Part of the LGBT rights series |
LGBTQportal |
In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that a fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that states must allow same-sex marriage.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 104–199, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of both federal law and any ruling, regulation, or interpretation by an administrative bureau or agency of the United States government. [1] The impact of Section 2 of DOMA, which relieves jurisdictions within the United States of any obligation to recognize same-sex relationships legally established in any other jurisdiction, is less clear. [2]
In United States v. Windsor , the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman. [3] On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5–4 vote that the Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. [4]
The State Marriage Defense Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 9, 2014, would require the federal government to recognize the validity of a marriage based on a person's legal residence (place of domicile), rather than on the validity of the marriage when and where it was solemnized (place of celebration). The Obama administration has generally used the latter standard. Its sponsors described it as a way to clarify the federal government's response to Windsor and restore the ability of the a state to control the definition of marriage within its borders. [5] [6]
In Obergefell v. Hodges , the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage licenses as well as state bans on recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. On June 26, 2015, the court ruled by a 5–4 vote that the Fourteenth Amendment obliges states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. [7]
In the 111th , 112th , 113th , 114th, and 117th Congresses, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was introduced by House and Senate Democrats to repeal DOMA. [8] These efforts eventually prevailed in 2022, with the bill passing the House 267–157 and the Senate 61–36. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on December 13, 2022. [9]
Votes by state legislatures to recognize various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:
State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper house | Lower house | Governor | Final outcome | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
District of Columbia | June 1992 | Domestic partnership [10] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
California | September 1994 | Domestic partnership [11] [12] | 21 | 17 | 41 | 26 | Vetoed | No |
Hawaii | March 1996 | Domestic partnership [13] | 14 | 11 | Failed | — | No | |
Hawaii | June 1997 | Reciprocal beneficiary relationship [14] | 24 | 7 | 43 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 1998 | Domestic partnership [15] | 21 | 17 | 41 | 36 | Vetoed | No |
California | October 1999 | Domestic partnership [16] | 23 | 13 | 41 | 38 | Vetoed | No |
California | October 1999 | Domestic partnership [17] | 22 | 14 | 41 | 36 | Signed | Yes |
Vermont | April 2000 | Civil union [18] | 19 | 11 | 79 | 68 | Signed | Yes |
Rhode Island | July 2001 | Domestic partnership [19] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
California | August 2001 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [20] | 22 | 12 | 41 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
California | October 2001 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [21] | 23 | 11 | 41 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
New York | August 2002 | Domestic partnership [22] | Passed | 147 | 0 | Signed | Yes | |
New York | August 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [23] | Passed | 147 | 0 | Signed | Yes | |
California | September 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [24] | 26 | 11 | 41 | 31 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [25] | 23 | 13 | 43 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | April 2003 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [26] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
California | September 2003 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [27] | 23 | 14 | 41 | 33 | Signed | Yes |
New Jersey | January 2004 | Domestic partnership [28] | 23 | 9 | 41 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
Maine | April 2004 | Domestic partnership [29] | 18 | 14 | 84 | 58 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | May 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [30] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
California | September 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [31] | 23 | 12 | 46 | 29 | Signed | Yes |
New York | September 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [32] | Passed | 141 | 1 | Signed | Yes | |
District of Columbia | December 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [33] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
District of Columbia | January 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [34] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Connecticut | April 2005 | Civil union [35] | 27 | 9 | 85 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
Maryland | May 2005 | Domestic partnership [36] | 31 | 16 | 83 | 50 | Vetoed | No |
California | June 2005 | Marriage [37] | — | — | Failed | — | No | |
Rhode Island | June 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [38] [39] | Passed | — | — | — | No | |
Rhode Island | July 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [40] [41] | Passed | — | — | — | No | |
California | September 2005 | Marriage [42] | 21 | 15 | 41 | 35 | Vetoed | No |
California | September 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [43] | 23 | 15 | 47 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [44] | 21 | 14 | 47 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | December 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [45] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Jersey | January 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [46] | 39 | 0 | 67 | 8 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | January 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [47] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New York | March 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [48] | Passed | 96 | 25 | Signed | Yes | |
Maine | April 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [49] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New York | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [50] | — | — | 114 | 27 | — | No |
New York | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [51] | — | — | 116 | 27 | — | No |
Rhode Island | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [52] [53] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [54] [53] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [55] [56] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [57] [56] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [58] [59] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
California | September 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [60] | 24 | 15 | 46 | 29 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [61] | 23 | 15 | 47 | 31 | Signed | Yes |
New Jersey | December 2006 | Civil union [62] | 23 | 12 | 56 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | December 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [63] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Hampshire | April 2007 | Civil union [64] | — | — | Failed | — | No | |
Washington | April 2007 | Registered domestic partnership [65] | 28 | 19 | 63 | 35 | Signed | Yes |
Oregon | May 2007 | Domestic partnership [66] | 21 | 9 | 34 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
Maine | May 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [67] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Hampshire | May 2007 | Civil union [68] | 14 | 10 | 243 | 129 | Signed | Yes |
Maine | June 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [69] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Maine | June 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [70] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New York | June 2007 | Marriage [71] | — | — | 85 | 61 | — | No |
Rhode Island | July 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [72] [73] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
California | September 2007 | Marriage [74] | 22 | 15 | 42 | 34 | Vetoed | No |
California | October 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [75] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | October 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [76] [73] | Passed | Passed | Vetoed1 | Yes | ||
