Same-sex partnership recognition in the United States

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal status of same-sex partnerships in the states of the USA
  • Same-sex marriage
  • The current state of same-sex marriage is complicated.

    • The legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in the United States is largely regulated at the state level.

    Due to the federal structure of the political system of the United States and the strong political sensitivity of the subject recognition is designed very differently in different states: Sun falls in the US system, the grounds of marriage in the sole responsibility of the states. The legal consequences of marriage, on the other hand, can affect both state and federal law.

    There are different types of same-sex partnership recognition:

    Originally, the term civil union referred to a legal institution that was largely on an equal footing with marriage and resembled the registered partnerships that were set up in many European countries (including Switzerland ).

    Domestic partnerships, on the other hand, had considerably fewer rights and obligations. However, since five states with domestic partnerships - California , Oregon , Washington , Nevada and Colorado - have expanded their legislation and have largely aligned domestic partnerships with marriage or have opened marriage there, this conceptual differentiation is no longer generally possible.

    Political situation

    The legal recognition of same-sex partnerships is one of the most controversial issues in US society. Liberal and conservative groups occur z. Sometimes very emotional for the respective side. The disputes take place in court, in parliaments and at the ballot box. The groups that campaign for recognition across the country include the civil rights organizations ACLU and Lambda Legal . Organizations that oppose legal recognition include many Christian churches and private institutions such as the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund .

    In general, religion plays a greater role in everyday life than in Europe (so-called civil religion ). According to current statistics, nearly 80% of Americans are Christian. The increased influence of the religious right during George W. Bush's tenure also played a role.

    The recognition of same-sex partnerships is often compared to other civil rights issues, such as the abolition of slavery in 1865, the introduction of women's suffrage in 1920, or the national legalization of interracial marriage in 1967.

    Until 2015, marriage between homosexuals was banned in most states by simple statutory law . The prohibition enshrined in the constitution in thirty states violated, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, Obergefell v. Hodges , the federal constitution. The country is divided geographically in this regard. In traditionally liberal New England , all six states first opened marriage to same-sex couples. The rest of the northeast is also considered gay-friendly. In the West Coast states , there were same-sex marriages in California and Washington , and registered partnerships in Hawaii , Oregon, and Nevada . In contrast, until 2015 there were constitutional bans on same-sex partnerships in the religiously conservative southern states , the sparsely populated Mountain States , and parts of the Midwest .

    Politically, same-sex marriage is supported by many Democrats (e.g. Barack Obama , Edward Kennedy , Nancy Pelosi , Gavin Newsom ), registered partnerships by some Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Howard Dean ) and many (moderate ) Republicans (e.g. Rudolph Giuliani , Mary Jodi Rell ) supported. Conservative Republicans in particular are against recognition in any form. Several improvements for homosexual couples were envisaged on the agenda of President Barack Obama's administration. According to the Democrats' agenda, the rights of registered partnerships have also been expanded at the federal level in the United States.

    State-level recognition

    Same-sex marriage

    The first attempt to legalize same-sex marriage was in 1972. In the Baker v. Nelson , the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that marriage in that state is defined as the union between a man and a woman. The appeal was not accepted for decision by the United States Supreme Court "in the absence of a fundamental federal issue".

    In May 2012, Barack Obama was the first US president to speak out in favor of legalization after a referendum in North Carolina with 61 percent voted against legalization the day before. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage permissible in all states.

    Massachusetts

    In Massachusetts , homosexuals from states that allow same-sex marriage have been allowed to be married since May 17, 2004. Residents of other states have been able to get married since July 31, 2008.

    In the first twelve months, almost 6,200 homosexual couples tied the knot (2004 alone: ​​6,095 couples; for comparison: 18,000 gay marriages in more populous California from admission in June 2008 to ban in November of that year). In 2006 and 2007 the number leveled off at around 1,500 gay marriages annually, which is 4% of all marriages in Massachusetts. A total of 11,000 homosexual marriages were concluded between May 2004 and November 2008. Divorce rates in Massachusetts have remained stable and remain at their lowest levels in the US.

    2004–2008: marriages for residents of states that permit these marriages

    In the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on November 18, 2003 that it was unconstitutional to refuse marriage to same-sex couples. The court ordered that the family law had to be changed accordingly, otherwise the change would automatically become final after a period of 180 days.

    A survey carried out in February 2004 showed that 53% of those questioned rejected gay marriage, but 60% supported the legal construct of the Civil Union (similar to the registered partnership of some European countries: see below ). 71% of the respondents supported a decision by the electorate, not by the judiciary or legislature . At that time, only neighboring Vermont (since 2000) allowed a civil union in the USA .

    After four days of intense debate over a period of six weeks, the General Court (Senate and House of Representatives) of Massachusetts voted 105 to 92 on March 29, 2004 for a constitutional amendment that introduces the Civil Union in Massachusetts , but the would prohibit same-sex marriage. For a constitutional amendment, a new vote by the General Court in the following year and a referendum in 2006 were required .

    The then Republican Governor Mitt Romney , who had spoken out against gay marriage, advocated petitioning the court for a suspension of the verdict and thus the 180-day period. However, only the Democratic legal representative of the state of Massachusetts or the chief legal advisor to the government , Thomas F. Reilly, could make this request by law . Reilly, who had also spoken out against same-sex marriages, refused this step despite - legally irrelevant - requests from the governor and said that "the people" - i.e. H. the 2006 referendum - should decide the question. On April 15, Romney then asked the legislature for exceptional authorization to appeal to the court to suspend the sentence. However, the General Court did not allow this. After 180 days, the court ruling became final on May 17, 2004, and Romney directed the registry offices to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Since 2008: marriage without restrictions

    Even before the court ruling became final on May 17, 2004, Governor Romney referred to a law dating from 1913 with the oft-cited remark that Massachusetts should not become the " Las Vegas of gay marriage" (ie a destination for tourists who marry): Section 11, Chapter 207, Title III, Part II of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibited marriages from residents of states where marriage was illegal. The law had been used in the 20th century to prohibit people of different races from entering into marriage in Massachusetts unless their home states recognized mixed marriages. Now the law has effectively prevented residents of other states in Massachusetts from entering into gay marriage.

    After just over a year, around 6,600 homosexuals had exercised their right to marry when the General Court voted again on September 14, 2005 on the planned constitutional amendment. After only two hours of debate, this time the result was 157 to 39, which was clearly in support of same-sex marriage. The original plan to amend the constitution had thus failed. There were new referendum plans either to completely abolish same-sex connections including the Civil Union (December 2005) or to require a three-quarters majority for their abolition, i. H. to strengthen gay marriage (May 2007). So far, however, neither of the two projects has been voted on.

    After California gay marriage in 2008 - i. H. temporarily legalized, regardless of residence, all Massachusetts policymakers have signaled their will to abolish the 1913 law. On July 15, 2008, the Massachusetts Senate voted unanimously against the law without prior discussion. On July 29, the State House of Representatives followed, which after 45 minutes of discussion voted 118 to 35 in favor of repealing the law. By means of an accelerated procedure (emergency preamble) , the incumbent Governor Deval Patrick was able to sign the bill on July 31, 2008, before the otherwise usual 90-day period for the entry into force of laws, in order to repeal the 1913 law.

