Marriage has been the word applied to both ceremonial events and to legal contracts. The nature and form of both have changed through the centuries. Biblical marriage was a brutal event, women and children were treated as commodities. Governments took an interest in marriage in order to deal with points of law such as inheritance rights.
In the United States today, each state governs its own marriage laws. The legal provisions themselves number into the hundreds in each state, and more than 1,138 on the federal level. [See U.S. Federal Laws for the Legally Married.] These laws cover almost every conceivable aspect of social interaction.
The history of marriage includes same-sex couples, sometimes openly. Before church marriages were performed for a man and a woman, according to the late Yale historian John Boswell in his landmark book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe [See: Media Resources: Ceremonial Marriage], ceremonies and liturgy had been first developed for same-sex couples, mostly male, in Europe throughout the medieval period.
In many countries, there are records of individuals hiding their true gender in order to marry someone of the same biological sex. This was the case for Murray Hall, a prominent Tammany politician about the turn of the century. She masqueraded as a man over a 25-year period and married women twice.
During the twenties, black lesbian “butch/femme” couples of Harlem married each other in large wedding ceremonies. The couples obtained marriage licenses by masculinizing a first name or having a gay male surrogate apply for the license.
One of the earliest public forums on same-sex marriage was conducted by The Daughters of Bilitis in 1957. The event, titled “Is a Homophile Marriage Possible?” featured a psychotherapist who answered the question affirmatively.
By the 1960s, “covenant” services for some gay and lesbian couples were conducted by clergy in touch with the Council on Religion and the Homosexual.
“The first marriage in the nation designed to legally bind two persons of the same sex,” claimed an Advocate article published on June 12, 1970. Neva Heckman and Judith Belew were married in Los Angeles by Reverend Troy Perry. Because the couple could not get a state marriage license, the marriage was not, in fact, legally binding.
The Unitarian Church in June 30, 1984, voted to recognize and approve ceremonies celebrating same-sex unions. There have also been official marriage ceremonies performed by Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist Jewish, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker and others.
The reality for all the covenants, holy unions, hand-fastings or commitment ceremonies undertaken in America is that they have never been legally binding. This means that, while the love, caring and commitment are there, the couples are not protected from even the most basic of rights afforded legally married couples, such as the right to not testify against each other in court.
|
Locations for Full and Equal Legal Marriage
|
The Netherlands
On April 1, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples. These are full, legal marriage licenses. They are only available to Dutch citizens and legal residents.
[Please see our article: Netherlands Offers Legal Marriage]
Belgium
On January 30, 2003, Belgium became the second country to offer same-sex legal marriage. These are full marriage licenses, with the exception that it does not allow adoption of children. They are only available to Belgium citizens.
[Please see: Belgium Offers Legal Marriage]
Canada
Legal marriage is offered throughout the country.
The order in which the provinces and territories offered legal marriage by court orders:
Ontario - June 10, 2003
British Columbia - July 8, 2003
Québec - March 18, 2004
Yukon Territory - July 14, 2004
Manitoba - September 16, 2004
Nova Scotia - September 24, 2004
Saskatchewan - November 5, 2004
Newfoundland and Labrador - December 21, 2004
New Brunswick - June 23, 2005
Prince Edward Island - July 7, 2005
These are all available to non-residents, however, to obtain a divorce, a partner would need to reside in Canada for a year.
[Please see: Canada Offers Legal Marriage]
Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first American state to offer legal marriage. It is fully equal to opposite-sex marriage licenses, however, it remains to be seen if other states will honor it. The U.S. federal system, most definitely will not.
[Please see Massachusetts Offers Legal Marriage]
Spain
On June 29, 2005, Spain became the fourth nation in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples.
[Please see Spain Offers Legal Marriage]
South Africa
On December 1, 2005, South Africa became the fifth nation in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples.
[Please see South Africa Offers Legal Marriage]
|
While all the rest of the U.S. bars legal marriage — via simple state law — some states have gone further.
Before November 2004, four states had anti-marriage constitutions, which had been used to legally argue against recognizing any non-marriage status, such as job benefits and Civil Unions for same-sex couples. The November 2004 election brought 11 more anti-marriage state constitutional amendments. Nine of the new amendments specifically include anti-domestic partner language. [Please see our article: Legislative Reactions to Legal Marriage]
In those states that have anti-marriage amendments, either directly, or by implication, any Civil Union or partnership status, such as workplace benefits, could easily be legally challenged.
A “Registered Partnership,” which very closely approximates marriage, is available in Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Vermont. [See Registered Partnership] It offers, however, unequal treatment, is not recognized by other countries and is, in reality, a second class status. [See Marrying Apartheid: The Failure of Domestic Partnership Status]
Many other countries provide various degrees of domestic partner benefits, but nothing close to the full, equal right of legal marriage. It is only by challenges to the legal exclusion of same-sex couples that marriage will become available.
|
Proposed Pro-Marriage Bills
|
Bills for Legal Marriage
1975: Washington, D.C.
1990: California
1991: Massachusetts
1996: Nebraska
1997: Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
1998: Maryland, Rhode Island
1999: Rhode Island, Massachusetts
2000: Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont
2001: Montana, New York, Rhode Island
2003: Montana
2004: California, Rhode Island
2005: California, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island
2006: California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont
2007: Washington
Bills for Civil Unions
2001: California, Hawaii, Nevada, Washington
2003: Washington
2004: Massachusetts
2005: Connecticut, Oregon - Connecticut now has Civil Unions.
2007: Washington
|
In America, same-sex couples have been pressing for the right to marry since 1971. The following timeline shows the long, noble history of the court challenges and related events impacting the struggle for legal marriage.
|
1971
|
James Michael McConnell
|
Minnesota - 1971 Suit
The first legal marriage challenge was launched by Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell (shown here) in Minnesota. The plaintiffs contended in Baker v. Nelson that an absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signified a legislative intent to recognize them. They also argued that the state marriage statute, interpreted to provide only for opposite-sex marriages, is unconstitutional based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, denying them liberty and property without due process and equal protection of the law.
In finding against plaintiffs the State Supreme Court judge said: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” Besides using the Bible as substitute for any real investigation of marriage law history, the court also dismissed the couple’s claim of denial of due process and equal protection with a simple, “we do not find support for [these arguments] in any decision of the United States Supreme Court.”
The court also claimed that the Loving miscegenation case, Loving v. Virginia, (1967), which shattered the same-race-only marriage laws, could not be used as precedent for overturning a sex restriction stating that “in common sense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” It was not explained why the court felt biological sex was a “fundamental” difference and race was not. Loving was, however, successfully argued in Hawaii, Baehr v. Anderson (1991), in Alaska, Brause v. State of Alaska (1995), and in Vermont Baker v. State of Vermont (1997).
While they were denied a marriage license from Hennepin County, Minnesota, in 1971, McConnell and Baker did obtain a marriage license in Mankato, and were married by a Methodist minister in the Twin Cities. The couple claim that their marriage in Mankato is legal, since it occurred before any legal rulings were made against same-sex marriage. It is unlikely that this particular line of reasoning would hold in court simply because the state has effectively annulled same-sex marriage through subsequent rulings.
In 1976, the couple sued the Veterans Administration demanding an increase to Baker’s educational benefits, claiming McConnell was his dependent spouse. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that suit.
Baker sued on behalf of his partner to have their 1971 marriage legally recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that the couple was owed a refund of almost $800. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen dismissed the suit on January 3, 2005, saying the two were not lawfully married in Minnesota. Baker has stated he intended to appeal.
Paul Barwick
|
Washington - 1971 Suit
John F. Singer
|
John F. Singer and Paul Barwick argued in Singer v. Hara, that Washington State marriage statutes did not prohibit same-sex marriages; therefore a license must be issued. They argued that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, which occurred in the denial of their marriage license, and that there was also violations of their Eight, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The court argued that because of an exception to the absolute prohibition on sex discrimination — that of unique physical characteristics of each of the sexes rather than gender per se — the suit fell within that exception because two males cannot produce children. The court conceded that many heterosexual married people cannot produce children, but called that merely an imperfection in the law and that physical characteristics themselves do not completely resolve the question. The court said that the appellants were not denied a marriage license because of their sex; rather they were denied a marriage license because of the nature of marriage itself.
Singer, later known as Faygele benMiriam, is interviewed about the case in the video The Right to Marry.