New Hampshire | January 2008 | Contractual cohabitation [77] | Failed | — | — | — | No | |
New York | January 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [78] | Passed | — | — | — | No | |
New Mexico | February 2008 | Domestic partnership [79] | — | — | 33 | 31 | — | No |
Washington | March 2008 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion) [80] [81] ' | 29 | 20 | 62 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
Maine | March 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [82] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Maryland | April 2008 | Domestic partnership [83] | — | — | 86 | 51 | — | No |
Maryland | May 2008 | Domestic partnership [84] | 30 | 17 | 88 | 46 | Signed | Yes |
Maryland | May 2008 | Domestic partnership [85] | 27 | 20 | 86 | 47 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | May 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [86] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Mexico | February 2009 | Domestic partnership [87] | 17 | 25 | — | — | — | No |
Vermont | April 2009 | Marriage [88] | 23 | 5 | 100 | 49 | Vetoed1 | Yes |
Colorado | April 2009 | Designated beneficiary agreement [89] | 23 | 10 | 41 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
Connecticut | April 2009 | Marriage (codification) [90] | 28 | 7 | 100 | 44 | Signed | Yes |
Maine | May 2009 | Marriage [91] | 21 | 14 | 89 | 58 | Signed | No2 |
District of Columbia | May 2009 | Marriage (recognition only) [92] [93] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Washington | May 2009 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion) [94] | 30 | 18 | 62 | 35 | Signed | Yes3 |
District of Columbia | May 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [95] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Maine | May 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [96] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Nevada | May 2009 | Domestic partnership [97] [98] | 14 | 7 | 28 | 14 | Vetoed1 | Yes |
New Hampshire | June 2009 | Marriage [99] | 14 | 10 | 198 | 176 | Signed | Yes |
Oregon | June 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [100] | 27 | 0 | 41 | 8 | Signed | Yes |
Wisconsin | June 2009 | Domestic partnership | 17 | 16 | 50 | 48 | Signed | Yes |
New York | August 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [101] | Passed | 142 | 0 | Signed | Yes | |
California | October 2009 | Out-of-state pre-proposition 8 marriage recognition [102] | 24 | 14 | 44 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
New York | December 2009 | Marriage [103] | 24 | 38 | 89 | 52 | — | No |
District of Columbia | December 2009 | Marriage [104] | — | 11 | 2 | Signed | Yes | |
Rhode Island | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [105] [106] | Passed | Passed | Vetoed1 | Yes | ||
Rhode Island | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [107] [108] | Passed | Passed | Vetoed1 | Yes | ||
New York | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [109] [110] | 61 | 0 | 142 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
New Jersey | January 2010 | Marriage [111] | 14 | 20 | — | — | — | No |
New York | March 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [112] | — | — | 119 | 20 | — | No |
New York | March 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [113] [114] | Passed | 137 | 5 | Signed | Yes | |
New York | April 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [115] [116] | — | — | 132 | 9 | — | No |
Minnesota | May 2010 | Domestic partnership (only 1 entitlement) [117] | 41 | 24 | 78 | 55 | Vetoed | No |
Hawaii | July 2010 | Civil union [118] | 18 | 7 | 31 | 20 | Vetoed | No |
New York | August 2010 | Committed partnership [119] [120] | 50 | 11 | 107 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [121] | 23 | 12 | 53 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
Illinois | January 2011 | Civil union [122] [123] [124] | 32 | 24 | 61 | 52 | Signed | Yes |
Hawaii | February 2011 | Civil union [125] | 18 | 5 | 31 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
New Hampshire | March 2011 | Domestic union [126] | — | — | Failed | — | No | |
Maryland | March 2011 | Marriage [127] [128] | 25 | 21 | — | — | — | No |
Colorado | March 2011 | Civil union [129] [130] | 23 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
Washington | April 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state union as registered domestic partnership [131] | 28 | 19 | 58 | 39 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | May 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state union as domestic partnership [132] | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Washington | May 2011 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion) [133] | 27 | 21 | 57 | 40 | Signed | Yes |
Delaware | May 2011 | Civil union [134] | 13 | 6 | 26 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | May 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [135] | 11 | 10 | — | — | — | No |
New York | June 2011 | Marriage [136] | 33 | 29 | 80 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
Rhode Island | July 2011 | Civil union [137] | 21 | 16 | 62 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
California | September 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [138] | 22 | 13 | 52 | 25 | Signed | Yes |
California | October 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [139] | 25 | 15 | Passed | Signed | Yes | |
California | October 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [140] | 24 | 13 | Passed | Signed | Yes | |
Washington | February 2012 | Marriage [141] | 28 | 21 | 55 | 43 | Signed | Yes3 |
New Jersey | February 2012 | Marriage [142] | 24 | 16 | 42 | 33 | Vetoed | No |
Maryland | March 2012 | Marriage [143] | 25 | 22 | 72 | 67 | Signed | Yes3 |
New York | April 2012 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [144] | — | — | 129 | 10 | — | No |
Colorado | May 2012 | Civil union [145] | 23 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
New Jersey | August 2012 | Civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) [146] | 21 | 11 | 41 | 33 | Vetoed | No |
Wyoming | January 2013 | Domestic partnership [147] | — | — | 24 | 35 | — | No |
Colorado | March 2013 | Civil union [148] | 21 | 14 | 39 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
Rhode Island | May 2013 | Marriage [149] [150] | 26 | 12 | 56 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
Delaware | May 2013 | Marriage [151] | 12 | 9 | 23 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
Minnesota | May 2013 | Marriage [152] | 37 | 30 | 75 | 59 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | June 2013 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [153] | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Hawaii | November 2013 | Marriage [154] | 19 | 4 | 30 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
Illinois | November 2013 | Marriage [155] [156] | 32 | 21 | 61 | 54 | Signed | Yes |
New York | February 2014 | Marriage (codification) [157] [158] | — | — | 125 | 10 | — | No |
Wyoming | February 2014 | Marriage [159] | — | — | 17 | 41 | — | No |
New York | April 2014 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [160] [161] | — | — | 124 | 14 | — | No |
California | July 2014 | Marriage (statutory codification) [162] [163] [164] | 25 | 10 | 51 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | February 2015 | Marriage (statutory codification) [165] [166] [167] | 20 | 18 | — | — | — | No |
Utah | March 2015 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [168] | 26 | 0 | 39 | 30 | Signed | Yes |
New Mexico | April 2015 | Marriage (partial codification) [169] [170] | 35 | 5 | 37 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | June 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [171] | 21 | 0 | 42 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | June 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [172] | 19 | 0 | 41 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
New Jersey | June 2015 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) [173] | 21 | 13 | 43 | 25 | Vetoed | No |
Maine | June 2015 | Marriage (expansion) [174] | 35 | 0 | 141 | 0 | Vetoed1 | Yes |
Oregon | July 2015 | Marriage (statutory codification) [175] | 18 | 11 | 40 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
Guam | August 2015 | Marriage (codification) [176] [177] [178] | — | 13 | 2 | —4 | Yes | |
New York | September 2015 | Marriage (codification) [179] [180] | 60 | 0 | 146 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