    The group Mass Resistance , which campaigns against gay rights in Massachusetts and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center , then campaigned for a referendum on the law of the next presidential election in 2012 To be carried out in 1913. The group filed with the State Secretary of State on August 13 of that year to begin a petition for a referendum; around 32,000 signatures were required for this. In late October, the group filed 11,000 collected signatures with the Secretary of State and did not advocate the petition. Among others, the Catholic Church and the Massachusetts Family Institute - two of the organizations that campaigned for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage - did not support the petition. The attempt by opponents of gay marriage to elect more like-minded people to the General Court in the November 2008 elections failed. Instead, the number of supporters increased by three MPs to 158 out of 200 MPs.

    California

    Record of same-sex marriage in 2004 in San Francisco

    Since 1999, is in California , couples in which at least one partner is 62 years or older, the Institute of Domestic Partnership (Engl. Domestic Partnership ) open.

    In addition, same-sex marriages were temporarily allowed in the past: In the winter of 2004, gay marriages could be concluded in San Francisco, and from June 16, 2008 to November 4, 2008 throughout the state. The marriages entered into in 2004 were declared ineffective in the same year, while the marriages entered into in 2008 remained valid.

    Same-sex marriages were not allowed in California from November 2008 to June 2013, and several lawsuits against the prohibition proceedings were pending, leading to the confirmation of the unconstitutionality of the 2008 referendum on June 26, 2013 and the re-approval of same-sex marriages in California.

    Same-sex marriage has been banned since 1977/1992, domestic partnership since 1999

    1977 California Act No. 67 (Law No. 67) passed to clarify in sections 4100 and 4101 of the California Civil Code that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Both paragraphs were in 1992, when the California Family Code (Family Code) was adopted, included in the Family Code unchanged as §§ 300 and three hundred and first

    As early as the 1980s, the recognition of same-sex civil partnerships was discussed at the municipal level, especially because several municipalities also insure the life partners of their employees; In the absence of state insurance , homosexual partners were only able to take out expensive private insurance. In the mid-1980s, therefore, the cities of West Hollywood (1985), Berkeley (1985) and Santa Cruz issued regulations that granted same-sex partnerships at least some rights, particularly with regard to insurance; In 1989, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors (similar to a city ​​council at county level) followed with a regulation that equalized same-sex partnerships (heterosexual) marriages.

    In 1995 (Assembly Bill 627) , 1997 ( Assembly Bill 54 / Murray-Katz Domestic Partnership Bill ) and 1999 (Senate Bill 75) , the Californian parliament voted on very similar bills to recognize civil partnerships, which should also include same-sex couples; In 1997, Parliament voted for a bill (Assembly Bill 1059) that would have made insurance payments possible for same-sex partners of the insured, but against which then Governor Pete Wilson vetoed. 1999 was finally in the tenure of Governor Gray Davis , a bill (Assembly Bill 26) for Domestic Partnerships (Engl. Domestic Partnerships ) implemented for couples where at least one partner is 62 years older or more. It was the first law on domestic partnerships in the United States. The original legal structure contained only a few rights, but was greatly expanded in the following years. Even today (as of March 2009) it still differs from marriage, for example, in terms of age, the requirement of a shared apartment and restrictions on insurance benefits for the partner of the insured, although § 297.5 a domestic partners and a. confers the same rights and obligations as spouses.

    2000 referendum: no recognition of same-sex marriage

    Sections 300–301 of the Family Code only allowed marriages between a man and a woman. However, Section 308 of the Family Code provided recognition of all marriages made outside of California, provided they were valid under the law of the state in which they were made. While same-sex marriages were not allowed in any country in the world at the time, opponents of gay marriage saw the regulation as a loophole for marriages outside California. In 2000, therefore, by referendum ("Proposition 22") with 61.4% to 38.6% of the votes, the additional paragraph § 308A was introduced, which limits the conclusion and recognition of marriages in California to heterosexual marriages. The rule of 1977 was de facto confirmed by grassroots democracy .

    Going it alone from San Francisco: Same-sex marriage in the winter of 2004
    Same-sex couples queue outside San Francisco City Hall, February 15, 2004

    From February 12 to March 11, the mayor of leaving San Francisco , Gavin Newsom , with reference to the principle of equality confidence about 4,000 same-sex wishing to marry. On March 11, the California Supreme Court prohibited further marriages, initially to determine whether Newsom had the right to defy state family law. On August 12 of that year, the California Supreme Court ruled in two cases ( Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro ) that Newsom had acted outside the law and annulled the marriages.

    Bills 2005 and 2006/07 and court proceedings 2004–2008

    In 2005, both houses of the Californian parliament passed a law to legalize gay marriage with a clear majority. The incumbent governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately vetoed , referring to the referendum from 2000, the constitutionality of which was still being disputed in court: “This law only brings confusion on a constitutional question. If the prohibition of same-sex marriage is not constitutional, this law is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this law is ineffective . ”According to Schwarzenegger, a court decision or a referendum would have to introduce gay marriage.

    In 2006/2007, the newly elected California Parliament passed another law to legalize same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger vetoed the law again, which he announced early on. He relied on the same reasons as in 2005 and found that "the appropriate resolution of this matter is to let the court rule on Proposition 22."

    This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

    Shortly after the marriages concluded in San Francisco in 2004 were annulled, the city of San Francisco and 15 gay and lesbian couples took legal action. On March 14, the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the first instance. The State of California appealed against this.

    On July 10, 2006, an appeals court ruled that existing marriage laws were not in violation of the constitution. The city of San Francisco then appealed to the California Supreme Court.

    Court decision and referendum: Homoehe 2008

    On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 votes for the gender definition of marriage in that state to be unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause . On June 4, the court denied a motion by conservative groups to suspend enforcement of the sentence until a referendum, at which point the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples could be issued on June 16. This made California the second US state alongside Massachusetts to open marriage to homosexual couples.

    In a referendum on November 4, 2008 ("Proposition 8"), however, a narrow majority of 52.3% to 47.7% of the voters (difference: 599,602 votes) spoke out in favor of changing the constitution so that only heterosexual connections be recognized as marriage.

    On November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were brought against the California Supreme Court to declare Proposition 8 unlawful; the referendum was not merely a constitutional amendment (amendment) , but a constitutional amendment (revision) , bringing them before the referendum on the legislative advocated would. In the past, the Supreme Court had ruled two referendums as constitutional amendments and declared them illegal. Lawyers disagree as to whether Proposition 8 could be viewed as an amendment by the court. The California Attorney General Jerry Brown stated in March 2009 that the majority of this referendum wanted to suppress a minority in California and that the referendum therefore violated the constitution. The court also dealt with the question of whether the marriages that had already been concluded would continue to be valid or whether the amendment to the constitution would repeal them. On May 26, 2009, the Supreme Court declared the referendum constitutional with a 6-1 vote and determined that same-sex marriages that had already been concluded would remain valid.

    From 2009: Partial recognition of gay marriages elsewhere

    The temporary legalization of gay marriage in California in 2008 raised the question of how to deal with gay marriages that had been concluded in California during this period (see above on their permanent recognition). There was also the problem of whether or not gay marriages that had been entered into outside of California at the time would still be considered valid . The California Senate then passed a law - signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009 - according to which gay marriages outside California between June 16 and November 5, 2008 are legally binding in the state.