Wisconsin - 1971 Suit
Female partners Donna Berkett (or possibly Burkett) and Manonia Evans filed a suit against county clerk Thomas Zablocki for refusing them a marriage license in Milwaukee. They withdrew it before the case was heard.
|
|
1973
|
|
Kentucky - 1973 Suit
While a fundamental right to marry had been established by the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been applied only to opposite-sex marriages. A female couple in Kentucky sought to challenge that in Jones v. Hallahan. The petitioners argued the First Amendment constitutional claims of the right of association and free exercise of religion, and also contended that the refusal of a marriage license subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.
The court referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as existing between two persons of the opposite sex. The court wrote that the appellants were prevented from marrying, not by Kentucky statutes or the county’s refusal to issue them a license, “but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.”
The court refused to address the constitutional issues, holding that “the relationship proposed does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.”
|
|
1974
|
|
Ohio - 1974 Suit
Lacking both legal representation and support from the local gay community, two lesbian mothers from Dayton, Ohio, sued, in Thorton v. Timmers, after being denied a marriage license. The court concluded that “it is the express legislative intent that those persons who may be joined in marriage must be of different sexes.”
|
|
1975
|
|
Washington, D.C. - 1975 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
The District of Columbia City Council considered but did not pass a bill providing for same-sex marriage.
Arizona - 1975 License Given, then Annulled
Two men from Phoenix are granted a legal marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided the marriage. The state legislature soon passed an emergency bill specifically banning same-sex marriage.
Dave McCord, Dave Zamora, Clela Rorex
|
Colorado - 1975 Suit
Dave McCord and Dave Zamora were issued a marriage license, in March 26, 1975, by Boulder, Colorado, county clerk Clela Rorex (on right) on advice of the city’s district attorney. There were no laws specifically forbidding same-sex marriage. Five more couples got marriage licenses before the issuance was halted by the state attorney general. All licenses were revoked by the state.
One of the marriages was between Richard Adams (American) and Anthony Sullivan (Australian) who sued the Board of Immigration Appeals, in Adams v. Howerton, for its refusal to recognize their marriage for the purpose of the Australian obtaining U.S. residency as the spouse of an American.
First, the court ruled that the word “spouse” ordinarily means someone not of the same sex. Then the court looked at the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act which expressly barred persons “afflicted with sexual deviations” (meaning homosexuals) from entry into the United States. The court concluded that it was unlikely that Congress intended to permit homosexual marriages for purposes of qualifying as a spouse of a citizen, when amendments to that section explicitly barred homosexuals from entering into the U.S. These anti-gay laws have since been dismantled, but they helped loose this case in 1975.
Maryland - 1975 License Given, then Annulled
The Maryland Attorney General’s office ruled that the Montgomery County Clerk had no legal basis on which to challenge the validity of the marriage of two women, Michele Bernadette Bush and Paulette Camille Hill, to whom the clerk’s office had issued a marriage license. However, the license was later revoked.
|
|
1976
|
|
Illinois - 1976 Refused License, Protested, then Jailed
Two Chicago women, Nancy Davis and Toby Schneiter, were arrested, for the fourth time, after a five-hour sit-in at the county’s marriage license bureau protesting refusal of a license. They spent a year in the state penitentiary for the last offense.
|
|
1984
|
|
Pennsylvania - 1984 Suit for Common-Law Status
John DeSanto sued his former partner William Barnsley when they split up. He claimed in DeSanto v. Barnsley that since Pennsylvania recognized common-law marriages, their long-term relationship should likewise be recognized. The court did not agree, and threw the case out, stating that if the Pennsylvania common-law statute was to be expanded to include same-sex couples, the legislature would need to make that change. To date, the few states that have common-law marriage statutes apply them only to opposite-sex couples. [Please see our article: Common-Law Marriage States]
California - 1984 1st Domestic Partner Benefits
Berkeley, California, became the first U.S. city to extend spousal benefits to live-in, same-sex partners of city employees.
|
|
1987
|
|
National - 1987 Viewed as Civil Right
The American Civil Liberties Union commits to eliminating legal barriers preventing gay men and lesbians from marrying.
Washington, D.C. - 1987 Mass Demonstration
A mass ceremony and demonstration, called The Wedding, took place on the steps of the Internal Revenue Service Building as a part of the March on Washington on October 10. Male couple J. Carey Jenkin and Walter Wheeler overcame strenuous objections to convince the March committee to schedule the event. About 2,000 couples participated with 5,000 onlookers. Billed as a “re-commitment ceremony,” it bore the theme “Love makes a family. Nothing else, nothing less!”
|
|
1989
|
|
National - 1989 Viewed as Legal Right
The San Francisco Bar Association issues a statement in support of same-sex marriages.
Illinois - 1989 Human Rights Complaint
A Chicago male couple, Rex Wockner and Paul Varnell, file complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights charging the state with sex discrimination because it refuses to allow same-sex marriages.
|
|
1990
|
|
California - 1990 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Endorsed by the California Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco, a bill was filed in the California state legislature to allow for same-sex marriage.
Craig Dean, Patrick Gill
|
D.C. - 1990 Suit
Partners Craig Dean and Patrick Gill sued for marriage arguing that the D.C. marriage laws are gender neutral and that the denial also violates local human rights laws. Dean v. D.C. was rejected by both a lower court and the appeals court. The court cited previous cases as well as the Bible (which must be noted is not a legal document), and alleged a legislative intent to disallow same-sex marriages.
The D.C. Human Rights Commission testified that the marriage bureau violated city law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The author of the city’s Human Rights Act testified that the Council did not intend to forbid same-sex marriage. However, the court noted that the District had previously rejected a proposal explicitly recognizing same-sex marriage.
The couple finally lost the case in 1995.
Illinois - 1990 Attempt to Apply for License
Several same-sex couples, including Jeff Graubart-Cervone and Frank Cervone-Graubart, apply for and are denied marriage licenses at the Cook County clerk’s office in Chicago.
New York - 1990 Suit for Estate
When a New York man died he left the bulk of his estate to a former partner. His partner at the time he died sued as “surviving spouse,” under New York inheritance law. In the Matter of Estate of Cooper the court concluded that only a lawfully recognized husband or wife qualifies as a “surviving spouse.” Further, it stated that “persons of the same sex have no constitutional rights to enter unto a marriage with each other.”
Ohio - 1990 Suit
The Fullington v. Ohio suit for legal marriage was dismissed by an Ohio county municipal court in October 11, 1990. It was brought by Russ Stalk and David Fullington.
|
|
1991
|
|
Massachusetts - 1991 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
The Massachusetts Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights campaigned to pass a same-sex marriage bill. They found a handful of Democratic co-sponsors.
Genora Dancel, Ninia Baehr
|
Hawaii - 1991 Landmark Suit
Three same-sex couples — Genora Dancel and Ninia Baehr (right), Joseph Melillo and Pat Lagon (below), and Tammy Rodrigues and Antoinette Pregil — joined in Baehr v. Lewin (which became Baehr v. Miike and later Baehr v. Anderson) to sue for marriage in Hawaii. The case, instigated by activist Bill Woods, proposed that the state’s refusal to issue a license presumptuously violates Hawaii’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which bars discrimination on the basis of sex.
Joseph Melillo, Pat Lagon
|
They received a favorable State Supreme Court ruling and the case was returned to the lower court where the State was required to show a “compelling state interest” if it was to continue denying the licenses. The state failed to do so. [See Hawaii Court Finding] Having lost that case, the state appealed.
Legislators instituted “Reciprocal Beneficiaries” in 1997 with hopes of circumventing the 1996 Hawaii lower court order allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples. [See Reciprocal Beneficiaries: The Hawaii Approach.]
This law offered 50-60 benefits (the state itself appears not sure how many). The most important, medical benefits, was eliminated by Hawaii’s attorney general who claimed that no business is required to offer domestic partner benefits, thereby gutting the substance of this new law. [See Legislative Reactions to Suits for Same-Sex Marriage]
While domestic partner status is of value to those who have no other means of protecting their family, it is unequal to the breadth and depth of the thousands of laws legal marriage triggers, and creates a second-class status. [See Marrying Apartheid: The Failure of Domestic Partnership Status]
On April 29, 1997, the Hawaii legislature passed an amendment to the Hawaii Constitution which stated that “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
In November 1998, the constitutional ballot measure ratified existing state law that permits (although it did not require) the legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. While not an anti-marriage constitutional amendment, it was used as the excuse to deny legal marriage in the final ruling from the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Only a constitutional amendment — one stripping civil rights from homosexuals — could allow the continued denial of same-sex marriage licenses. This requires either a two-thirds vote of the legislature plus ratification by a popular vote, or a constitutional convention.