District of Columbia | December 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [181] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Oregon | March 2016 | Marriage (statutory codification) [182] [183] | 18 | 11 | 43 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
New York | March 2016 | Marriage (codification) [184] [185] | — | — | 129 | 12 | — | No |
New York | April 2016 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [186] | — | — | 120 | 15 | — | No |
Colorado | June 2016 | Conversion of civil union into marriage [187] [188] | 34 | 0 | 52 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
North Carolina | June 2016 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [189] | — | — | Passed | — | No | |
California | July 2016 | Marriage and domestic partnership (statutory codification) [190] [191] | 34 | 0 | 63 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
North Dakota | January 2017 | Marriage (statutory codification) [192] [193] | 15 | 31 | — | — | — | No |
New Mexico | February 2017 | Marriage (partial codification) [194] [195] | — | — | 63 | 0 | — | No |
Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [196] | 26 | 0 | 74 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [197] | 29 | 0 | 69 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [198] | 27 | 0 | 68 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Maryland | May 2017 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [199] | 138 | 2 | 45 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | May 2017 | Marriage (statutory codification) [200] | 20 | 1 | 28 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
Nevada | June 2017 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [201] | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
New York | June 2017 | Marriage (codification) [202] | 62 | 0 | 139 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
New Jersey | June 2017 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) [203] | 22 | 15 | — | — | — | No |
North Carolina | July 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [204] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Maine | July 2017 | Marriage (codification) [205] | Passed | Passed | —4 | Yes | ||
Maryland | January 2018 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [206] | 135 | 2 | 45 | 1 | Vetoed | No |
New Mexico | February 2018 | Marriage (partial codification) [207] | — | — | 60 | 2 | — | No |
New York | March 2018 | Marriage (codification) [208] | — | — | 129 | 6 | — | No |
Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [209] | 27 | 0 | 70 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [210] | 23 | 0 | 73 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [211] | 23 | 4 | 44 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [212] | 25 | 3 | 45 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
New York | April 2018 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [213] | — | — | 114 | 17 | — | No |
Minnesota | May 2018 | Marriage (codification) [214] | 34 | 33 | 78 | 50 | Vetoed | No |
New Jersey | May 2018 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) [215] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New York | June 2018 | Marriage (codification) [216] | 57 | 4 | — | — | — | No |
New Hampshire | June 2018 | Marriage (equalization of marriageable age) [217] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Arkansas | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [218] | 35 | 0 | 96 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Nebraska | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [219] | — | 38 | 6 | Signed | Yes | |
New Mexico | March 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) [220] | — | — | 53 | 2 | — | No |
Virginia | March 2019 | Marriage (expansion: surrogacy) [221] | 28 | 12 | 63 | 36 | Signed | Yes |
New Mexico | March 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) [222] | 32 | 8 | 40 | 25 | Signed | Yes |
Nebraska | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [223] | — | 45 | 0 | Signed | Yes | |
Utah | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [224] | 22 | 2 | 55 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [225] | 29 | 0 | 69 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
New Mexico | April 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) [226] | 39 | 0 | 62 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Maryland | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion) [227] | 34 | 10 | 121 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
Maryland | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion) [228] | 31 | 14 | 133 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
Oklahoma | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion: surrogacy) [229] | 33 | 10 | 84 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
Nebraska | May 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [230] | — | 40 | 3 | Signed | Yes | |
Nebraska | May 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [231] | — | 33 | 8 | Vetoed | No | |
Minnesota | May 2019 | Marriage (codification) [232] [233] | 52 | 15 | 74 | 50 | Signed | Yes |
Rhode Island | June 2019 | Marriage (expansion) [234] | 35 | 0 | — | — | — | No |
Maine | June 2019 | Marriage (codification) [235] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Delaware | July 2019 | Marriage (codification) [236] | 20 | 1 | 37 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
New York | October 2019 | Marriage (codification) [237] | 61 | 0 | 121 | 23 | Signed | Yes |
Hawaii | December 2019 | Marriage and civil union (codification) [238] | — | — | Passed | — | No | |
New York | December 2019 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [239] [240] | 59 | 0 | 122 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
New Hampshire | January 2020 | Marriage (codification) [241] | — | — | Failed | — | No | |
New Mexico | February 2020 | Marriage (partial codification) [242] | 42 | 0 | 64 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Nebraska | February 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [243] | — | 47 | 0 | Signed | Yes | |
New Mexico | February 2020 | Marriage (partial codification) [244] | 40 | 0 | 67 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [245] | 28 | 12 | 63 | 34 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [246] | 25 | 13 | 62 | 38 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [247] | 33 | 6 | 58 | 42 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [248] | 24 | 1 | 70 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [249] | 27 | 0 | 71 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | April 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [250] | 39 | 1 | 91 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
New York | April 2020 | Marriage (expansion) [251] [252] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Virginia | April 2020 | Marriage (statutory codification) [253] | 24 | 16 | 53 | 43 | Signed | Yes |
New York | April 2020 | Domestic partnership (expansion) [254] [255] | 62 | 0 | 131 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
Puerto Rico | June 2020 | Marriage (codification) [256] [257] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
North Carolina | June 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [258] | 47 | 0 | Passed | Signed | Yes | |
New Hampshire | July 2020 | Marriage (codification) [259] | Passed | 209 | 119 | Signed | Yes | |
Rhode Island | July 2020 | Marriage (expansion) [260] | 34 | 1 | 64 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
Rhode Island | July 2020 | Marriage (expansion) [261] | 36 | 1 | 67 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
North Carolina | 2023 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) [262] | 50 | 0 | — | — | — | No |
Virginia | 2024 | Marriage (expansion) | 22 | 17 | 54 | 40 | Signed | Yes |
22 | 18 | 58 | 42 | Signed | Yes |
Notes:
Votes by state legislatures to prohibit recognition of various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:
State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper House | Lower house | Governor | Final outcome1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
Maryland | May 1973 | Marriage [263] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Texas | June 1973 | Marriage [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] | 30 | 1 | 113 | 17 | Signed | Yes |
Oklahoma | February 1975 | Marriage [269] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Arizona | April 1975 | Marriage [270] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Virginia | August 1975 | Marriage [271] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Utah | April 1977 | Marriage [272] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Florida | June 1977 | Marriage [273] [274] [275] | 37 | 0 | 101 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