    In addition, the law regulates recognition of same-sex marriages entered into outside of California after November 5, 2008; H. after the date on which no gay marriages could be entered into in California. Such closed from November 5, 2008 Gay marriages are recognized by law in California, and the spouse will receive the same legal protection ( legal protections , such. As insurance premiums) as heterosexual marriages. The marriages are not officially as "marriages" (marriage) referred, which, according to Schwarzenegger accommodated in the referendum expressed wish of the people will comply.

    2010: Possible referendums and verdict in San Francisco on August 4, 2010

    Even before the decision on Proposition 8 was made, two groups requested new referendums. One of these aims to reverse the amendment to the constitution and the other to delete the word "marriage" from all state laws. The Interior Minister set the first group, "Yes on Equality", a deadline of August 17, 2009 to collect the approximately 700,000 required signatures. The corresponding referendums would be held in 2010. On August 4, 2010, a US district court in San Francisco found Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled the 2008 referendum unconstitutional. The responsible federal judge Vaughn Walker justified his judgment with the fact that Proposition 8 aimed to create a superiority of opposite sex compared to same sex couples in the California constitution. The referendum prevents the state of California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to allow marriages on an equal basis and thus violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution .

    Washington Supreme Court judgment June 26, 2013

    On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court (United States v. Windsor) overturned the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and denied in a further decision ( Hollingsworth v. Perry ) the power of the plaintiffs ("standing") against the San Francisco District Court ruling that the 2008 referendum was unconstitutional. This means that same-sex marriages will be possible again in California in the future.

    new York

    In 2003 a court in New York ruled that a Vermont civil marriage (see below ) had to be recognized in New York to the extent that the partners were entitled to the legal advantages of spouses. On March 3, 2004, the New York government's chief legal advisor issued an "informal opinion" that New York should not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples because the law does not provide for it.

    In 2005, a female judge ruled in the first instance that New York must allow gay marriages, but the sentence was overturned in the second instance. The next year the New York Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals had no constitutional right to enter into same-sex marriage ( Hernandez v. Robles case ). On February 1, 2008, a New York court ( Appelate Division , i.e. an instance under the highest court) ruled the Martinez v. County of Monroe that New York must recognize same-sex marriages outside of the state; The reason was that New York would recognize heterosexual, out-of-state marriages even if their conclusion in New York had not been legal. As a result, Governor David Paterson issued an ordinance ordering all authorities to change their policies accordingly.

    On the initiative of then governor Eliot Spitzer , a bill to open up marriage was passed by the democratic majority in the House of Representatives in 2007. But it failed in January 2008 because of the Republican majority in the Senate. In the November 2008 general election, the Democrats won a slim majority in the Senate (32:30), but not all Democrats supported a bill to legalize gay marriage being put to the vote. A corresponding bill, which was passed again in the House of Representatives on May 12, 2009, was again up for a vote in the Senate at the end of 2009; there would require the approval of some Republican senators to pass the proposal.

    On June 24, 2011, the Senate passed the relevant law with 33 votes to 29. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Marriage Equality Act that same day. On July 24, 2011, the first marriages between same-sex couples took place.

    Connecticut: 2008 Court Ruling / 2009 Act

    On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that marriage must be opened to same-sex couples. On November 12, 2008, the first marriage ceremonies took place in Connecticut. On April 24, 2009, Governor Mary Jodi Rell signed a bill that implements the court ruling.

    Iowa: 2009 Court Ruling

    At a meeting after the court ruling, a poster with Iowa's motto is displayed: "We value our freedoms and will protect our rights".

    On April 3, 2009, the Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The court also stated that an alternative legal institution for homosexuals was insufficient. The decision took effect on April 27th.

    In a joint statement on the ruling, the leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives emphasized Iowa's historic role in relation to civil rights:

    “[...] Iowa has always been a leader in civil rights. In 1839, the Supreme Court rejected slavery by ruling that a slave named Ralph was free when he set foot on Iowa grounds, 26 years before the end of the Civil War ruled the matter. 1868 the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation on the principle of " separate but equal " had no place in Iowa schools, 85 years before the US Supreme Court to the same decision reached. In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled against Racial Discrimination in Public Institutions, 91 years before the US Supreme Court came to the same ruling. In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the federal state to allow women lawyers. [...] "

    Vermont: Act 2009

    On April 7, 2009, the state parliament overruled the governor's veto with a 2/3 majority in both chambers, so that in future marriage in Vermont will be open to same-sex couples. Vermont is the first US state in which same-sex marriage is opened by a legislative initiative. The law came into force on September 1, 2009.

    Maine: 2009 Trial

    In 2004, the adopted legislative in Maine as the third US state a law that same-sex couples entering into a domestic partnership allowed (see below ).

    On May 6, 2009, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a law that also opened marriage to same-sex couples. He became the first head of government of a state to sign such a law without a court requesting it; before that, however, the parliament and the governor of Massachusetts had expanded their gay marriage law without a court order (see above ). The law continued to give individuals and religious groups the right not to marry same-sex couples (e.g. pastors); In October of that year, the Maine government's chief legal advisor would also clarify that the law would not require curriculum changes (school lessons on gay sex).

    Just one day after it was passed, on May 7, 2009, opponents of the law submitted the necessary documents to abolish the law by referendum . As soon as they had collected a sufficient number of signatures to carry out the referendum, the law was temporarily suspended (put on hold) . In the referendum on November 3, 2009, 52.8% (out of 99% counted constituencies) voted against gay marriage, the rest in favor. The turnout was very high for the USA at 60%, especially since there were no elections to be held at the same time. This returned only to Maine's domestic partnership law from 2004, which was in effect through 2012. In November 2012, in another referendum, this time the opening of marriage was supported by a majority. The marriage ceremony took place in Maine on December 29, 2012.

    New Hampshire: from 2010

    On June 3, 2009, the Governor signed New Hampshire , John Lynch , a law that opens the marriage for gays and lesbians. It had previously been passed in the Senate with 14 to 10 votes and in the House of Representatives with 198 to 176 votes. This makes same-sex marriage legal in four out of six states in New England . The law came into force on January 1, 2010.

    District of Columbia: as of March 2010

    On December 15, 2009, the Washington, DC City Council approved the opening of marriage by eleven votes to two . The law came into force on March 3, 2010.

    Washington

    In February 2012, the Washington Senate and the Washington House of Representatives voted to open marriage. The democratic governor Christine Gregoire signed the law on February 13, 2012. In a referendum in November 2012, the opening of marriage was approved.

    Maryland

    In late February 2012, the Maryland Senate and Maryland House of Representatives voted to open marriage. Governor Martin O'Malley signed the marriage law on March 1, 2012. The opening of marriage was approved in a referendum in November 2012.

    Rhode Island

    In April 2013, the Rhode Island Senate and the Rhode Island House of Representatives voted to open marriage.

    Minnesota

    In May 2013, the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate voted to open marriage.

    Delaware

    In May 2013, the Delaware Senate and the Delaware House of Representatives voted to open the marriage.

    New Jersey

    In October 2013, the New Jersey Supreme Court approved the opening of same-sex marriage in the state.