In 1998, radical right extremists financed a ballot measure to hold a convention. It could also have been used to devastate rights for women because the marriage case is supported, in large part, by Hawaii’s sex discrimination law. Because some conservative corporate interests backed the extremists, pro-union organizations were concerned about loosing other protections also covered by the Hawaii Constitution. The ballot measure failed to call for a convention, but did support another measure which said that the legislature could define who is able to get legally married.
The Hawaii State Supreme Court made a final ruling in December 9, 1999 which stated that “The [1997] marriage amendment has rendered the plaintiffs’ complaint moot.”.
This finding is bewildering in that the court did not seem to apply the same anti-discrimination standards it applied in earlier rulings — that is, the state had no right to stop same-sex legal marriage — when later considering the marriage amendment. An amendment which is clearly in contradiction to Hawaii’s constitutional civil rights protections.
As no federal Constitutional issues were raised, the case can not be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case was supported by the Marriage Project-Hawaii (was HERMP). The co-counsel in the case is Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (LLDEF). MP-H co-director Sue Reardon, LLDEF director Kevin Kathcart, and LLDEF’s Marriage Project head Evan Wolfson are interviewed in the video The Right to Marry.
|
|
1992
|
|
Pennsylvania - 1992 Common-Law Status Denied
Joey Carney and Devin Michaels of Pittsburgh believed they were married under Pennsylvania common law. State Solicitor Bob Weinert had told the men they could file a notarized “statement of marriage,” which was accepted at the registrar’s office. Weinert later reversed himself in view of a prior state Supreme Court decision that same-sex marriages were not legal. [Please see our article: Common-Law Marriage States]
|
|
1993
|
Benjamin and Marcial
Cable-McCarthy
|
California - 1993 Suit
Partners Benjamin and Marcial Cable-McCarthy sued for marriage in Los Angeles, California on April 18, 1993. The case, Cable-McCarthy v. California, lost the first round and then was denied a review on appeal to the California Supreme Court. Rather than pursue the case, the couple awaited a resolution in the Baehr v. Anderson Hawaii case, which subsequently lost in 1999. Their wedding ceremony is one of several seen in the video The Right to Marry, and they are also in our Committed Couples Gallery I.
Florida - 1993 Suit
A Florida couple, Shawna Underwood and Donia Davis sued for marriage. In Underwood v. Florida, the court upheld the clerk’s refusal to issue a license. An appeal was believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Hawaii, however, no action has been taken since the Hawaii case was finished in 1999.
Rep. Glen Maxey
|
Texas - 1993 Attempted Legal Marriage Bill
Texas State Representative Glen Maxey introduced legislation that would extend equal marital rights to same-sex partners. It did not get out of committee.
Wisconsin - 1993 Suit?
A same-sex marriage case was brought in Wisconsin and was believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Hawaii, however, no action has been reported since the Hawaii case was finished in 1999.
|
|
1994
|
|
Arizona - 1994 Suit
In Tucson, Arizona, a same-sex marriage case,Callender v. Corbett, was brought by plaintiffs Stephen Baker, Jerry Callender, John Duran, Kathy Greaves, Eileen Maura Jutras, Aileen McMurrer, Antonio Muniz, and Lizbeth M. Petrucci. A Superior Court judge ruled against them, citing that any change in marriage law was a matter for the state legislature. An appeal was filed, then later dropped.
Mississippi - 1994 License Attempts
A male couple in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, was refused a marriage license in June 1994. The couple, Todd Emerson and Luis Cintron, said they were contemplating a suit. Another couple was likewise turned down in 1978.
|
|
1995
|
Pasha and Penny Rivers-McMahon
sons Ian and Joel
|
Vermont - 1995 License Given, then Not Registered
Ten minutes after issuing a marriage license that Pasha Rivers-McMahon had applied for alone, the clerk called to request it be returned. Pasha and her partner Penny Rivers-McMahon refused. After their wedding — pictured (to the right) with their sons Ian and Joel — the signed marriage certificate was received at South Burlington, Vermont, City Hall. However, the city’s attorney refused to allow it to be registered.
Alaska - 1995 Landmark Suit
An Alaskan male couple, Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, sued for legal marriage in Brause v. Alaska. On, February 20, 1998, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski threw out the state’s bid to dismiss the case and ruled that choosing a partner is a fundamental right. The ruling did not legalize same-sex unions in Alaska, but would have forced the state to prove a compelling reason why such unions should be illegal. [See Alaska Court Finding]
In November 1998, a ballot measure won which limits marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and prohibits any legal recognition of same-sex marriage. While such a law may or may not have affected the outcome of the case, the litigants decided to stop pursuing legal marriage and continue their fight for equal rights and benefits of marriage, but not as married persons. If the case is successful under their new direction, it will have no effect on marriage laws in Alaska or in any other state. Further, it could potentially install a second-class domestic partner status, as in Hawaii. [See Marrying Apartheid: The Failure of Domestic Partnership Status]
|
|
1996
|
|
Nebraska - 1996 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
A bill in Nebraska was introduced to legalize same-sex marriage. Failed.
Phillip and Toshav Storrs
|
New York - 1996 Suit
A male couple in Ithaca, New York got the sympathetic ear of the town’s mayor in requesting a legal marriage license. Phillip and Toshav Storrs were ultimately thwarted, however, by prohibitive state laws. They sued, in Storrs v. Holcomb, on April 1996 against the Ithaca city clerk for denying their application for a marriage license in December 1995.
The trial court ruled against them and they appealed to an intermediate-level appellate court. That court ruled that they had failed to include a necessary party — the N.Y. State Dept. of Health — and dismissed the suit.
In February 1998 they re-filed the case against the Ithaca city clerk and the N.Y. State Dept. of Health. A hearing was due on September 11, 1998, however, it appears that the suit was dropped.
The Storrs may be found in Partners’ Committed Couples Gallery.
|
|
1997
|
Maryland - 1997 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Nebraska - 1997 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Nebraska bill also attempted in 1996.
Oregon - 1997 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Washington - 1997 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Wisconsin - 1997 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
These all failed.
Hawaii - 1997 Domestic Partner Registration
The “Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship” law was enacted in Hawaii on July 8. It allowed two single adults — same-sex couples, blood relatives or anyone — to have between 50-60 spousal rights (such as health care decisions, ability to sue for wrongful death, insurance and state pensions, joint tenancy, and property inheritance without a will). One major item — workplace insurance for a partner — has been rendered invalid by the State Attorney General.
Because Hawaii appeared to be loosing the court cases (begun in 1991) for recognition of legal marriage for same-sex couples, it was an effort by Hawaii legislators to circumvent providing full, legal marriage for same-sex couples. Ironically, the Christian Coalition’s chief lawyer, Jay Sekelow, campaigned vigorously in support of this bill — anything to stop legal marriage.
The bill that offered Reciprocal Beneficiary status did not extend beyond 2001, and news reports stated that Hawaii’s legislature did not renew it, however, the state Web site seems to indicate that the status is still available.
Vermont - 1997 Landmark Suit
Three same-sex Vermont couples filed suit for the right to marry in Chittenden Superior Court, Burlington, Vermont, on July 22, 1997, in Baker v. State of Vermont. The couples, Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan, Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles, and Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh, sued the State of Vermont as well as Shelburne, South Burlington and Milton, because the town clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to the couples.
After losing the first court hearing on December 19, 1997, the Vermont suit for legal marriage for same-sex couples got a mixed result in the final ruling on December 20, 1999. [See Vermont Court Finding] The court stated:
“We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel ‘domestic partnership’ system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law.”
Based on the Vermont Constitution, the ruling establishes the necessity to treat all families alike — no matter what their make-up — but the ruling does not remedy the situation by immediately requiring the state to issue licenses. Instead it required the legislature to institute marriage or some kind of “domestic partnership” or “registered partnership law.”
The court states that a partnership law would “generally establish an alternative legal status to marriage for same-sex couples, impose similar formal requirements and limitations, create a parallel licensing or registration scheme, and extend all or most of the same rights and obligations provided by the law to married partners.”
The court did not consider that such a task is likely to be impossible. It was tried in Hawaii and miserably failed. Such a partnership law would need to duplicate more than 870 Vermont laws that are triggered by legal marriage.