Illinois | June 1977 | Marriage [276] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
California | August 1977 | Marriage [277] | 23 | 5 | 68 | 2 | Signed | Yes2 |
Wyoming | October 1977 | Marriage [278] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Wisconsin | July 1979 | Marriage [279] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Hampshire | July 1987 | Marriage [280] [281] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Louisiana | 1987 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
New Hampshire | March 1994 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [282] | 11 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
Guam | May 1994 | Marriage [283] | — | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Hawaii | June 1994 | Marriage [284] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Utah | March 1995 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [285] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
South Dakota | January 1996 | Marriage [286] [287] [288] | 26 | 8 | 49 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
Idaho | February 1996 | Marriage [287] [289] | 24 | 6 | 66 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
Idaho | March 1996 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [290] | 28 | 4 | 59 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
Colorado | March 1996 | Marriage [291] | Passed | Passed | Vetoed | No | ||
Kansas | April 1996 | Marriage [287] [292] | 39 | 1 | 87 | 38 | Signed | Yes |
Georgia | April 1996 | Marriage [286] [287] [293] | 47 | 0 | 135 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
Arizona | May 1996 | Marriage [286] [287] [294] | 21 | 9 | 50 | 5 | Signed | Yes |
Alaska | May 1996 | Marriage and civil union [287] [295] [296] | 16 | 3 | 31 | 9 | —3 | Yes |
Illinois | May 1996 | Marriage [297] [298] | 42 | 9 | 87 | 17 | Signed | Yes2 |
Tennessee | May 1996 | Marriage [286] [287] | 31 | 0 | 90 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
South Carolina | May 1996 | Marriage [299] [300] | 45 | 0 | 82 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Michigan | June 1996 | Marriage [301] [302] | 31 | 2 | 88 | 14 | Signed | Yes |
Michigan | June 1996 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [301] [302] | 32 | 2 | 74 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
Delaware | June 1996 | Marriage [303] | 17 | 3 | 39 | 0 | Signed | Yes2 |
North Carolina | June 1996 | Marriage and recognition of out-of-state marriage [304] [305] [306] | 41 | 4 | 98 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
Missouri | July 1996 | Marriage [307] [308] | 29 | 2 | 131 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
California | August 1996 | Marriage [309] | 20 | 21 | Passed | — | No | |
Oklahoma | September 1996 | Marriage [286] [287] | 42 | 2 | 99 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Pennsylvania | October 1996 | Marriage [310] [311] | 43 | 5 | 189 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
Mississippi | February 1997 | Marriage [312] | 50 | 0 | 118 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
Arkansas | February 1997 | Marriage [286] [313] | 34 | 0 | 92 | 2 | Signed | Yes |
North Dakota | February 1997 | Marriage [286] [314] | 43 | 6 | 73 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
Texas | February 1997 | Marriage [312] [315] [316] [317] | 31 | 0 | 143 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
Washington | February 1997 | Marriage [318] | 33 | 15 | 63 | 35 | Vetoed | No |
Virginia | March 1997 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [286] [319] | 40 | 0 | 87 | 9 | Signed | Yes2 |
Maine | March 1997 | Marriage [320] | 24 | 10 | 106 | 39 | —3 | Yes2 |
Indiana | April 1997 | Marriage [321] [322] | 38 | 10 | 85 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
Montana | April 1997 | Marriage and civil union [286] [323] | 45 | 5 | 73 | 23 | Signed | Yes |
Florida | May 1997 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [286] [324] | 33 | 5 | 97 | 19 | —3 | Yes |
Minnesota | June 1997 | Marriage [287] [325] | 64 | 0 | 108 | 20 | Signed | Yes2 |
Colorado | June 1997 | Marriage [326] | Passed | Passed | Vetoed | No | ||
Washington | February 1998 | Marriage [327] [328] | 34 | 11 | 65 | 28 | Vetoed4 | Yes2 |
Kentucky | April 1998 | Marriage and recognition out-of-state marriage [287] [329] | 32 | 2 | 84 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
Alabama | May 1998 | Marriage [330] | 30 | 0 | 79 | 12 | Signed | Yes |
Hawaii | November 1998 | Marriage [286] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes2 | ||
Puerto Rico | March 1999 | Marriage [331] | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes | ||
Louisiana | July 1999 | Marriage and recognition of out-of-state marriage [332] | 32 | 0 | 95 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
West Virginia | March 2000 | Marriage [333] | Passed | 96 | 3 | Signed | Yes | |
New Hampshire | March 2000 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [334] | — | — | 128 | 232 | — | No |
Vermont | April 2000 | Marriage [18] | 19 | 11 | 79 | 68 | Signed | Yes |
Connecticut | April / May 2000 | Marriage [335] [336] | 31 | 5 | 96 | 51 | Signed | Yes |
Colorado | May 2000 | Marriage [337] | 33 | 32 | 37 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
New Hampshire | March 2001 | Recognition of out-of-state civil union [338] | — | — | 88 | 276 | — | No |
Missouri | July 2001 | Marriage [339] [340] | 31 | 0 | 124 | 20 | Signed | Yes |
American Samoa | March 2003 | Marriage [341] | Failed | — | — | — | No | |
Texas | May 2003 | Recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage and civil union [342] [343] [344] | 22 | 9 | 118 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
Wisconsin | November 2003 | Marriage [345] [346] | 22 | 10 | 68 | 29 | Vetoed | No |
Ohio | February 2004 | Marriage, recognition of out-of-state marriage, and civil union [286] [347] | 18 | 15 | 72 | 22 | Signed | Yes |
Utah | March 2004 | Civil union [286] | 24 | 4 | 62 | 12 | Signed | Yes |
Virginia | April 2004 | Civil union [286] [348] | 27 | 12 | 69 | 30 | —3 | Yes2 |
New Hampshire | May 2004 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [349] | 16 | 7 | 215 | 137 | Signed | Yes2 |
Connecticut | April 2005 | Marriage [350] | 27 | 9 | 85 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
Wyoming | February 2007 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [351] | 21 | 8 | — | — | — | No |
New Hampshire | March 2009 | Civil union [352] | — | — | 136 | 205 | — | No |
New Hampshire | February 2010 | Marriage [353] | — | — | 109 | 210 | — | No |
Wyoming | March 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [354] | 14 | 16 | 31 | 28 | — | No |
New Hampshire | March 2012 | Marriage [355] | — | — | 116 | 211 | — | No |
Wyoming | February 2014 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage [159] | — | — | 29 | 31 | — | No |
Notes:
State | Intended date | Same-sex union | Description | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|
Maine | November 2012 | Marriage | Initiative to establish same-sex marriage. [356] | Yes |
State | Date | Type of same-sex union | State senate | Lower house | % of legislative vote required | Final outcome | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||||||
Vote | % | Vote | % | Vote | % | Vote | % | |||||
Hawaii | 1997 | Marriage ban permitted | Passed | 66.67% | Advanced | |||||||
1998 | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on the ballot | ||||||||||
Alaska | May 12, 1998 [357] | Same-sex marriage | 14 | 70% | 6 | 30% | 28 | 70% | 12 | 30% | 66.67% | Measure 2 placed on the ballot |
Indiana | February 3, 2004 [358] | Same-sex marriage | 42 | 84% | 7 | 14% | — | 50.01% | Died in committee | |||
Georgia | February 16, 2004 [359] February 26, 2004 March 31, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 40 | 71.43% | 14 | 25% | 117 | 65% | 50 | 27.78% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on the ballot |
122 | 67.78% | 52 | 28.89% | |||||||||
Mississippi | March 1, 2004 [360] [361] April 7, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 51 | 98.08% | 0 | 0% | 97 | 79.51% | 17 | 13.93% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on the ballot |
Missouri | March 1, 2004 [362] May 14, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 26 | 76.47% | 6 | 17.65% | 130 | 79.75% | 26 | 15.95% | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on ballot |
Wisconsin | March 3, 2004 [363] March 11, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 60.61% | 13 | 39.39% | 68 | 68.69% | 27 | 27.27% | 50.01% | Advanced |