    Illinois

    In November 2013, the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives approved opening up marriage to same-sex couples in the state.

    Hawaii

    In November 2013, the Hawaii Senate and House of Representatives approved the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the state.

    New Mexico

    In December 2013, New Mexico's Supreme Court in Santa Fe declared that it was unconstitutional to forbid gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Eight of the state's 33 counties introduced legal gay marriage in August 2013.

    Utah

    On December 20, 2013, a federal district court ruled that Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution. The Attorney General Utah's appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court on October 6, making the verdict final.

    Oklahoma

    On January 14, 2014, a federal district court ruled that the Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition on same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict was initially suspended, but became final on October 6, 2014, as the United States Supreme Court dismissed a state appeal at last resort.

    Kentucky

    On February 12, 2014, a federal district court ruled that Kentucky’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended for the time being.

    Virginia

    On February 13, 2014, a federal district court ruled that the Virginia constitution prohibits same-sex marriage as incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended for the time being, but became final on October 6, 2014, as the United States Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the state at last resort.

    Texas

    On February 26, 2014, a federal district court ruled that the Texas state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage as incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended for the time being.

    Michigan

    On March 21, 2014, a Michigan federal district court ruled that Michigan's constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage was inconsistent with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended since March 22, 2014.

    Ohio

    On April 14, 2014, a federal district court in Ohio ruled Ohio's law prohibiting same-sex marriage as incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended for the time being.

    Arkansas

    On May 10, 2014, an Arkansas federal district court ruled that the Arkansas constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution. The judgment has been suspended since May 16, 2014.

    Idaho

    On May 13, 2014, a federal district court in Idaho ruled that Idaho's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution. This decision was upheld by the appeals court. An application to the Supreme Court to suspend the judgment was denied. On October 16, 2014, as a result of the non-acceptance by the Supreme Court, the state of Idaho followed and opened the marriage.

    Oregon

    On May 19, 2014, an Oregon federal district court ruled that the Oregon Constitution's prohibition on same-sex marriage was inconsistent with the federal constitution.

    Pennsylvania

    On May 21, 2014, a Pennsylvania federal district court ruled that the state of Pennsylvania was open to marriage to same-sex couples. Although Republican Party politicians called on the Pennsylvania government to appeal the verdict , Republican Governor Tom Corbett declined to challenge the judge's decision.

    Wisconsin

    On June 6, 2014, a Wisconsin district court ruled that the state of Wisconsin was open to marriage to same-sex couples. The verdict was initially suspended, but became final on October 6, 2014, as the United States Supreme Court dismissed a state appeal at last resort.

    Indiana

    On June 25, 2014, a federal judge in the state of Indiana declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted the ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The verdict was initially suspended, but became final on October 6, 2014, as the United States Supreme Court dismissed a state appeal at last resort.

    Colorado

    On July 9, 2014, a federal court in the state of Colorado ruled unconstitutional and lifted the ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Weddings have been open in Colorado since October 12, 2014.

    Nevada

    On October 7, 2014, the 9th Federal Court of Appeals declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional and lifted it. Same-sex couples have been able to get married in Nevada since October 9, 2014.

    West Virginia

    On October 10, 2014, the ban on same-sex couples was lifted as unconstitutional as a result of court decisions.

    North Carolina

    On October 10, 2014, the Federal District Court declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional and lifted it.

    Alaska

    On October 12, 2014, the Alaska Federal District Court declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted it.

    Arizona

    On October 17, 2014, the Arizona Federal District Court declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted it.

    Wyoming

    On October 17, 2014, the Wyoming Federal District Court declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted it.

    Missouri

    On November 6, 2014, the Missouri Federal District Court declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted it.

    Montana

    On November 19, 2014, a federal district court in Montana declared the ban on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional and lifted it.

    South carolina

    On November 20, 2014, the lifting of the ban on marriage by the Federal District Court of November 11, 2014 became final.

    Mississippi

    A federal district court in Mississippi ruled that the Mississippi state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage as incompatible with the federal constitution. The verdict has been suspended since November 26, 2014.

    Kansas

    On November 11, 2014, a Kansas federal district court ruled that the Kansas Constitution's prohibition on same-sex marriage was incompatible with the federal constitution.

    Florida

    In August 2014, a federal district court declared the Florida prohibition of same-sex marriage to be incompatible with the federal constitution. The judgment became final on January 6, 2015.

    Alabama

    On February 9, 2015, the marriage in the state of Alabama was opened as a result of the Supreme Court's failure to accept an appeal on a judgment of a federal district court in Alabama.

    Guam Territory

    In the US territory of Guam , the opening of marriage was implemented in June 2015.

    Puerto Rico Territory

    In the US territory of Puerto Rico , the opening of marriage was implemented in July 2015.

    Civil Unions

    The first state to establish the legal institution of the Civil Union was Vermont in 2000. In the Baker v. In Vermont , the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples the rights and obligations of marriage. However, the court did not determine whether the marriage must be opened or whether an equivalent form of recognition can be created. Vermont Parliament opted for the latter option and Governor Howard Dean signed the bill on April 26, 2000.

    Other states that introduced civil unions are Connecticut (2005), New Jersey (2007), New Hampshire (2008), Illinois (2011), Hawaii (2011), Delaware (2011) and Rhode Island (2011) and Colorado (2013 ).

    Domestic partnerships

    The first state to introduce Domestic Partnerships was California in 1999 (see detailed above ).

    Further states with domestic partnerships are the District of Columbia (2002), New Jersey (2004), Maine (2004), Washington (2007; expanded in 2009), Oregon (2007), Maryland (2008, but without formal entry in a register ), Wisconsin and Nevada .

    Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship and Designated Beneficiary Agreement

    In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin that it is unconstitutional to refuse marriage to homosexual couples. However, the court did not immediately order the issuance of marriage licenses, but gave the government an opportunity to justify itself. In 1997, Hawaii introduced the first and so far unique legal institution of the Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship (German meaning "relationship for mutual usufruct"). In 1998, however, an amendment to the constitution came into force, allowing the government to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. This type of formulation is unique in the United States: Similar constitutional amendments that later followed in other states always contained a mandatory prohibition of same-sex marriage.

    Since July 1, 2009 , a legal institution called the Designated Beneficiary Agreement has been available in the state of Colorado to all unmarried couples, including same-sex couples . This is a form of unregistered partnership, i. H. the actual coexistence of two partners must u. U. be proven. In February 2013, a parliamentary decision was taken to expand the now registered legal institute with rights similar to marriage.

    Constitutional prohibitions

    History of the US State-Level Constitutional Prohibition.

    After the Hawaii court ruling, some states began adopting amendments to the constitution banning same-sex marriage. These amendments to the constitution were each decided by referendums and generally adopted with clear majorities.

    In 2008, 30 US states had amendments to the constitution banning same-sex marriages.

    The first state to introduce such an amendment was Alaska in 1998. Following the Baker v. Vermont was followed by Nebraska (2000) and Nevada (2002).

    Following the Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health started another wave. It followed in 2004: Arkansas , Georgia , Kentucky , Louisiana , Michigan , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , and Utah . Kansas and Texas followed in 2005 , and Alabama , Colorado , Idaho , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Virginia and Wisconsin in 2006 .