Further, a partnership law (as opposed to a marriage license) would not be recognized by any other state, nor by the Federal system (including such rights as immigration and social security benefits).
Nor did the court consider the separate and unequal nature inherent in a domestic partner status. [For a review of unequal treatment by domestic partnership status, please see Marrying Apartheid.]
Rather than offer legal marriage — the same procedure to protect families as is offered to opposite-sex couples — the Vermont legislature created a new law labeled “Civil Union”.
By designing a totally separate form of marriage, which could rightly be called “marriage light,” they created an apartheid. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled regarding segregation, there is no such thing as separate and equal.
Civil Unions — effective July 1, 2000 except for provisions relating to insurance and taxes that become effective in 2001 — do not have any legal weight in the Federal sphere, and it is highly unlikely that any other state will honor the new, almost-but-not-quite-marital license.
The new status, however, does offer a vastly improved range of protections for same-sex couples never before available in the United States. Those couples who live in Vermont, once signed up as a civilly unionized couple, can say they are no longer “legal strangers” — they are finally “next-of-kin.” [See Civil Unions: The Vermont Approach]
|
|
1998
|
|
Maryland - 1998 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Maryland also attempted a bill in 1997.
Rhode Island - 1998 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
|
|
1999
|
|
1999 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bills
Rhode Island - 1999 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Rhode Island also attempted a bill in 1998.
Massachusetts - 1999 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
A Massachusetts bill would have repealed all marriage regulations except age limits. Also failed.
|
|
2000
|
|
Maryland - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Rhode Island - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Rhode Island’s third year on this bill.
Vermont - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
|
|
2001
|
Montana - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
New York - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Rhode Island - 2000 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Rhode Island’s fourth year on this bill.
California - 2000 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
Hawaii - 2000 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
Nevada - 2000 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
Washington - 2000 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
Washington’s bill was introduced by Sen. Pat Thibaudeau (D-Seattle), and Rep. Ed Murray (D-Seattle).
Massachusetts - 2001 Landmark Suit, Marriage Allowed
In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, seven Massachusetts couples, who have been in committed relationships between five and 30 years, sued for legal marriage on April 11, 2001. Four of the couples have young children; others have faced health crises. All are concerned about providing the security for each other and their families that automatically comes with a marriage license.
|
The Massachusetts Goodridge Couples
|
|
- Julie and Hillary Goodridge, Boston
They are parents of a five-year-old daughter.
|
|
- Ed Balmelli and Michael Horgan, Boston
Both are from large families in central Massachusetts.
|
|
- Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Newton
They have a 12-year-old daughter.
|
|
- Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Orleans
This couple has been together for 30 years.
|
|
- Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers, Northbridge
They are the parents of an eight-year-old daughter.
|
|
- Gina Smith and Heidi Norton, Northampton
They have four-year- and one-year-old sons.
|
|
- David Wilson and Robert Compton, Boston
Both are parents of grown children; David is the grandfather of four.
|
All photos of the Massachusetts suit couples are by Mainframe Photographics,
except for Heidi and Gina’s, which was taken by Gigi Kaeser.
|
The Massachusetts trial court ruled against the seven same-sex couples on May 2002, concluding that having and raising children is central to the purpose of marriage, despite acknowledging that four of the seven couples in the case have children, and that Massachusetts law allows same-sex couples to jointly adopt.
Litigant Gina Smith:
“The decision is particularly troubling because Heidi and I, like many of our gay and lesbian neighbors, have children. We feel strongly that our sons deserve the same level of protection that other children in the state enjoy.”
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are legally entitled to civil marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. The 4-3 ruling did not order licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. Instead, the court ordered the Legislature to change the civil marriage statutes within 180 days.
This is the fourth U.S. state court to rule in favor of legal marriage for same-sex couples. Following these decisions Hawaii and Alaska altered their constitutions to prevent equal treatment of same-sex couples, and Vermont created a separate-but-not-equal domestic partner status called “Civil Unions.”
The governor has insisted on applying a 1913 law — that has not been used in 27 years, and originally intended to prevent interracial marriage — to stop out-of-state same-sex couples from getting a marriage license.
Two suits have been brought against the 1913 law and its selective enforcement against same-sex couples.
Massachusetts became the first American state to offer legal marriage on May 17, 2004. It is fully equal to opposite-sex marriage licenses, however, it remains to be seen if other states will honor it. The U.S. federal system will not.
Georgia - 2001 Civil Union Not Recognized
Susan Burns and Debra Jean Freer, asked a Georgia appeals court to recognize their Vermont civil union in April, 2001. Burns had been married to Darian Burns and were divorced. In 1998, Darian was granted custody of their three children. The court prohibited visitation for Susan when there were overnight stays, or cohabited with an adult other than a marriage partner, or a relative within the second degree.
When Susan entered into a Vermont Civil Union with Debra, the husband filed a motion for contempt, saying she had violated the terms of their divorce by having her children visit her in the home she shares with her same-sex partner. The state trial court ruled in favor of the husband, declaring that Georgia is not required to recognize Civil Unions.
Finally, on January 23, 2002, the Georgia Court of Appeals declared civil unions to be invalid in Georgia. Two other cases attempting to use the Vermont domestic partner status of Civil Union likewise failed in Illinois (February 2001) and Connecticut (July 2002).
[See Vermont: Civil Union]
|
|
2002
|
|
New Jersey - 2002 Suit
Seven New Jersey couples sued for the right to marry on June 26, 2002. The case, Lewis et. al. v. Harris et. al., is joined by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and is based solely on the New Jersey Constitution.
The state filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that same-sex couples don’t have a constitutional right to marry because of the historic definition of marriage. On November 5, 2003, state Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, granted the dismissal. The couples appealed the ruling to the state appellate court.
In April 2004, the suit was joined by the city of Asbury Park as a follow through to their having issued marriage licenses to 16 same-sex couples in March 2004. [Please see Civil Marriage Disobedience: Revolution Starts with a Kiss]
Lambda filed the briefs in May 2004.
On June 13, 2005, the appelate court decided, 2-1, to uphold the lower court’s 2003 ruling. The state had argued that the trend in this country is to limit marriage to one man and one woman. The state also said the law should only be changed by the Legislature.
Appellate Judge Stephen Skillman wrote for the majority: “Absent legislative action, there is no basis for construing the New Jersey Constitution to compel the State to authorize marriages between members of the same sex.”
In dissent, Appellate Judge Donald G. Collester said that if marriage is defined strictly as a heterosexual union, then couples are denied the right to marry the person of their choice, and so have no real right to marry.
On October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to “the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.” The New Jersey court gave the state legislature 180 days to amend New Jersey’s laws to meet the court’s concerns.
In the opinion authored by Justice Albin, all seven Justices of the New Jersey Court recognized that gay men and lesbians are “our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends” and that there is no “legitimate public need for an unequal legal scheme of benefits and privileges that disadvantages committed same-sex couples.” Justice Albin wrote:
“HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”
However, a slim majority of the court stopped short of requiring New Jersey to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, instead turning to the legislature to figure out how to implement its decision, with either full legal marriage or a separate legal category for same-sex couples.
Writing for the three dissenters, Chief Justice Poritz decried the possibility of such a separate legal status, such as a “civil union”:
“We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.”
|
The New Jersey Lewis Couples
|
|
- Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, Episcopalian pastors
Together since 1992.
Mark Lewis: “We get moral approval from our church and those who love us; what we need from our government isn’t approval, but equality in legal rights and responsibilities,”
|
|
- Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden
Together since 1990. Their son, Kasey, was born in 1999.
Karen Nicholson-McFadden: “How can it be that we have to pay the same taxes as everybody else but don’t get the same legal rights?”
|
|
- Saundra Heath and Alicia Toby
Together since 1989. They have children and grandchildren.
|
|
- Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks
Together since 1972.
|
|
- Diane Marini and Marilyn Maneely
Together since 1991. They have five children.
|
|
- Suyin and Sarah Lael
Together since 1990. They have a four-year old daughter, Zenzali.
|
|
- Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Killian
Together since 1975. They have a nine-year-old son, Josh, and seven-year-old daughter, Sarah.
|
|
All photos of the New Jersey suit couples are by Bob Pileggi.
|
Indiana - 2002 Suit
Three Indiana same-sex couples filed a suit for legal marriage on August 22, 2002. All three had obtained Vermont Civil Unions. Morrison, et al. v. O’Bannon (also reported as Morrison v. Sadler) was filed in Marion County Superior Court, demanded the right to marry in Indiana, or alternatively, full recognition of their Civil Unions.