December 6, 2005 [364] February 28, 2006 | 19 | 57.56% | 14 | 42.42% | 62 | 62.63% | 31 | 31.31% | Referendum 1 placed on ballot | |||
Utah | March 3, 2004 [365] | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 68.97% | 7 | 24.14% | 58 | 77.33% | 14 | 18.67% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 3 placed on ballot |
Kansas | March 5, 2004 [366] March 25, 2004 [367] | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | — | 88 | 70.4% | 36 | 28.8% | 66.67% | Bill was amended | |||
March 25, 2004 [368] | Same-sex marriage | 17 | 42.5% | 16 | 40% | — | Rejected | |||||
Kentucky | April 12, 2004 [369] April 13, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 33 | 86.84% | 5 | 13.16% | 85 | 85% | 11 | 11% | 60% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
Oklahoma | April 15, 2004 [370] April 22, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 26 | 54.17% | 19 | 39.58% | 92 | 91.09% | 4 | 3.96% | 50.01% | State Question 711 placed on ballot |
Kansas | May 1, 2004 [371] May 4, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 27 | 67.5% | 13 | 32.5% | 79 | 63.2% | 45 | 36% | 66.67% | Rejected |
Tennessee | May 6, 2004 [372] May 19, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 28 | 84.85% | 1 | 3.03% | 85 | 85.86% | 5 | 5.05% | 50.01% | Advanced |
February 28, 2005 [373] March 17, 2005 | 29 | 87.88% | 3 | 9.09% | 88 | 88.89% | 7 | 7.07% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot | ||
Louisiana | June 6, 2004 [374] June 15, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 31 | 79.49% | 6 | 15.38% | 88 | 83.81% | 13 | 12.38% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
Kansas | January 13, 2005 [375] [376] February 2, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 28 | 70% | 11 | 27.5% | 86 | 68.8% | 37 | 29.6% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
South Dakota | February 3, 2005 [377] February 28, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 57.14% | 14 | 40% | 55 | 78.57% | 14 | 20% | 50.01% | Amendment C placed on ballot |
Virginia | February 26, 2005 [378] | All types of same-sex unions | 30 | 75% | 10 | 25% | 79 | 79% | 17 | 17% | 50.01% | Advanced |
January 15, 2006 [379] March 7, 2006 | 28 | 70% | 11 | 27.5% | 85 | 85% | 12 | 12% | Question 1 placed on ballot | |||
South Carolina | March 1, 2005 [380] April 14, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 42 | 91.3% | 1 | 2.17% | 96 | 77.42% | 3 | 2.42% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
January 25, 2007 [381] February 27, 2007 | 41 | 89.13% | 1 | 2.17% | 92 | 74.19% | 7 | 5.65% | Amendment 1 ratified | |||
Alabama | March 8, 2005 [382] March 10, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 30 | 85.71% | 0 | 0% | 85 | 80.95% | 7 | 6.67% | 60% | Amendment 774 placed on ballot |
Texas | April 25, 2005 [383] May 21, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 21 | 67.74% | 8 | 25.81% | 101 | 67.33% | 29 | 19.33% | 66.67% | Proposition 2 placed on ballot |
Idaho | February 6, 2006 [384] February 15, 2006 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 26 | 74.29% | 9 | 25.71% | 53 | 75.71% | 17 | 24.29% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on ballot |
Pennsylvania | June 6, 2006 [385] | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | — | 136 | 66.97% | 61 | 30.05% | 66.67% | Died in committee | |||
June 21, 2006 [385] | Same-sex marriage | 38 | 76% | 12 | 24% | — | ||||||
Arizona | May 12, 2008 [386] June 27, 2008 | Same-sex marriage | 16 | 53.33% | 4 | 13.33% | 35 | 55% | 25 | 41.67% | 50.01% | Proposition 102 placed on ballot |
Wyoming | February 6, 2009 [387] | Same-sex marriage | — | 25 | 40.32% | 35 | 56.45% | 66.67% | Died in committee | |||
West Virginia | March 30, 2009 [388] | Same-sex marriage | — | 30 | 30% | 67 | 67% | 66.67% | ||||
Indiana | January 28, 2010 [389] | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 38 | 76% | 10 | 20% | — | 50.01% | ||||
New Hampshire | February 17, 2010 [390] | Same-sex marriage | — | 135 | 33.75% | 201 | 50.25% | 60% | ||||
Wyoming | January 27, 2011 [391] | Same-sex marriage | 20 | 64.52% | 10 | 32.26% | — | 66.67% | ||||
Iowa | February 1, 2011 [392] | Same-sex marriage | — | 62 | 62% | 37 | 37% | 50.01% | ||||
Indiana | February 15, 2011 [393] March 29, 2011 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 40 | 80% | 10 | 20% | 70 | 70% | 26 | 26% | 50.01% | Advanced, but bill was amended |
January 28, 2014 [394] February 17, 2014 | Same-sex marriage | 32 | 64% | 17 | 34% | 57 | 57% | 40 | 40% | Advanced | ||
2015/2016 | — | Not reintroduced in General Assembly | ||||||||||
Minnesota | May 11, 2011 [397] May 21, 2011 | Same-sex marriage | 37 | 55.22% | 27 | 40.3% | 70 | 52.24% | 62 | 46.27% | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
North Carolina | September 12, 2011 [398] September 13, 2011 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 30 | 60% | 16 | 32% | 75 | 62.5% | 42 | 35% | 60% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments concerning same-sex marriage, and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Hawaii amendment is different in that it granted the legislature authority to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" (which the legislature had already done).
State | Initiated or legislatively referred ballot measure | Ban on | Date | Yes vote | No vote | Total votes | Voter turnout | Electorate | Final outcome | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | % | Votes | % | ||||||||
Alaska | Measure 2 | Marriage | November 3, 1998 | 152,965 [399] | 68.11% | 71,631 | 31.89% | 224,596 | 49.54% | 453,332 | Yes |
Hawaii | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage ban permitted | 285,384 [400] | 69.18% | 117,827 | 28.56% | 412,520 | 67.19% | 601,404 | Yes | |
Nebraska | Initiative Measure 416 | All types of same-sex unions | November 7, 2000 | 477,571 [401] | 70.1% | 203,667 | 29.9% | 681,238 | 62.77% | 1,085,217 | Yes |
Nevada | Ballot Question 2 | Marriage | 412,688 [402] | 69.62% | 180,077 | 30.38% | 592,765 | 67.8% | 874,304 | Yes | |
November 5, 2002 | 337,197 [403] | 67.2% | 164,573 | 32.8% | 501,770 | 57.68% | 869,859 | Yes | |||
Missouri | Constitutional Amendment 2 | August 3, 2004 | 1,055,771 [404] [405] | 70.61% | 439,529 | 29.39% | 1,495,300 | 42.93% | 3,483,481 | Yes | |
Louisiana | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | September 18, 2004 | 619,908 [406] [407] | 77.78% | 177,067 | 22.22% | 796,975 | 27.91% | 2,855,561 | Yes |
Kentucky | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 1,222,125 [408] [409] | 74.56% | 417,097 | 25.44% | 1,639,222 | 58.7% | 2,794,286 | Yes |
Georgia | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | 2,454,930 [410] [411] [409] | 76.15% | 768,716 | 23.85% | 3,223,646 | 75.87% | 4,248,837 | Yes | |
Ohio | State Issue 1 | Marriage and civil union | 3,329,335 [412] | 61.71% | 2,065,462 | 38.29% | 5,394,797 | 67.66% | 7,972,826 | Yes | |
Mississippi | Amendment 1 | Marriage | 957,104 [413] [414] [409] | 86.01% | 155,648 | 13.99% | 1,112,752 | 53.78% | 2,068,766 | Yes | |
Oklahoma | State Question 711 | Marriage and civil union | 1,075,216 [415] [416] | 75.59% | 347,303 | 24.41% | 1,422,519 | 66.35% | 2,143,978 | Yes | |
Arkansas | Constitutional Amendment 3 | Marriage and civil union | 753,770 [417] [418] | 74.95% | 251,914 | 25.05% | 1,053,399 | 62.47% | 1,686,124 | Yes | |
Michigan | State Proposal - 04-2 | All types of same-sex unions | 2,698,077 [419] [420] | 58.62% | 1,904,319 | 41.38% | 4,602,396 | 64.24% | 7,164,047 | Yes | |
Montana | Constitutional Initiative 96 | Marriage | 295,070 [421] | 66.56% | 148,263 | 33.44% | 443,333 | 69.44% | 638,474 | Yes | |
Utah | Constitutional Amendment 3 | Marriage and civil union | 593,297 [422] | 65.86% | 307,488 | 34.14% | 900,785 | 70.47% | 1,278,251 | Yes | |
North Dakota | Constitutional Measure 1 | Marriage and civil union | 223,538 [423] | 73.23% | 81,708 | 26.77% | 305,246 | 62.68% | 487,010 | Yes | |
Oregon | State Measure 36 | Marriage | 1,028,546 [424] [425] | 56.63% | 787,556 | 43.37% | 1,816,102 | 84.82% | 2,141,249 | Yes | |
Kansas | Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | April 5, 2005 | 417,627 [426] [427] | 69.95% | 179,432 | 30.05% | 597,059 | 35.35% | 1,688,926 | Yes |
Texas | Proposition 2 | Marriage and civil union | November 8, 2005 | 1,723,782 [428] [429] | 76.25% | 536,913 | 23.75% | 2,260,695 | 17.97% | 12,577,545 | Yes |
Alabama | Amendment 774 | Marriage and civil union | June 6, 2006 | 697,591 [430] [431] | 81.18% | 161,694 | 18.82% | 859,285 | 35.61% | 2,413,279 | Yes |