    In 2008 Arizona , Florida and California were added. In 2014, court rulings in a number of US states overturned these bans.

    There are two states in which the referendum on a constitutional amendment failed. The first time this happened in Arizona , where the amendment wanted to prohibit both same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. In 2008, however, an amendment to the constitution, which was limited to the prohibition of same-sex marriages, was adopted with 56% yes against 44% no. For the second time, Minnesota citizens voted 52.6% against a constitutional ban on November 6, 2012. In May 2013, marriage was opened to same-sex couples in Minnesota.

    Recognition of gay marriages concluded elsewhere

    For states where gay marriages are illegal, the question arises whether and to what extent gay marriages are recognized elsewhere. These include, in particular, same-sex marriages in neighboring Canada (legalized nationwide in 2005), marriages concluded abroad and (since 2004) legally concluded in other US states, as well as other forms of same-sex partnerships entered into domestically or abroad.

    The legal regulation for gay marriages that were concluded in other US states developed at the same time as the development of same-sex partnerships in the US: Traditionally, the states are under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution - the so-called Full Faith and Credit Clause - obliged to behave nationally and to recognize their legal institutions. However, the United States Supreme Court has always recognized an exception to public policy laws , including the legal requirements for marriage.

    In 1996, with the support of the Clinton administration , the US Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act , which requires no state to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The constitutionality of the law is controversial. Depending on how the Full Faith and Credit Clause is interpreted, the law is either superfluous because the public policy exception applies or unconstitutional because it violates Full Faith and Credit and / or other constitutional provisions. So far, the law has not been challenged in the Supreme Court and lower courts have found it constitutional.

    New York was the only state that did not enter into same-sex marriages of its own, but explicitly recognized those from other states. A court ruled in February 2008 that same-sex marriage in Canada must be recognized in New York (see above ). The same situation has existed since July 7, 2009 in Washington, DC , which is not a member of any state. The situation remains unclear in Rhode Island and New Mexico , as these states have not enacted any specific regulation on the problem. The Rhode Island government’s chief legal advisor came to the conclusion that same-sex marriages from Massachusetts are recognized in Rhode Island. However, this opinion is not legally binding.

    Table overview

    The following table provides an overview of the forms of recognition in the individual states and Washington, DC

    State introduction Type of recognition Creation by Remarks
    District of Columbia 1992/2002 Domestic partnership law Originally passed in 1992, the law was not implemented until 2002 due to opposition from the Republican majority in Congress.
    Hawaii 1997 Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship law
    California 1999 Domestic partnership law
    Vermont 2000 Civil Union Court decision Baker v. Vermont Expired on September 1, 2009. However, existing civil unions remain in force.
    New Jersey 2004 Domestic partnership law
    Maine 2004 Domestic partnership law
    Massachusetts 2004 Same-sex marriage Court ruling Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
    Connecticut 2005 Civil Union law Expired on October 1, 2010. However, existing civil unions remain in effect and can be converted into marriages.
    New Jersey 2007 Civil Union Court decision Lewis v. Harris
    Washington 2007 Domestic partnership law
    Oregon 2007 Domestic partnership law
    New Hampshire 2008 Civil Union law Expired on January 1, 2010. Existing civil unions can be converted into marriages. Civil unions that have not been converted will be converted automatically on January 1, 2011.
    new York 2008 Recognition of same-sex marriages concluded elsewhere Court decision, governor's decree
    California 2008, June to November; again from 2013 Same-sex marriage Court Ruling In Re Marriage Cases Repealed in a referendum in November 2008; In June 2013, referendum declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
    Connecticut 2008 Same-sex marriage Court decision Kerrigan and Mock v. Commissioner of Public Health
    Maryland 2008 Domestic partnership law There is no formal partnership register.
    Iowa 2009 Same-sex marriage Court decision Varnum v. Brien
    Colorado 2009 Designated Beneficiary Agreement law There is no formal partnership register.
    District of Columbia 2009 Recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships concluded elsewhere law
    Wisconsin 2009 Domestic partnership law
    Vermont 2009 Same-sex marriage law The governor's veto was overruled by parliament.
    Nevada 2009 Domestic partnership law The governor's veto was overruled by parliament.
    New Hampshire 2010 Same-sex marriage law
    District of Columbia 2010 Same-sex marriage law
    Illinois 2011 Civil Union law
    Hawaii 2011 Civil Union law
    Delaware 2011 Civil Union law
    new York 2011 Same-sex marriage law
    Rhode Island 2011 Civil Union law
    Washington 2012 Same-sex marriage law
    Maine 2012 Same-sex marriage law
    Maryland 2012 Same-sex marriage law
    Colorado 2013 Civil Union law
    Rhode Island 2013 Same-sex marriage law
    Delaware 2013 Same-sex marriage law
    Minnesota 2013 Same-sex marriage law
    New Jersey 2013 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Illinois 2013 Same-sex marriage law
    Hawaii 2013 Same-sex marriage law
    New Mexico 2013 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Utah 2013 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Oregon 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Pennsylvania 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Wisconsin 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Indiana 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Virginia 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Oklahoma 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Colorado 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Nevada 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    West Virginia 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    North Carolina 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Alaska 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Idaho 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Arizona 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Wyoming 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Montana 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Missouri 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    South carolina 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Kansas 2014 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Florida 2015 Same-sex marriage Court decision
    Alabama 2015 Same-sex marriage Court decision

    Recognition at the federal level

    Historically, there was never a federal definition of marriage, and if a marriage was valid in a state, it was recognized by the federal government. This only changed in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA; see above ), according to which the federal government is not allowed to recognize same-sex marriages or other legal institutions. This applies not only to direct rights, but also, for example, to the nationwide census, where the couples were identified as "unmarried partners" in 2000 and the raw data for the 2010 census is to be published in 2011, since a summary is not permitted.

    An amendment to the US Constitution supported by the George W. Bush administration would have created a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage at the federal level. A corresponding law has so far been introduced three times in the US Congress, but each time it has been rejected - with the votes of many Republican MPs. Most recently it failed in the House of Representatives in 2006 with 236 to 187 votes. The government of Barack Obama rejects a corresponding constitutional amendment.

    On June 26, 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court. He applied the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, according to which each state must recognize the law of the other states. At the federal level, the law violates the principle of equal treatment. The legal consequence in this case is that not only must the other states recognize a marriage between same-sex partners that was concluded in another state under its law, but the recognition also extends to all services at the federal level. As a result, the democratic federal government under Barack Obama recognized same-sex couples nationwide in August 2013 in the area of ​​all tax law. In the future, for example, a joint tax return will be allowed and the same tax benefits will apply.

    Since February 2014, homosexual couples who go to the registry office have been given further rights at the federal level throughout the country, including the same rights in the case of personal bankruptcies, widows' pensions, the right to refuse to testify in court or even to visit rights in prison.