The complaint argues that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection. Also, state interference with the decision of who to marry trespasses on constitutional privacy rights.
Further, the complaint asserts that the Indiana Constitution’s “full faith and credit” requirement demands recognition of the Vermont Civil Unions status.
The was filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. As in many other U.S. states, the suit faced state law prohibiting legal marriage for same-sex couples, as well as law forbidding recognition of legal marriage or equivalent contracts from out-of-state.
On May 7, 2003, judge S.K. Reid dismissed the case.
|
The Indiana Morrison Couples
|
- Teresa Stephens, 45, and Ruth Morrison, 42
Partners since 1998
- David Wene, 46, and David Squire, 36
Partners since 1998
- Charlotte Egler, 30, and Dawn Egler, 27
Partners since 1997, and have a son.
|
Says Teresa, “We just want to be treated like any other couple. We expect to spend the rest of our lives together.”
|
|
2003
|
|
Montana - 2003 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
A bill to legalize same-sex marriages was launched in Montana by Rep. Tom Facey (D-Missoula). He had presented a similar bill in 2001.
Washington - 2003 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
A bill based on a Vermont-style Civil Union was filed on February 2, 2003, in Washington State. Representative Ed Murray (D-Seattle) introduced House Bill 1939, which was referred to the House’s Juvenile Justice and Family Law Committee. The bill had a reading on February 17, 2003, however, no hearing was scheduled. The bill was joined by Joe McDermott (D), Dave Upthegrove (D-Des Moines), Jim Moeller (D-Vancouver), had 13 house co-sponsors altogether. The Senate introduced its own version with seven senate sponsors, but the bill, SB 6014, was introduced too late in the year for any further action.
Nebraska - 2003 Anti-Ban Suit
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Attorney General was filed on May 1, 2003, by the ACLU of Nebraska and Lambda Legal in United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The suit argued that the Nebraska Marriage Amendment IM 416 unconstitutionally denied gay and lesbian persons equal access to the political system.
The amendment, adopted on November 7, 2000, states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.”
On November 10, 2003, U.S. district judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled that a motion to stop the suit was without merit, and the case could proceed.
Arizona - 2003 Suit
Harold Donald Standhardt, 34, and Tod Alan Keltner, 36, sued the state of Arizona and the Maricopa County Superior Court clerk on July 7, 2003, following the rejection of their application for a marriage license.
Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner v. State of Arizona is based on the June 26, 2003, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime. The lawsuit asked that Arizona’s law banning same-sex marriages be ruled unconstitutional and overturned.
Standhardt and Keltner, have been a couple since 1997. They live together and want to adopt children. They are interested in the legal rights a marriage license provides such as being able to file joint tax returns, and the right to be in a hospital room in case of an emergency.
On October 8, 2003 the State Appellate Court upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriages. The three-judge panel returned a 34-page unanimous decision, rejecting every element of the petitioners’ case.
Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer wrote in the ruling, “Although many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to achieve constitutional protection as a fundamental right.”
She also wrote, “This court does not dispute that a homosexual person’s choice of life
partner is an intimate and important decision. However, not all important decisions sounding in personal autonomy are protected fundamental rights.”
The couple had argued that marriage is a fundamental right and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due process of law under both the federal and state constitutions and privacy under the Arizona Constitution.
Standhardt and Keltner asked the high court to review the case December 2003. But the justices rejected the request during their May 25 conference. The court did not comment on the decision, which leaves the Appellate ruling in force.
On May 25, 2004, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the case.
|
|
2004
|
|
California - 2004 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
• A bill (AB1967) for legal marriage for same-sex couples was introduced on January 12, 2004, by state Assembly Member Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
Leno stated, “The time has come for California to honor its commitment to equality for all Californians. My bill will affirm the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender adults who wish to take on the responsibility of marriage and ensure that children being raised by these couples receive the same protections as children raised by married couples. For too long, the right to marry has been denied to thousands of Californians based on their gender and sexual orientation, resulting in harm to them and their children.”
Leno also stated: “This is a civil rights bill, pure and simple. There are no constitutional and legal grounds on which to deny the issuance of marriage licenses to loving, same-sex couples.”
On April 20, 2004, an Assembly committee approved the bill 8-3.
Leno said: “I saw in the eight “aye” votes a great pride in the fact that people were standing up for civil rights — not special privileges — but civil rights.”
The bill was to go to the appropriations committee where it was to be put in a suspension file while its cost to the general fund is determined. It was considered unlikely to pass in the full Legislature, so he withdrew the bill.
• On December 7, 2004 Assembly member Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) re-introduced legislation (AB19) this year to legalize same-sex marriage. He called it the “Religious Freedom and California Civil Marriage Protection Act”
The bill, co-authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2005, by a 6-3 vote, and by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, on May 25, by a 13-5 vote.
Stated Leno: “Why play defense? It makes more sense to speak about this plainly as a civil rights issue. Equal protection is guaranteed under the constitution.”
His bill has been supported by various clergy, including Baptist, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community and Unitarian congregations which have stated that the bill is consistent with Christian teachings because it promotes equality for gay men and lesbians.
On June 2, 2005, the California Assembly defeated the bill, with 37 legislators opposed to the measure, and 35 in favor.
Rhode Island - 2004 Attempted Pro-Marriage Bill
Sen. Rhoda Perry (D-Providence) and Rep. Arthur Handy (D-Cranston) presented pro-marriage bills. The Perry bill co-sponsors included four senators. The Handy bill had 11 House co-sponsors. Both the House and Senate judiciary committees held hearings on the marriage bills. Neither took any action.
Massachusetts - 2004 Attempted Pro-Civil Union Bill
Proposals of Civil Union types of status were presented as part of anti-gay, anti-marriage state constitution amendment bills. May 2004 saw the right wing frequently running to the court and legislative houses in vain attempts to stop legal marriage for same-sex couples. [Please see: Massachusetts Offers Legal Marriage]
California - 2004 Suit
• Carmen, 52, and Dorothy Apodoca of Garden Grove, sued Orange County seeking $25 million in damages for violating their civil rights and inflicting emotional distress after the county clerk’s office denied their marriage license application January 7, 2004. The couple has been together since 1996. Dorothy co-adopted Carmen’s daughters, 13 and 14.
• San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, on February 12, 2004, ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It was purely an act of civil disobedience as same-sex marriage is not allowed anywhere in the U.S. [See our article: Marriage Civil Disobedience]
• On February 19, 2004, San Francisco sued the state of California, challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. City officials say the ban violates the equal protection and due-process clause of California’s constitution. This case has since been consolidated with Woo and Chung v. Lockyer listed below.
• On March 12, 2004, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLUs of Northern and Southern California, filed a lawsuit — Woo and Chung v. Lockyer — seeking the right to marry for same-sex couples in California on behalf of six same-sex couples, Our Family Coalition, and Equality California. Five of the six couples had appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco City Hall, but their appointments were cancelled as a result of the California Supreme Court’s order directing San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The NCLR case was consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed by the city and county of San Francisco. San Francisco’s lawsuit grew from mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples. [See our article: Marriage Civil Disobedience]
The lawsuit lists California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and State Registrar Michael Rodrian as defendants. It asks the state to require all marriage licenses use gender-neutral language and to make them available to same-sex couples. The lawsuit argues that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution’s guarantees of equality, liberty, and privacy.
|
The California Woo and Chung Couples
|
- Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung
Together 16 years. They have a five-year-old daughter, Olivia.
- Joshua Rymer and Timothy Frazer
Met in 1994 and exchanged wedding rings in 1995.
- Jewelle Gomez and Diane Sabin
Together since 1993.
- Myra Beals, 61, and Ida Matson, 68
Together since 1977.
- Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker
Together since 2001.
- Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper
Together since 1990.
|
On April 15, 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Richard Kramer, issued his final written judgment in the California marriage equality case:
“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”
This ruling clearly states that gay and lesbian couples in California can marry, and that state laws against it are unconstitutional.
However, the California Court of Appeals ruled against the Superior Court on October 5, 2006. By a 2–1 decision, it ruled on six consolidated cases that gay and lesbian people don’t have the same fundamental legal rights as everyone else, that discrimination against them doesn’t need to be viewed with strict legal scrutiny. Justices William R. McGuiness and Joanne C. Parrilli offered the unbelievable notion that the court would be “usurping” the role of the legislature by finding that it is unconstitutional to outlaw same-sex marriage.