South Carolina | Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 7, 2006 | 829,360 [432] [433] | 77.97% | 234,316 | 22.03% | 1,063,676 | 43.37% | 2,452,714 | Yes |
Virginia | Question 1 | All types of same-sex unions | 1,328,537 [434] [435] | 57.06% | 999,687 | 42.94% | 2,328,224 | 51.12% | 4,554,683 | Yes | |
Tennessee | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage | 1,419,434 [436] [437] | 81.25% | 327,536 | 18.75% | 1,746,970 | 46.73% | 3,738,703 | Yes | |
Wisconsin | Referendum 1 | Marriage and civil union | 1,264,310 [438] [439] | 59.43% | 862,924 | 40.57% | 2,127,234 | 49.97% | 4,256,721 | Yes | |
South Dakota | Amendment C | All types of same-sex unions | 172,305 [440] [441] [442] | 51.83% | 160,152 | 48.17% | 332,457 | 65.56% | 507,132 | Yes | |
Colorado | Amendment 43 | Marriage | 855,206 [443] | 55.02% | 699,030 | 44.98% | 1,554,236 | 62.6% | 2,533,058 | Yes | |
Arizona | Proposition 107 | Marriage and civil union | 721,789 [444] | 48.21% | 775,498 | 51.79% | 1,496,987 | 58.28% | 2,568,401 | No | |
Idaho | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage and civil union | 282,386 [445] | 63.35% | 163,384 | 36.65% | 445,770 | 58.27% | 764,880 | Yes | |
Florida | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage and civil union | November 4, 2008 | 4,890,883 [446] [447] | 61.92% | 3,008,026 | 38.08% | 8,456,329 | 75.18% | 11,247,634 | Yes |
Arizona | Proposition 102 | Marriage | 1,258,355 [448] | 56.2% | 980,753 | 43.8% | 2,239,078 | 74.95% | 2,987,451 | Yes | |
California | Proposition 8 | 7,001,084 [449] [450] | 52.24% | 6,401,482 | 47.76% | 13,743,177 | 79.42% | 17,304,091 | Yes | ||
North Carolina | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | May 8, 2012 | 1,317,178 [451] [452] | 61.04% | 840,802 | 38.96% | 2,157,980 | 34.27% | 6,296,759 | Yes |
Minnesota | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage | November 6, 2012 | 1,399,916 [453] [454] | 47.44% | 1,510,434 | 51.19% | 2,950,780 | 76.42% | 3,861,043 | No |
State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper House | Lower house | Final outcome | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | ||||
Nevada | 2017 | Same-sex marriage | 19 | 2 | 27 | 14 | Advanced |
March/May 2019 | 19 | 2 | 37 | 2 | Placed on Ballot | ||
November 2020 | Referendum (62.4%) | Yes | |||||
Virginia | February 2021 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | 24 | 12 | 60 | 33 | Advanced |
2022 | 25 | 14 | - | - | No | ||
California | 2023 | Same-sex marriage | 31 | 0 | 67 | 0 | Placed on Ballot |
Referendum | Pending | ||||||
November 2024 | |||||||
Hawaii | March/April 2024 | Legislative authority to enact same-sex marriage ban | 24 | 1 | 43 | 6 | Placed on Ballot |
November 2024 | Referendum | Pending | |||||
Colorado | April/May 2024 | Same-sex marriage | 29 | 5 | 46 | 14 | Placed on Ballot |
November 2024 | Referendum | Pending | |||||
Virginia | 2025 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | Pending | ||||
State | 2000s | 2010s | Details | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Delaware | 2009 | A proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Bill 27, to ban same-sex marriage failed. [455] | Failed | |
Indiana | 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2014 | On February 15, 2011, the Indiana House approved a ban on civil unions and marriage (70–26). The bill passed the Indiana Senate by a 40–10 vote. According to state law, the bill must now be approved by the next, separately elected legislature before voters will see the measure on the 2014 ballot. [456] On January 27, 2014, the Indiana House voted 52–43 to remove the ban on civil unions from the proposed measure. [457] On January 28, 2014, the Indiana House voted 57–40 in favor of the amended measure. [458] On February 17, 2014, the Indiana Senate voted 32–17 approving the House-amended version of the ban on gay marriage. The measure will now need to be approved by the next, separately elected legislature before voters are allowed to decide its fate in 2016. [459] | Failed |
Iowa | 2004 2005 | 2010 2011 | After the Iowa Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in 2009, a backlash quickly developed that resulted in three of the justices losing their seats in the 2010 election. Additionally, Republicans took control of the House and fell one seat short of taking over the Senate. For a proposed constitutional amendment to come before Iowa voters, it has to be approved in exactly the same form by two consecutive general assemblies. [460] | Failed |
Minnesota | 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 | 2011 | A bill was sponsored in 2009 but failed to be brought up for a vote. An amendment was introduced again in 2011. The House and Senate bills passed. [461] [462] Both are referred to other area.[ clarification needed ] The bill would have been approved by majority by both the Senate and house by May 23, 2011.[ clarification needed ] On May 11, 2011, the Senate passed the bill 38–27. [463] On May 22, 2011, an amendment was passed in the house by a vote of 70–62, and was placed on the ballot in the November 2012 election. [464] | Failed |
New Hampshire | 2006 2007 | 2010 | On February 17, 2010, a proposed constitutional amendment failed in the house by a 201–135 margin. [465] [466] Constitutional amendments in New Hampshire require two-thirds approval from voters. | Failed |
New Jersey | 2006 2007 2008 | 2010 | Bills to place an amendment on the ballot have all failed in the House or Senate Judiciary Committee. | Failed |
New Mexico | 2007 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2013 2014 | A joint resolution was prefiled in the New Mexico legislature for the 2014 session. [467] The resolution would define marriage as one man and one woman for the state of New Mexico. [468] | Failed |
Pennsylvania | 2006 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2013 | A joint resolution was introduced in the house of representatives with record low sponsorship on May 8, 2013. The bill would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. Pennsylvania would become the first northeastern state with a marriage amendment. According to state law, the amendment must receive a majority vote from both chambers of the legislature in two consecutive sessions before voters are allowed to decide its fate. The soonest voters could see the measure is in 2015. [469] [470] | Failed |
West Virginia | 2009 | 2010 2011 | West Virginia senators proposed a constitutional amendment for the 2010 ballot that would have defined marriage as "a union between and man and a woman". The amendment was defeated. [471] [472] Another proposition was introduced in January 2011 [473] but failed to advance. | Failed |
Wyoming | 2009 | 2011 | In 2009, the house of representatives considered an amendment to the state constitution, House Joint Resolution 17 (also known as the "Defense of Marriage" resolution), defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The measure was defeated in the house on February 6, with 35 votes against and 25 in favor. On January 27, 2011, the Senate approved an amendment, [474] but it died in the house. [475] | Failed |
The following consists of votes by statutory initiatives that ban same-sex marriage and/or civil unions and domestic partnerships:
State | Date | Yes vote | No vote | Description | Final outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
California | March 2000 | 61% (4,618,673) | 39% (2,909,370) | Proposition 22. Amend the Family Code to say: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. [476] 1 | Yes23 |
Notes:
This article may be confusing or unclear to readers.(October 2009) |
The following lists cases seeking to overturn marriage bans:
State | Case | Date | Vote for | Vote against | Description | Restrictions unconstitutional? | Final outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minnesota | Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson | October 15, 1971 | 0 | 7 | Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. [477] The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but dismissed on October 10, 1972. [478] | No | No |
Kentucky | Jones v. Callahan | November 9, 1973 | 0 | 7 | Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that Kentucky's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. [479] | No | No |
Washington | Singer v. Hara | October 1974 | Failed | Washington Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license by their county clerk. Washington Court of Appeals's decision stating that state marriage statutes only applied to opposite-sex couples upheld. [480] | No | No | |
District of Columbia | Dean v. District of Columbia' | January 1995 | 0 | 9 | District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that District's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. [481] [482] | No | No |