    Other recognition

    In the state of Oregon , the Coquille Indian tribe opened marriage to gays and lesbians. He is not bound by the prohibition of same-sex marriage in the constitution of Oregon, as recognized tribes enjoy internal autonomy through federal laws (so-called tribal sovereignty ).

    adoption

    Legal Status of Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples in North America
  • Joint adoption legal
  • unknown or unclear

    • States where same-sex couples can legally adopt children through 2015 include Alaska , Arizona , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Idaho , Iowa , Illinois , Indiana , California , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Nevada , North Carolina , Oklahoma , Oregon , Rhode Island , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , West Virginia , Wisconsin, and Wyoming . Same-sex couples are specifically prohibited from adopting in Mississippi , Ohio , Nebraska, and Michigan . Since the 2015 United States Supreme Court ruling Obergefell v. Hodges , adoptions for same-sex couples are legal in all states.

    In December 2008, a federal court ruled that adoption by a same-sex couple that is legal in one state must be recognized by another state, even if that state prohibits it. The legal basis was Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, the so-called Full Faith and Credit Clause , according to which legally binding court decisions are also valid across national borders.

    A 2007 study by the University of California at Los Angeles and the Urban Institute think tank looked at the families of gay or bisexual adoptive or foster parents. According to this, around 65,500 adopted children and 14,100 foster children lived with at least one homosexual or bisexual parent nationwide. Homosexuals and bisexuals raised 4% of adopted and 3% of foster children in the USA. The highest adoption rates of homosexual or bisexual parents come from California (approx. 16,500 children = 9.8% of all adopted children), followed by New York (approx. 7,000 children = 7%) and Massachusetts (almost 6,000 children = 16.4% ); the highest proportion of lesbian and gay adoptive parents was recorded in Washington, DC with 28.6% of all adoptive children (= 758 children). Homosexual or bisexual fathers, and especially mothers, were on average older, had a significantly better education and more financial resources (than heterosexual adoptive parents). Her adoptive children were on average several years younger and 14% of them were born abroad (7% for heterosexual adoptive parents).

    The study also examined the financial impact of a US-wide ban on homosexual adoptions: According to the study, it could lead to an additional burden on the American foster care system of between 87 and 130 million US dollars annually; The increased search for and financing of foster parents and, due to the general lack of foster parents, the placement of some children in children's homes etc. were assumed to be additional costs. However, the extrapolation does not take into account, for example, that 14% of the adopted children of lesbian and gay parents (around 9,170 children) were born abroad; It is not discussed whether the number of adoptive and foster children born abroad would decline if adoptive parents were no longer available. In general, there is insufficient distinction between easy-to-place (especially younger) and difficult-to-place (especially older) children, although homosexual and bisexual parents raise an above-average number of younger adoptive children. In addition, the two figures are not independent because primarily easy-to-place children are adopted from abroad. On the other hand, the study does not include any costs for the expected psychological damage and the court costs that are to be expected in the first years after a ban if children would have to leave their lesbian and gay adoptive families.

    Public opinion

    According to a survey conducted April 22-26, 2009 by CBS and the New York Times , 42% of Americans support same-sex marriage and 25% registered partnerships, while 28% oppose any recognition.

    Another poll by ABC News and the Washington Post on April 30, 2009 showed a majority for same-sex marriage of 49% for the first time, versus 46% against and 5% without an opinion.

    See also

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ Religious Composition of the US (PDF; 49 kB), US Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2007
    2. ↑ Pelosi's Commentary on the Opening of Marriage in California ( Memento of March 28, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
    3. ^ A b White House: Civil Rights . Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    4. ↑ Obama Publicly Supports Gay Marriage , May 9, 2012
    5. ↑ Zeit Online: The highest US court declares gay marriage nationwide permissible : http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2015-06/hoechstes-us-gericht-erklaert-homo-ehe-landesweit-fuer- permissible
    6. ^ Dan Ring (May 17, 2005). 8,100 gay, lesbian couples marry after 2004 decision. Springfield Republican , published on the MassEquality pages (accessed November 28, 2008). Retrieved November
      28, 2008 from Google Cache: By May 17, 2005, nearly 6,200 same-sex couples had tied the knot in Massachusetts, ( ...) Anniversary party: one year after gays were allowed to marry, Massachusetts couples are feeling optimistic. Meanwhile, the state didn't fall into the sea as some conservatives predicted. The Advocate (accessed November 28, 2008)
      David Filipov (November 17, 2008). 5 years later, views shift subtly on gay marriage. Boston Globe (accessed November 28, 2008, full article subject to charge)
    7. ↑ David Filipov (November 17, 2008). 5 years later, views shift subtly on gay marriage. Boston Globe (accessed November 28, 2008, full article subject to charge)
    8. ↑ Rick Klein (March 30, 2004). Vote ties civil unions to gay-marriage ban. Romney to seek stay of SJC order. The Boston Globe (accessed November 11, 2008)
    9. ^ Raphael Lewis (April 16, 2008). Romney seeks authority to delay same-sex marriage. Legislature poised to reject governor's bill. The Boston Globe (accessed November 11, 2008)
    10. ↑ z. B. Michael Levenson (July 31, 2008). Same-sex couples applaud repeal. Mass. opens door for out-of-state gays to marry. The Boston Globe (accessed November 11, 2008)
    11. ↑ Pam Belluck (September 15, 2008). Massachusetts rejects bill to eliminate gay marriage. The Boston Globe (accessed November 11, 2008)
      Concurrently assigned for consideration. Continuation of recessed session of May 9, 2007 (accessed November 11, 2008)
    12. ↑ all engl. Retrieved November 11, 2008:
      Pam Belluck & Katie Zezima (July 16, 2008). A 1913 law dies to better serve gay marriages. New York Times
      Eric Moskowitz & Andrew Ryan (July 29, 2008). House passes repeal of 1913 marriage law. The Boston Globe
      Pam Belluck (July 30, 2008). Same-sex marriage barrier nears end in Massachusetts. New York Times
      Michael Levenson (July 31, 2008). Same-sex couples applaud repeal. Mass. opens door for out-of-state gays to marry. The Boston Globe
    13. ^ Active US Hate Groups. Anti-gay. ( Memento of the original from February 14, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center (English .; accessed 28 November 2008) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.splcenter.org
    14. ↑ Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law Boston Globe (accessed November 28, 2008)
    15. ↑ Michael Paulson (October 11, 2008). Archdiocese at odds with gay marriage foes. ( Memento of October 15, 2008 on the Internet Archive ) Boston Globe (accessed November 28, 2008)
      Ethan Jacobs (October 30, 2008). 1913 law petition fails. ( Memento of October 15, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Bay Windows (accessed November 28, 2008)
    16. ↑ Assessment by MassEquality, a pro-gay organization in Massachusetts: David Filipov (November 17, 2008). 5 years later, views shift subtly on gay marriage. Boston Globe (accessed November 28, 2008, full article with costs)
      Identical assessment by MassResistance, an anti-homosexual organization in Massachusetts: no author's name (November 4/5, 2008). Massachusetts General Election - Nov. 4, 2008. State races - results & analysis. MassResistance (accessed November 28, 2008)
    17. ↑ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ( Memento from April 25, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 795 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]] (p . 27 of the PDF file)
    18. ^ Katherine Bishop (May 31, 2008). San Francisco grants recognition to couples who aren't married. New York Times (accessed March 2, 2009)
      for the year for West Hollywood: Becker, Lewis (1995). Recognition of domestic partnerships by governmental entities and private employers. National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 91-92.
    19. ↑ not submitted to parliament for vote: Assembly Bill 627 - Legislative Counsel of California. 1995-1996 session. Submitted to
      a committee but not voted:       Assembly Bill 54 - Legislative Counsel of California. 1997-1998 session. stopped by veto of Governor Pete Wilson : Senate Bill 75 - Legislative Counsel of California. 1999–2000 Session stopped by the Governor's veto: Assembly Bill 1059 - Legislative Counsel of California. 1997-1998 session