Curiously, when the state legislature took up this issue and passed a bill, the governor vetoed it stating that he was leaving the issue to the courts.
The desenting voice, Justice J. Anthony Kline, stated:
“To say that that the inalienable right to marry the person of one’s choice is not a fundamental constitutional right, and therefore may be restricted by the state without a showing of compelling need, is as terrible a backward step as was the unfortunate and now overruled opinion in Bowers, supra, 478 U.S. 186. Ignoring the qualities attached to marriage by the Supreme Court, and defining it instead by who it excludes, demeans the institution of marriage and diminishes the humanity of the gay men and lesbians who wish to marry a loved one of their choice.”
Florida - 2004 Suit
On February 25, 2004, more than 170 gay men and lesbians sued Broward Court clerk Howard Forman, challenging the Florida law prohibiting them from obtaining marriage licenses.
Broward Circuit Judge Richard Eade rejected a bid by the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel to enter the case in support of the ban. Eade ruled that if it was allowed to participate, it would open the floodgates for dozens of other groups. The Counsel is a radical right Christian law firm that has launched suits across the country to block same-sex marriage and gay rights issues.
The litigants are represented by lawyer Ellis Rubin who once led the fight against a Miami-Dade County ordinance guaranteeing equal rights for gay men and lesbians. He says he is now championing same-sex marriage as a form of penance.
Washington - 2004 Suit
• In Andersen v. King County, six same-sex couples sued King County for the right to marry after they were denied marriage licenses. The suit was filed on March 8, 2004, by the Northwest Women’s Law Center and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
The claim centers on Washington’s “Defense of Marriage Act” of 1998, which forbids
issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and violates the following sections of the Washington State Constitution:
- Article I, § 3 - DOMA deprives lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) couples of life, liberty or property without due process of law
- Article I, § 7 - DOMA interferes with LGBT couples’ private affairs
- Article I, § 12 - DOMA deprives LGBT couples of the same privileges and immunities as other citizens of the state, violating the constitution’s equal protection provision
- Article XXXI, § 1 - DOMA subjects LGBT couples to sex discrimination in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment
|
The Washington Andersen Couples
|
- Heather Andersen and Leslie Christian
Together since 1990 — Andersen has a doctorate and runs her own management consulting company. Christian is president of an investment management company.
- Dave Shull and Peter Ilgenfritz
Together since 1986 — They are co-pastors of University Congregational United Church of Christ.
- Johanna Bender and Sherri Kokx
Together since 1997 — They have two children, Quintin and Zachary.
They each had to adopt the child born to the other.
- Janet Helson and Betty Lundquist
Together since 1992 — they raise two children.
- David and Michael Serkin-Poole
Together since 1981 — David is a cantor at Temple B’Nai Torah.
Michael cares for the couple’s three disabled children.
- Vegavahini Subramaniam and Vaijayanthimala Nagarajan
Together since 1998 — Vega works for a nonprofit organization that addresses domestic violence in the South Asian community.
Mala is a business systems analyst working toward a master’s degree.
- Elizabeth Reis and Barbara Steele
- Michelle Esguerra and Boo Torres de Esguerra
|
• Castle v. State of Washington was filed on April 1, 2004. In this second suit, eleven couples wish to wed in Washington, or have their marriages recognized under Washington law. Besides baring marriage based on sex and sexual orientation, the State also refuses to recognize legal marriages performed in other jurisdictions on the same basis.
The suit, filed by the ACLU, states: “This arbitrary and prejudicial prohibition deprives same-sex Plaintiffs of the full array of rights, benefits, and privileges available to other Washington married couples. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to nullify the State’s discriminatory marriage restrictions and enforce the constitutional protections of liberty, equality, privacy, autonomy and human dignity guaranteed to all Washington residents.”
|
The Washington Castle Couples
|
- Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer
Together since 1988. Celia is a firefighter, and Brenda is an attorney. They have two daughters, 8 and 11. Although they were married in Portland, Oregon on March 16, 2004, Brenda would not be treated as Celia’s survivor under Washington law if Celia were to die in the line of duty as a firefighter.
- Kevin Chestnut and Curtis Crawford
Together since 1985. They were married in British Columbia, Canada on October 23, 2003. Kevin is an executive at a software company, and Curtis is a photographer and filmmaker. When Kevin’s appendix burst a few years ago, the hospital would not let Curtis make emergency health care decisions for him without obtaining verification from Kevin’s mother on the east coast. While Curtis can get health benefits through Kevin’s employer, Kevin is taxed on these benefits whereas his co-workers in opposite-sex marriages are not. Even though they are now married, Kevin and Curtis continue to face uncertainty regarding whether their relationship will be respected in medical and other settings.
- Pamela Coffey and Valerie Tibbett
Together since 1972. Valerie is a retired Administrative Law Judge, and Pamela is a photographer. Pamela and Valerie have incurred considerable expense drafting legal documents intended to protect their relationship, yet continue to be treated differently from married couples. For example, when Pamela was recently airlifted to a hospital on the mainland, she and Valerie faced anxiety and uncertainty because they did not have copies of documents confirming their relationship.
- Gary Murell and Michael Gyde
Together since 1979. Gary is a professor, and Michael is an antiques dealer. Gary and Michael want to marry in order to ensure that they will be able to take care of each other and that they will be adequately protected as they get older.
- Christina Gamache and Judith Fleissner
Together since 1990. They were married in Portland, Oregon on March 19, 2004. They have two children. Judy is a police officer and Chris is an attorney. Judy was also not able to use family leave like other officers when their daughter was born, and Chris would not be considered her spouse if Judy were to die in the line of duty.
- Jeff Kingsbury and Alan Fuller
Together since 1992. Jeff operates a community theatre and Alan is a banker.
- Lauri Conner and Leja Wright
Together since 2001. Lauri is a high school English teacher and Leja is a medical assistant. They intend to have children together, and want those children to be part of a loving family with two married parents. As an interracial couple, they are concerned that the State not impose any legal stigma on their relationship.
- Allan Henderson and John Berquist
Together since 1981. Allan is a consultant focusing on hunger, health, and development in the third world. John is a nurse. Although Allan and John have incurred considerable legal expenses in drafting wills and other documents intended to memorialize and protect their relationship, those efforts cannot substitute for the unique recognition, obligations, and benefits that are automatically extended to married couples.
- Marge Ballack and Diane Lantz
Together since 1979. Marge is a designer and Diane works at a publishing company. They were married in British Columbia, Canada on July 21, 2003. Marge and Diane are treated as married by their children and grandchildren, but not by their government.
- Tom Duke and Phuoc Lam
Together since 1998. They jointly operate a business. Tom is also a clinical psychologist, who served in Vietnam as an interpreter for the Navy, while Phuoc came to the United States as a Vietnamese refugee. Tom and Phuoc love each other, and believe that the State should not limit marriage on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
- Kathy Cunningham and Karrie Cunningham
Together since 1993. They jointly raised Kathy’s 18-year-old son. They are a family. In February 2004, Kathy and Karrie were married in San Francisco, California.
|
On July 26, 2006, a 5-4 ruling was issued against the Anderson v. King County and Castle v. State of Washington cases, which had been combined. The court’s split was reflected in a sharply divided finding, which ultimately upheld Washington’s 1998 anti-gay, anti-marriage “Defense of Marriage Act” that defines marriage soley as a union between a man and a woman.
While Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state’s marriage law was enacted to “promote procreation and to encourage stable families,” and that “The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children,” the majority ignored the fact that many of the couples suing for equal treatment had children. Apparently, their families, which contained childen, did not count.
The ruling did note a hardship for same-sex couples, and suggested that the legislature “may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.”
The finding contained six opinions, including dissents from Justices Mary Fairhurst, Bobbe Bridge and Tom Chambers.
Justice Fairhurst said the plurality and concurring options “condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests.”
[Please see our article: Washington State - Bridge’s Dissenting Opinion: Andersen v. King County]
[Please see our article: Washington State - Fairhurst’s Dissenting Opinion: Andersen v. King County]
New York - 2004 Suit
• On March 5, 2004, Lambda Legal filed suit against the state of New York. Hernandez and Cohen v. Robles seeks the right to marry on behalf of five-year partners Daniel Hernandez and Nevin Cohen. The suit names the city clerk of New York City, Victor Robles, as the defendant.