Hawaii | Baehr v. Miike | December 9, 1999 | 0 | 5 | Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on May 5, 1993, in a 3 in favor to 1 against decision, that state must provide a compelling interest to restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Remanded case to lower courts for trial on the subject. On December 3, 1996, Judge Chang ruled that the state had not established any compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry and that, even if it had, it failed to prove that the Hawaii statute was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He enjoined the state from refusing to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. [483] The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal. [484] Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment. [485] | No | No |
Vermont | Baker v. Vermont | December 20, 1999 | 5 | 0 | Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. [486] | Yes | Legalized civil unions in Vermont by Vermont General Assembly |
Alaska | Brause v. Alaska Dept of Health & Social Services | April 17, 2001 | 0 | 5 | Alaska Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment. [487] | No | No |
Massachusetts | Goodridge v. Department of Public Health | November 18, 2003 | 4 | 3 | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 180 days. [488] | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 |
Arizona | Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner v. State of Arizona | May 25, 2004 | Failed | Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a unanimous Arizona Appellate Court ruling upholding statutory marriage ban. [489] [490] | No | No | |
Louisiana | Forum for Equality v McKeithen | January 19, 2005 | 0 | 7 | District Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutional amendment. [491] | No | No |
Oregon | Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy et al. v. State of Oregon et al. | April 2005 | 0 | 7 | Oregon Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. [492] | No | No |
New York | Hernandez v. Robles | July 6, 2006 | 2 | 4 | New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's marriage statute did not allow same-sex marriage, and that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. [493] | No | No |
Georgia | Perdue v. O'Kelley | July 7, 2006 | 0 | 7 | On May 16, 2006, Constance C. Russell of Fulton County Superior Court struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutional amendment. [494] | No | No |
Washington | Andersen v. King County | July 26, 2006 | 4 | 5 | Washington Supreme Court upholds Washington's statute banning same-sex marriage. [495] | No | No |
New Jersey | Lewis v. Harris | October 25, 2006 | 7 | 0 | New Jersey Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. [496] | Yes | Legalized civil unions in New Jersey by New Jersey General Assembly |
Maryland | Conaway v. Deane & Polyak | September 2007 | 3 | 4 | Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's statute banning same-sex marriage. [497] | No | No |
Michigan | Pride at Work v. Granholm | May 7, 2008 | 5 | 2 | Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions also applies to domestic partner benefits. [498] [499] | No | Constitution of Michigan prohibits domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples |
California | In re Marriage Cases | May 15, 2008 | 4 | 3 | California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 22 and rules that in 30 days, same-sex marriages must be legal. [500] | Yes | Same-sex marriage licenses issued in California from June 17, 2008, to November 5, 2008 On November 5, 2008, Proposition 8 goes into effect banning same-sex marriage in the Constitution of California |
Connecticut | Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health | October 10, 2008 | 4 | 3 | Connecticut Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 30 days. [501] | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut on November 12, 2008 |
Iowa | Varnum v. Brien | April 2009 | 7 | 0 | Iowa Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 27 days. [502] | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa on April 27, 2009 |
California | Strauss v. Horton | May 26, 2009 | 1 | 6 | California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8; however, same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008, are also upheld. [503] | No | California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8; however, same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008, are also upheld. |
New York | Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service | November 2009 | 3 | 2 | The case challenging the recognition of same-sex marriages in the state of New York was heard by New York Court of Appeals and upheld the rights that came with the recognition of same-sex marriages. [504] | Recognition upheld | Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad. |
Wisconsin | McConkey v. Van Hollen | June 30, 2010 | 0 | 7 | Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds constitutional amendment. [505] | No | No |
Wyoming | Christiansen v. Christiansen | June 2011 | Allowed | Wyoming Supreme Court allows two Wyoming residents to dissolve a legal relationship created under the laws of Canada. [506] | Yes | Couple can divorce in Wyoming | |
Maryland | McConkey v. Van Hollen | May 18, 2012 | 7 | 0 | Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. [507] | Recognition upheld | Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad. |
Wisconsin | Appling v. Doyle | July 31, 2014 | 7 | 0 | On November 4, 2009, Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to Wisconsin's domestic partnership. [508] On June 20, 2011, the Circuit court Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry does not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage". [509] On December 21, 2012, District 4 Court of Appeals affirms Judge Moeser's decision in a unanimous ruling. [510] On July 31, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the domestic partnership law does not violate the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. [511] | Recognition upheld | Wisconsin's domestic partnership law is upheld. |
Montana | Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana | December 2012 | 3 | 4 | Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of this case because the plaintiffs had not identified specific state statutes in their complaint. They did not seek the right to marry, but equal treatment for same-sex couples with respect to inheritance rights, health care decisions, and parenting. The Court invited the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint citing specific statutes, [512] which the plaintiffs, did on April 16, 2013. [513] | No | Pending (Lewis and Clark County District Court) |
New Mexico | Griego v. Oliver | December 19, 2013 | 5 | 0 | On March 21, 2013, ACLU filed a lawsuit in the Albuquerque District court on behalf of two New Mexico couples who are seeking the right to marry. On December 19, 2013, New Mexico's Supreme Court declared that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional in the state. [514] | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in New Mexico on December 19, 2013 |
Texas | In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. | June 19, 2015 | n/a | n/a | County judge ruled statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in violation of the US constitution; appealed to 5th Texas Court of Appeals. The court says Texas's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. [515] The Fifth Circuit denied en banc review. J.B. sought review from the Texas Supreme Court in February 2011 and that court requested briefs in October. [516] On July 3, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court sua sponte ordered supplemental merits briefing in light of United States v. Windsor . [517] | Case dismissed on June 19, 2015, because a Petitioner died. | |
Texas | Texas v. Naylor | June 19, 2015 | 5 | 3 | On January 7, 2011, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin in the case of State of Texas v. Angelique S. Naylor and Sabina Daly rejected, on procedural grounds, the Texas attorney general's appeal of a divorce granted by a lower court to a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. [518] [519] The appeal was still pending in December 2012. [520] | Third Court of Appeals upheld in a 5-3 decision on June 19, 2015. The Court ruled that the Texas government had no standing to intervene in the divorce. |
Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, a period of approximately 4 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