    20. ↑ Adopted: Assembly Bill 26 - Legislative Counsel of California. 1999-2000 session
    21. ↑ Family Code of California ( Memento of the original from July 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed March 2, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.leginfo.ca.gov
    22. ↑ Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
      297.5 a Family Code of California ( Memento of the original from July 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive )       Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed March 2, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.leginfo.ca.gov
    23. ↑ A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.
      Family Code. Section 300-310. on the pages of the state of California ( memento of the original from June 30, 2016 in the Internet Archive )       Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed March 2, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.leginfo.ca.gov
    24. ^ State Ballot Measures. 100.0% (22670 of 22670) precincts reporting as of Jun 2, 2000 at 11:05 am. Vote2000 - California Primary Election on the pages of the State of California ( Memento of the original from July 22, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet tested. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Evelyn Nieves (March 9, 2000). The 2000 Campaign: California; Those Opposed to 2 Initiatives Had Little Chance From Start. New York Times (accessed March 2, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / primary2000.sos.ca.gov
    25. ↑ Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
      Family Code. Section 300-310. on the pages of the state of California ( memento of the original from June 30, 2016 in the Internet Archive )       Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (English; accessed March 2, 2009) on the referendum see also IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ( Memento from April 25, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 795 [76 Cal.Rptr .3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]] (p. 27 of the PDF file) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.leginfo.ca.gov
    26. ↑ Documents on the Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro on the California Justice website (accessed March 2, 2009)
    27. ↑ Governor's veto message to Parliament from September 29, 2005 - Governor's veto message to Assem. on Assem. Bill No. 849 (Sept. 29, 2005) Recess J. No. 4 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) Pp. 3737-3738. - cited in footnote 17 (p. 30) of IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ( Memento of April 25, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]]
    28. ↑ no author details (September 7, 2005). Statement by Gubernatorial Press Secretary Margita Thompson on AB 849. Office of the Governor website , quoted from LA Times (accessed March 2, 2009)
    29. ↑ veto message of the governor to Parliament on 12 October 2007 - Governor's veto message to Assem. on Assem. Bill No. 43 (Oct. 12, 2007) Recess J. No. 9 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.) Pp. 3497-3498. - cited in footnote 17 (p. 30) of IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ( Memento of April 25, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]]
    30. ↑ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ( Memento from April 25, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]] (Engl.)
      German newspaper article: no author information (May 15, 2008). California: The ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Queer.de (accessed March 2, 2009)
    31. ↑ 365gay.com: Calif. Supreme Court Refuses To Delay Gay Marriage Ruling
    32. ↑ Final figures from December 2008 according to Calif. gay marriage ban won by nearly 600K votes . In: U – T San Diego , December 16, 2008. Retrieved October 26, 2012.
    33. ↑ Maura Dolan & Tami Abdollah (November 6, 2008). Gay rights supporters file 3 lawsuits against Prop. 8. (Print edition: A-23). Los Angeles Times (accessed March 2, 2009)
    34. ↑ Queer: California Attorney General: Proposition 8 is like racism . Queer.de. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    35. ↑ pinksnews: California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
      Text of the decision ( Memento from June 3, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (English)
    36. ↑ Schwarzenegger Signs California Law Recognizing Out-of-State Same-Sex “Marriages” on the website of the California governor (accessed November 26, 2009)
    37. ^ SB 54 will return marriage to California's Social Services Director
    38. ↑ Text of the draft law introduced on January 15, 2009, Senate Bill 54 ( Memento of July 4, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) on the pages of the California Senate (English; accessed November 26, 2009)
    39. ^ Proposition 8 Ruling Coming Tuesday . 365gay. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    40. ↑ California: Judge overturns ban on gay marriage . Rp-online.de. August 5, 2010. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    41. ↑ Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of August 4, 2010 (PDF; 351 kB) Archived from the original on March 16, 2013. Information: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved October 20, 2011. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / ecf.cand.uscourts.gov
    42. ↑ zeit.de: Lesbians and gays gain victory in the US Supreme Court
    43. ^ Court decision: Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital , 196 Misc. 2d 440 (NY Misc., 2003)
    44. ↑ no author details (December 8, 2008). NY court reverses gay marriage ruling. USA Today (accessed November 26, 2009)
    45. ↑ Decision before final correction and publication (accessed November 26, 2009)
    46. ↑ Court judgment Martinez v. County of Monroe (accessed November 26, 2009)
    47. ↑ Jeremy W. Peters (July 7, 2006). New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere. New York Times (accessed November 26, 2009)
      queer.de: New York recognizes gay and lesbian marriages (accessed April 4, 2009)
    48. ↑ Danny Hakim , Jeremy W. Peters: Fate of Same-Sex Marriage Bill in Albany Unclear Sign in to Recommend . In: New York Times . November 8, 2009 (accessed November 26, 2009)
    49. ↑ Nicholas Confessore, Michael Barbaro: New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law . In: The New York Times , June 24, 2011. ISSN  0362-4331 . Retrieved October 21, 2011. 
    50. ^ New York allows same-sex marriage . Handelsblatt. June 25, 2011. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    51. ↑ New York State allows same-sex marriages . Nzz.ch. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    52. ↑ Lightning wedding in Bloomberg's garden . In: Spiegel Online , July 24, 2011. Accessed October 21, 2011. 
    53. ↑ Gay weddings begin in Connecticut . 365gay. Archived from the original on August 8, 2009. Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved October 20, 2011. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.365gay.com
    54. ↑ 365gay: Conn. gov. signs bill updating marriage laws ( memento of the original from April 26, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed April 25, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.365gay.com
    55. ↑ 365gay: Iowa Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban ( Memento of the original from April 5, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed April 3, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.365gay.com
    56. ↑ Text of the decision ( Memento from April 22, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed April 3, 2009)
    57. ↑ 365gay: Iowa gay marriages delayed ( memento of the original from April 10, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed April 7, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.365gay.com
    58. ↑ Iowa Politics: Sen. Gronstal, Rep. Murphy: Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing civil rights ( Memento of the original from April 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed April 4, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.iowapolitics.com
    59. ^ Vermont Equality . In: The New York Times , April 7, 2009. Retrieved October 26, 2012.
    60. ↑ 365gay: Gay marriage legal in Vermont ( Memento of the original from April 8, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed April 7, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.365gay.com