The suit argues that the denial of a marriage license to this same-sex couple violates their due process rights under the state constitution, including their right to privacy and right to marry. Second, the opposite-sex restrictions on marriage are a denial of equal protection, based on gender and on sexual orientation.
Reacting to the New Paltz marriages [Please see our article: Civil Marriage Disobedience], New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issued an advisory opinion on March 3, 2004, raising “constitutional concerns” with the state’s marriage law, and suggesting that these concerns should be resolved by the courts.
Spitzer wrote that while same-sex marriage remains technically illegal under New York’s Domestic Relations Law, he questioned whether the statutory language would survive a constitutional review by the state’s high court.
Spitzer:
“New York law has recognized the legitimacy of committed same-sex couples in numerous ways, thereby drawing into question the state’s interest in maintaining the historical understanding of marriage as confined to opposite sex partners.”
Spitzer also concluded that the state’s legal precedents “presumptively require” that same-sex couples legally married elsewhere — specifically in Massachusetts and Canada — “must be treated as spouses for the purposes of New York law.”
In February 2005, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the state’s domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not permit marriage between people of the same sex. Ling-Cohan held that the words “husband,” “wife,” “groom” and “bride,” as they appear in the domestic relations law, or DRL, should be defined to apply equally to men and women.
Ling-Cohan also permanently barred the New York city clerk from denying a marriage license to any couple solely on the ground that the two were of the same sex. Her decision, favoring equal marriage rights, was the first of its kind in New York City.
On December 8, 2005, a state appeals court reversed (4-1) the Ling-Cohan ruling that would have permitted same-sex couples to get married in New York City, stating that it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms “husband” and “wife.”
The appeals court also criticized the way Ling-Cohan proceeded, saying, “we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right.” The court said this “was an act that exceeded the court’s constitutional mandate and usurped that of the legislature.”
The appeals court judges also claimed that state laws regarding marriage “do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution.”
The judges’ 4-1 reversal keeps the status quo on same-sex marriage. The judges noted that nothing in the DRL specifically bars same-sex marriage, however, its gender-specific terms have been interpreted to indicate the legislature never intended to allow same-sex marriage.
The panel’s dissenter, Justice David Saxe, said he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage, and said laws that prohibit it perpetuate legal discrimination.
Lawyers for this case say they have always expected the case would eventually be tried in the New York Supreme Court, and will appeal.
• Sheilds v. New York was prompted when Nyack mayor John Sheilds, and partner Bob Streams, and 10 other same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, on March 4 in Orangetown Town Hall, and were politely refused. Clerk for Orangetown, Charlotte Madigan, acted on the advice of state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who had already declared that same-sex marriages were illegal in New York. The couples sued New York State, on March 12, 2004, for denying them marriage licenses.
On October 21, 2004, acting state Supreme Court Justice Alfred Weiner ruled that the state’s domestic relations law limited marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples. Countering the couples’ claim that the law did not specifically ban same-sex couples, the judge said the legislature’s use of phrases such as “husband and wife” and “bride and groom” made its intentions clear.
The couples also claimed the denial of marriage licenses was unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which was also dismissed. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Norman Siegel, said he would appeal the ruling.
|
The New York Sheilds Couples
|
- John Sheilds, 60, and Bob Streams, 32.
- John Ade and Johnnie Farmer
Together since 1991.
- plus eight more couples
|
• On April 7, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit — Samuels and Gallagher v. New York State Department of Health — asking the courts to declare unconstitutional a state law that denies same-sex couples the right to marry. They, and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the law firm Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, charge that the law violates the equal protection, privacy and due process provisions of the New York Constitution.
The suit was filed on behalf of 13 same-sex couples. Many of them had hoped to be married by New Paltz Mayor Jason West. [See: Civil Marriage Disobedience]
The suit targets the state Department of Health, which regulates marriage everywhere in the state except New York City, where marriage licenses are issued by the city clerk’s office.
A trial court judge in Albany, N.Y. on December 7, 2004, said that the state constitution allows New York to continue to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. An appeal to a higher court will be launched. I will decide the critical question of whether all people have a fundamental right to marry, or whether the government is justified in excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
|
The New York Samuels Couples
|
- Diane Gallagher, 53, and Sylvia Samuels, 54
Together since 1980. Raised two children, they are now grandmothers.
- Wade O. Nichols and Francis Shen
They are forced to live apart because they are a binational couple. [Please see our article Immigration Roundup: A Survey of Welcoming Countries]
- Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale
Together since 1997. They are expecting their first child.
- State Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell and John Banta
Together since 1981.
- Cindy Bink and Ann Pachner
Together since 1988. Because Bink’s employer didn’t offer domestic partner medical benefits, she had to leave a 17-year job to find an employer that did.
- Alice J. Muniz, 31, and Oneida Garcia, 34
Together since 2000.
- plus seven more couples
|
• On June 3, 2004, twenty-five same-sex couples sued for the right to marry. This case — Seymour, et. al. v. Julie Holcomb; City of Ithaca; and New York State Department of Health [Holcomb is the City Clerk.] — had the support of the city of Ithaca.
The previous March, Ithaca Mayor Carolyn Peterson announced that the city would accept applications for marriage licenses from same-sex couples. When passed on to the state, the licenses were not approved. Mayor Peterson said the city would join in any court battle on behalf of same-sex couples, although legally, the suit must also name the city as a defendant.
The couple’s lawyers said on June 2, 2004, that they plan to argue that the Department of Health and the city are denying gay couples equal protection under the law. Attorney Richard Stumbar:
“By refusing to issue marriage licenses to these plaintiffs, the City and State have unconstitutionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ privacy rights, and have denied them equal protection of the laws by making impermissible distinctions based on gender and sexual orientation.”
The second lawyer in the case, Mariette Geldenhuys, said that the couples have been excluded from a broad array of statutory protections and benefits afforded by New York’s marriage law, as well as denied benefits and protections offered by employers and other private entities which rely on the State’s definition of marriage.
On February 23, 2005, Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Mulvey in Elmira ruled against the suit. On October 17, 2005, and the case was appealed and heard by the Appellate Court in Albany.
• On June 16, 2004, two “solemnized” same-sex couples filed suit — Matter of Kane v. Marsolais — asking the Albany court to force the Department of Health to issue them marriage licenses.
• On July 6, 2006, the highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals, ruled that the state “Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.” In its ruling, the court said that “Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.”
The court heard arguments in May 2006 in the omnibus case — known as Hernandez v. Robles — were brought by 44 same-sex couples, from four different lawsuits:
Hernandez v. Robles
Samuels v. New York State Department of Health
Matter of Kane v. Marsolais
Seymour v. Holcomb
In the lower courts, judges in three of the cases upheld the current ban on same-sex marriage. In the fourth, New York City judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. That ruling was overturned in a mid-level appeals court.
The high court ruling said that the Domestic Relations Law, which governs marriage, does not specifically say that only people of different sexes may marry each other, but “that was the universal understanding when Articles 2 and 3 were adopted in 1909, an understanding reflected in several statutes.”
The court also said that there are “at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted.” The ruling said that these involved children:
“First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.
“Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.”
The ruling also noted that the Legislature could “rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.”
This court’s reasoning disregards the large number of children that are in the care of gay men, lesbians, and same-sex couples. Denying marriage to these couples prevents their children from accessing legal protections, as well as for providing an orderly process regarding such issues as medical care taking and custody. The court could be interpreted as further suggesting that the Legislature could “rationally believe” that they should deny single parents access to adoption, foster caring, or the right to their own children.
The justices said in the ruling that the same-sex couples fighting for marriage equality “have not persuaded us that this long accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals … If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice — if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v. Virginia a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly ‘designed to maintain White Supremacy’ — we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history.”
A poll released in April showed that a majority of people across New York State support same-sex marriage.
[See: Legal Marriage Surveys in the U.S.]
In light of the New York State Court of Appeals decision, the New York State Bar Association called on the State Legislature to take comprehensive action to eliminate the inequities faced by same-sex couples:
“We have urged the Legislature to provide one of the following remedies to same-sex couples: civil unions; domestic partnerships; or marriage. While we are not advocating which of these approaches should be adopted, we call upon the Legislature to enact one of them, so that same-sex couples will no longer face the legal inequities they now encounter.”
