, which the Fifth Circuit did on July 1. Jindal then said the state would not comply with the ruling until the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reversed its judgment, which it did on July 2. All parishes now issue marriage licenses in accordance with federal law.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ohio since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark decision in which the court struck down the state's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015. The case was named after plaintiff Jim Obergefell, who sued the state of Ohio after officials refused to recognize his marriage on the death certificate of his husband. Same-sex marriages were performed in Ohio beginning shortly after the Supreme Court released its ruling, as local officials implemented the order.
Same-sex marriage is not currently performed in American Samoa, though same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are recognized. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the United States; however, it is uncertain how the ruling applies to American Samoa as the territory is unincorporated and unorganized. In July 2015, Governor Lolo Matalasi Moliga said he believed that the Supreme Court's ruling does not apply to American Samoa.
The Respect for Marriage Act is a landmark United States federal law passed by the 117th United States Congress in 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden. It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty. Its first version in 2009 was supported by former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the original sponsor of DOMA, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996. Iterations of the proposal were put forth in the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses.
Mary L. Bonauto is an American lawyer and civil rights advocate who has worked to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and has been referred to by US Representative Barney Frank as "our Thurgood Marshall." She began working with the Massachusetts-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, now named GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) organization in 1990. A resident of Portland, Maine, Bonauto was one of the leaders who both worked with the Maine legislature to pass a same-sex marriage law and to defend it at the ballot in a narrow loss during the 2009 election campaign. These efforts were successful when, in the 2012 election, Maine voters approved the measure, making it the first state to allow same-sex marriage licenses via ballot vote. Bonauto is best known for being lead counsel in the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. She is also responsible for leading the first strategic challenges to section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity in Arkansas was decriminalized in 2001 and legally codified in 2005. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.
This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.
The United States policy regarding same-sex immigration denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Oklahoma since October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to review Bishop v. Smith, a case that had found the ban unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Oklahoma to recognize same-sex marriages. On January 14, 2014, Judge Terence C. Kern of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma declared the state's statutory and constitutional same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. The case, Bishop v. Smith, was stayed pending appeal. On July 18, 2014, a panel of the Tenth Circuit upheld Kern's ruling overturning Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban. However, the panel put its ruling on hold pending disposition of a petition for certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the request for review, leaving the Tenth Circuit Court's ruling in place. State officials responded by implementing the Tenth Circuit's ruling, recognizing same-sex marriage in the state.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Previously, the U.S. state of Texas had banned same-sex marriage both by statute since 1973 and in its State Constitution since 2005. On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Luis Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. On April 22, 2014, a state court came to the same conclusion. Both cases were appealed. The district court's decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could issue a ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the United States in Obergefell on June 26, 2015. Within a few months of the court ruling, all counties had started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, except for Irion County, which announced in 2020 that it would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples, making it the last county in the United States to comply with the ruling.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.
↑ U.S. Census estimate, 2014: "State Totals: Vintage 2014". Annual Population Estimates. United States Census Bureau. Archived from the original on December 25, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2014. The Census Bureau population estimate for 2014 was 318,857,056 for the states and the District of Columbia.
↑ Talkers Magazine, "2010 Talkers 250". Archived from the original on January 30, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link). Retrieved November 30, 2010.
↑ Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer. "Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1 (Spring2005 2005): 521–530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 30, 2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 Badgett, M.V. Lee (2003). Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-03401-1.
↑ Barkacs, L. L. (2008). "Same sex marriage, civil unions, and employee benefits: Unequal protection under the law – when will society catch up with the business community?", Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 11(2), 33–44.
↑ Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), October 2007, 447–457.
↑ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), July 2007, 306–319.
↑ Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), August 2007, 392–400.
↑ Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), January 2008, 40–54.
Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York: Basic Books. ISBN0-465-01513-1.
NeJaime, Douglas (October 2012). "Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination". California Law Review. 100 (5): 1169–1238. JSTOR23408736.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
LGBTQportal 