    61. ↑ 365gay: Gay marriage becomes law in Maine (accessed May 6, 2009)
    62. ↑ Page no longer available , search in web archives: Matt Wickenheiser (May 8, 2009). Foes file papers to launch people's veto. Portland Press Herald - Maine Sunday Telegram (accessed November 26, 2009)@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / pressherald.mainetoday.com
    63. ^ Election Results ( January 8, 2010 memento in the Internet Archive ) Portland Press Herald - Maine Sunday Telegram (accessed November 26, 2009)
    64. ↑ Human Rights Campaign: New Hampshire Becomes Sixth State to Recognize Marriage for Same-Sex Couples ( Memento of the original from June 10, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed June 4, 2009) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hrc.org
    65. ↑ Queer: Washington opens marriage . Queer.de. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    66. ↑ DC gay marriage law may take effect March 2 . 365gay. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    67. ↑ Queer.de:Washington decides to open marriage
    68. ^ Advocate: WASHINGTON GOV. ON MARRIAGE: "IT IS SIGNED!" ( Memento of the original from February 15, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.advocate.com
    69. ^ Advocate: Senate says yes to Marry-Land
    70. ^ Boston Globe: Md. Gov. to sign gay marriage legislation Thursday
    71. ↑ queer.de: Tenth US state opens marriage
    72. ↑ advocate: Minnesoat Senate approves marriage equality
    73. ↑ Business panorama: Now eleven US states with "gay marriage"
    74. ↑ queer.de: New Jersey opens marriage
    75. ↑ queer.de: Illinois opens marriage
    76. ^ Advocate.com: Hawaii passes marriage equality
    77. ^ New Mexico Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
    78. ^ Advocate.com:New Mexico Supreme Court declares statewide marriage
    79. ^ Adam Liptak: Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 State . In: The New York Times (online edition), October 6, 2014.
    80. ↑ queer.de: Oklahoma: Marriage ban for gays and lesbians unconstitutional
    81. ^ Adam Liptak: Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 State . In: The New York Times (online edition), October 6, 2014.
    82. ↑ Advocate.com:Kentucks Marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
    83. ↑ queer.de: Virginia: Ban on marriage for gays and lesbians is unconstitutional
    84. ^ Adam Liptak: Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 State . In: The New York Times (online edition), October 6, 2014.
    85. ↑ zeit.de: Richter overturns the ban on gay marriages in conservative Texas
    86. ^ Advocate.com : Michigan, Federal Judge strikes down marriage ban
    87. ^ Advocate.com:Judge strikes down Ohio's marriage recognition
    88. ↑ Queer.de : Judgments in Idaho and Arkansas, US courts enraged gay opponents
    89. ↑ Queer.de : Judgments in Idaho and Arkansas, US courts enraged gay opponents
    90. ^ Advocate: Idaho, Couples can marry wednesday
    91. ↑ queer.de:Oregon opens marriage for same-sex couples
    92. ↑ queer.de: Pennsylvania: Governor gives up fight against marriage opening
    93. ^ The Associated Press: Gay marriage in Pa .: Gov. Tom Corbett won't appeal ruling that lifted state's ban. PennLive, May 21, 2014, accessed October 17, 2014 .
    94. ↑ queer.de: Hundreds of marriages in Wisconsin
    95. ^ Adam Liptak: Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 State . In: The New York Times (online edition), October 6, 2014.
    96. ↑ queer.de: 20th US state opens marriage
    97. ^ Adam Liptak: Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 State . In: The New York Times (online edition), October 6, 2014.
    98. ↑ queer.de: Again victory, marriage ban in Colorado also unconstitutional
    99. ^ Advocate: Colorado celebrates marriage equality
    100. ^ Advocate: West Va. Won't Fight Marriage Equality
    101. ↑ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-ban-overturned-in-north-carolina/
    102. ^ Advocate.com : Alaska marriage ban struck down
    103. ^ Advocate.com:Arizona now has marriage equality
    104. ^ Advocate.com : Federal Judge Strikes Down Wyoming's Marriage Ban
    105. ^ Queer.de: Court decision, St. Louis opens marriage
    106. ↑ US judge strikes down Montana's gay marriage ban . Reuters , November 19, 2014.
    107. ^ Freedom to Marry, South Carolina , accessed November 21, 2014
    108. ↑ Queer.de: Federal courts on the side of equal treatment, USA: Marriage ban in two other southern states cashed
    109. ↑ Queer.de:Siege for marriage opening in Kansas and South Carolina
    110. ↑ Queer.de : Florida in marriage fever
    111. ↑ GGG.at:Alabama: First homosexual marriages Supreme Court canceled the state with a request for postponement
    112. ↑ Bustle: Guam Just Recognized Gay Marriage & It's The First US Territory To Do So - But Won't Be The Last
    113. ↑ Queer.de: Also marriage opening in Puerto Rico
    114. ↑ Julie Bolcer: Delaware House to vote on civil unions . Advocate. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    115. ↑ Washington introduces Registered Partnerships . Queer.de. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    116. ↑ Nevada legalizing domestic partnerships . CNN. May 31, 2009. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    117. ↑ Domestic partnership certificates issued in Nevada ( Memento from October 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
    118. ↑ Ritter signs bill that will help gay couples . Denver Post. September 14, 2010. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    119. ↑ queer.de:Colorado pro gay marriage
    120. ^ State policies on same sex marriage . Stateline.org. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    121. ^ Rhode Island Steps Toward Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage. The New York Times (accessed May 9, 2009)
    122. ↑ Census 2010 to Report Same-Sex Marriage Data , washingtonpost.com, August 3, 2009
    123. ↑ zeit.de: Lesbians and gays gain victory in the US Supreme Court
    124. ↑ Sueddeutsche.de: Homosexual marriage in the USA, US government equates homosexual married couples in terms of tax law
    125. ^ Advocate: Fed-Extending numerous rights same-sex spouses couples
    126. ↑ zeit.de:USA-Homo-Ehe,US-Justizminister equals homosexual couples in court at the federal level
    127. ↑ 365gay: Oregon tribe legalizes gay marriage (accessed April 11, 2009)
    128. ↑ 365gay.com: 365gay.com Colorado Gay Adoption Bill Passes , April 11, 2007
    129. ↑ queer.de: New Hampshire: Parliament Pro Adoption , March 22, 2007
    130. ^ Federal court orders Louisiana to recognize gay parents . PageOneQ. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
    131. ^ A b Study by Gary J. Gates, MV Lee Badgett, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber & Kate Chambers (2007). Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States (English; accessed March 2, 2009; PDF; 560 kB)
      (The statement that no clear distinction was made between homosexuals and bisexuals can be found in the appendix:
      • P. 31: If the householder designates another adult of the same sex as his or her “unmarried partner” or “husband / wife”, the household counts as a same-sex unmarried partner household. These same-sex couples are commonly understood to be primarily gay and lesbian couples (Black et al. 2000) even though the census does not ask any questions about sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or sexual attraction — three common ways used to identify gay men and lesbians in surveys.
      • P. 33 regarding data obtained with audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) : Because public policies do not always obviously distinguish between homosexual (or gay or lesbian) identity and a bisexual identity, in this report we combine the homosexual and bisexual respondents where necessary. )
    132. ↑ The psychological problems are at least pointed out: p. 27 in study by Gary J. Gates, MV Lee Badgett, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber & Kate Chambers (2007). Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States (accessed March 2, 2009; PDF; 560 kB)
    133. ^ Brian Montopoli: Poll: Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows . In: CBS News , April 27, 2009. Retrieved October 26, 2012.
    134. ↑ ABC NEWS / WASHINGTON POST POLL: HOT-BUTTON ISSUES (accessed May 2, 2009; PDF; 93 kB)