Here is the dissenting opinion for Hernandez v. Robles, which makes clear the issues and the justice of allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples: NY Dissenting Opinion
On July 12, 2006, a court on Long Island denied health benefits to the partner of a Uniondale man, as a direct affect of the Hernandez ruling. In his ruling, State Supreme Court Justice Edward W. McCarthy said that even though they had wed two years ago in Canada, the men’s civil marriage was not recognized by the state of New York. In a three-page order in the Long Island case, the Justice denied a motion by the plaintiff, Duke L. Funderburke, who was trying to obtain spousal health benefits from the Uniondale Union Free School District for Bradley Davis, his partner of 43 years. Mr. Funderburke, now 73, and Mr. Davis, 68, were married in Ontario in 2004.
North Carolina - 2004 Suit
Richard Mullinax, 36, and Perry Pike, 41, of Old North Durham, filed suit against Durham County on March 22, 2004. The lawsuit contends that the county must issue the marriage license, even though state law forbids same-sex marriage, and it would only have symbolic meaning. County Attorney Chuck Kitchen filed a motion to dismiss the suit, contending that the case belongs in Superior, not District, Court. The case was heard and dismissed on May 10, 2004 by District Court Judge Brown who agreed that the case belonged in Superior Court, and dismissed it without prejudice. The order was signed by the judge on May 17. Richard and Perry shortly issued a press release stating that they were not going to file in Superior Court.
New Jersey - 2004 Suit
Ashbury Park file a lawsuit seeking a ruling that would allow the city to continue granting marriage licenses. It had issued 16 licenses, and officiated at one of them, before the state attorney general, Peter C. Harvey, ordered city officials to stop.
The suit was filed at the end on March 2004, and then soon dropped in order to join the ongoing New Jersey suit for legal marriage that was launched in 2002.
[Please see: Civil Marriage Disobedience]
Oregon - 2004 Suit
On March 3, 2004, Multnomah County allowed same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. By March 23, 2004, more than 2,400 same-sex couples from around the nation were married in Portland. As of April 20, 3,022 marriage licenses were approved. The state has refused to register the marriages. [See Civil Marriage Disobedience]
Li v. Oregon was filed — on March 24, 2004 in Multnomah County by the American Civil Liberties Union, along with Basic Rights Oregon, Multnomah County and Benton County.
The suit includes a constitutional challenge involving same-sex couples in Lane and Benton counties who have not been able to marry, and on behalf of nine same-sex couples who have married with Multnomah County licenses, but whose marriages were likewise not recognized by the state.
14 Republican legislators attempted a “motion to intervene” and were rejected by Judge Frank Bearden on March 26, 2004, because he said it would slow down proceedings.
The Republican representatives include: Cliff Zauner (Woodburn), Tom Butler (Ontario), Betsy Close (Albany), Gordon Anderson (Grants Pass), Linda Flores (Clackamas), Bill Garrard (Klamath Falls), Wayne Krieger (Gold Beach), Tim Knopp (Bend), Randy Miller (West Linn), Tootie Smith (Mollala), Phil Yount (Tigard), and Mary Gallegos (Cornelius).
Also included were Republican Senators Charles Starr (Hillsboro), and Gary George (Newberg), as well as former Republican state Rep. Jeff Kruse of Roseburg, who is running for the state Senate.
On May 27, 2004, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers appealed the April ruling that ordered the state to recognize the 3,022 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples. It seeks to also overturn the ruling that gave the state 90 days to provide same-sex couples with either marriage or the legal equivalent.
In his ruling, judge Frank Bearden also ordered the county to stop issuing more marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the courts and the legislature made a final decision on same-sex marriage. Bearden’s ruling said that if the legislature failed to act he would allow the licensing to resume.
By June 2, 2004, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on registering the same-sex marriages.
After the November 2, 2004 citizen vote for the state constitutional amendment barring legal marriage to same-sex couples, the ACLU-Oregon announced they would be suing only for domestic partner benefits, a betrayal of the original intention of the suit.
|
The Oregon Li Couples
|
- Mary Li and Becky Kennedy
Together since 2001, with a nine-month-old daughter. They were the first couple to receive a marriage license from Multnomah County.
- Katie Potter and Pam Moen
Met in 1990, with four-year-old and one-year-old daughter. Both are Portland police officers.
- Sally Sheklow, 53, and Enid Lefton
Together since 1987.
- Walter Frankel, 65, and Curtis Kiefer, 52
Together since 1981.
- plus five more couples
|
On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court nullified the 3,022 same-sex, legal marriages performed in Multnomah County.
On November 4, 2005, Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond ruled against the arguments that the November 2004 state constitutional amendment, Measure 36, contained too many parts that should have been voted on as separate amendments, and that it was improperly submitted to voters. In part, the amendment duplicated existing state law forbidding marriage to same-sex partners.
Massachusetts - 2004 Anti Out-of-State Suits
• On June 18, 2004, Douglas Johnstone et al v. Thomas Reilly et al was filed challenging the constitutionality and discriminatory enforcement by the governor’s activation of an heretofore unused 1913 law. The governor’s purpose was to prohibit clerks from issuing licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples.
The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, along with the law firm of Palmer and Dodge, and represents the clerks from 13 cities and towns. It argues that state officials cannot be directed to apply a law in a discriminatory fashion. The selective enforcement of a law by state officials is as much an equal protection violation as is targeting black drivers for traffic tickets.
The suit seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the cease and desist order issued by the attorney general on May 21, and charge that the old law is unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples — precisely because it is being used exclusively against same-sex couples.
• Also on June 18, 2004, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, represented eight out-of state couples in a suit that challenging the constitutionality and discriminatory enforcement by the governor’s activation of an heretofore unused 1913 law. Cote-Whitacre et al v. Department of Public Health states that the 1913 statute also tramples on the U.S. Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which grants the citizens of all states the privileges and immunities of citizens in sister states.
This suit also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the cease and desist order issued by the attorney general on May 21, and charge that the old law is unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples — precisely because it is being used exclusively against same-sex couples.
On August 18, 2004, a state judge declined to halt enforcement of the 1913 state law barring out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts. An attorney for the couples said they would appeal.
On March 30, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the 1913 state law can be used to block out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying if they are from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states.
On September 29, 2006, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled that same-sex couples who reside in Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts. The ruling only applies to Massachusetts allowing one other state’s citizens to apply for a marriage license. It does not require Rhode Island to honor that license.
On November 9, 2006, Massachusetts legislators recess a constitutional convention until January 2, 2007, without voting on a citizen-proposed ballot measure to ban same-sex legal marriages. The move made it unlikely the measure would be acted on in time to get on the November 2008 ballot.
|
The Massachusetts Cote-Whitacre Couples
|
|
- Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre, both 57 of Essex Junction, Vermont
Together since 1968.
|
|
- Paul Trubey, 41, and Mark Pearsall, 37, from Lebanon, Connecticut
Together since 1989.
|
|
- Kristin, 38, and Katy Gossman, 40, of Meriden, Connecticut
Together since 1999.
|
|
- Ed Butler, 55, and Les Schoof, 53, of New Hampshire
Together since 1978.
|
|
- Mary Norton, 44, and Wendy Becker, 43, of Providence, Rhode Island
Together since 1988.
|
|
- Lee, 41, and Judi, 52, McNeil-Beckwith of Providence, Rhode Island
Together since 1998.
|
|
- James Theberge, 46, and Michael Thorne, 51, and their young son Nathaniel, of Cape Elizabeth, Maine
Together since 1983.
|
|
- Tanya Wexler, 33, and Amy Zimmerman, 31, and their three young children of New York City
Together since 1992
|
|
All photos of the Massachusetts Cote-Whitacre couples are courtesy GLAD/Mainframe Photographics.
|
Florida - 2004 Suit
• Equality Florida and six same-sex couples sued Florida for legal marriage on April 15, 2004. The National Center for Lesbian Rights is assisting in the case. Ash v. Forman asks the state court in Key West to declare Florida’s current law, which bans marriage for gay and lesbian couples, unconstitutional. It says the state’s so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DoMA) violates the Florida constitution equal protection, due process, and privacy clauses. DoMA not only defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and also forbids the state from recognizing Civil Unions.
• In Clayton v. Ake, Sue Clayton and Sheila Serrao of Sarasota sued, on July 12, 2004, the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, Richard Ake, for denying them a marriage license. They have been together since 1995.
• |
|