Mark Leno is an American politician who served consecutively in both houses of the California State Legislature from 2002 to 2016. A Democrat, he represented the 11th Senate district, which includes San Francisco and portions of San Mateo County, from 2012 to 2016. Until the 2010 redistricting came into effect, he represented the 3rd Senate district (2008–2012). Prior to being elected to the State Senate in 2008, Leno served in the California State Assembly, representing the 13th district.
The Amendment 774 of 2006, also known as Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, is an amendment to the Alabama Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The legislature passed Alabama Act 2005-35, which placed this amendment on the election ballot. The referendum was approved by 81% of the voters.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Nevada enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex marriage has been legal since October 8, 2014, due to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Sevcik v. Sandoval. Same-sex couples may also enter a domestic partnership status that provides many of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. However, domestic partners lack the same rights to medical coverage as their married counterparts and their parental rights are not as well defined. Same-sex couples are also allowed to adopt children. Since 2022 the Nevada Constitution explicitly includes both sexual orientation and gender identity - discrimination laws since 1999 included sexual orientation for employment and expanded thereafter to housing and accommodation. In addition, conversion therapy on minors is outlawed in the state.
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.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the 28th U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the U.S. state of Alabama have federal protections, but still face legal challenges and discrimination on the state level that is not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are severely limited in comparison to other states. As one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S., Alabama is one of the only two states along with neighboring Mississippi where opposition to same-sex marriage outnumbers support.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Pennsylvania since May 20, 2014, when a U.S. federal district court judge ruled that the state's 1996 statutory ban on recognizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Governor Tom Corbett announced the following day that he would not appeal the decision. Pennsylvania had previously prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage by statute since 1996, but had never added such a ban to its State Constitution.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Delaware enjoy the same legal protections as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Delaware since January 1, 1973. On January 1, 2012, civil unions became available to same-sex couples, granting them the "rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities" of married persons. Delaware legalized same-sex marriage on July 1, 2013.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Indiana since October 6, 2014. The state had previously restricted marriage to different-sex couples by statute in 1986. Legislation passed in 1997 denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions. A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Baskin v. Bogan, won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014. Until the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in Baskin on September 4. A ruling in Bowling v. Pence stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases.
California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were adopted statewide in 2003. Transgender people are also permitted to change their legal gender on official documents without any medical interventions, and mental health providers are prohibited from engaging in conversion therapy on minors.
Illinois is seen as one of the most progressive states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights and often viewed as one of the most liberal states in the Midwestern United States. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1962, after Illinois became the first U.S. state to repeal its sodomy laws. Same-sex marriage was banned by statute in 1996, but has since been legalized after a law allowing such marriages was signed by Governor Pat Quinn on November 20, 2013 and went into effect on June 1, 2014. Civil unions have been recognized since 2011, and same-sex couples are also allowed to adopt. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is banned in employment, housing, credit and public accommodations, and conversion therapy on minors has been outlawed since 2016.
Vermont is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights, with most progress in jurisprudence having occurred in the late 20th and the early 21st centuries. Vermont was one of 37 U.S. states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples prior to the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, establishing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Iowa have evolved significantly in the 21st century. Iowa began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on April 27, 2009 following a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, making Iowa the fourth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples may also adopt, and state laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Hawaii enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1973; Hawaii being one of the first six states to legalize it. In 1993, a ruling by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court made Hawaii the first state to consider legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the approval of the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act in November 2013, same-sex couples have been allowed to marry on the islands. Additionally, Hawaii law prohibits discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, and the use of conversion therapy on minors has been banned since July 2018. Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same rights, benefits and treatment as opposite-sex couples, including the right to marry and adopt.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Oregon have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ people. Oregon became one of the first U.S. jurisdictions to decriminalize sodomy in 1972, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since May 2014 when a federal judge declared the state's ban on such marriages unconstitutional. Previously, same-sex couples could only access domestic partnerships, which guaranteed most of the rights of marriage. Additionally, same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed in the state under the Oregon Equality Act, enacted in 2008. Conversion therapy on minors is also illegal.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Texas have some protections in state law but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Texas in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Missouri may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Missouri, in accordance with 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. In 2006, Missouri codified the legality of same-sex sexual activity into its statutory law.
A six-week abortion ban, also called a "fetal heartbeat bill" by proponents, is a law in the United States which makes abortion illegal as early as six weeks gestational age, which is when proponents claim that a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected. Medical and reproductive health experts, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say that the reference to a fetal heartbeat is medically inaccurate and misleading, for a conceptus is not called a fetus until eight weeks after fertilization, as well as that at four weeks after fertilization, the embryo has no heart, only a group of cells which will become a heart. Medical professionals advise that a true fetal heartbeat cannot be detected until around 17 to 20 weeks of gestation when the chambers of the heart have become sufficiently developed.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Tennessee since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Governor Bill Haslam quickly announced that the state would abide by the court's decision, and same-sex couples began to marry in Tennessee. Previously, Tennessee had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.