Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Same-Sex Marriage Research Guide: State by State

A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature compiled by Paul Axel-Lute originally published September 2002 last updated March 7, 2017/ DC

A Selection... (cont.)



Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1998) Held that "marriage, i.e., the recognition of one's choice of a life partner, is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite- sex partners."

Alaska Const. Art I, §25: "To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman." (added 1998, eff. Jan.3,1999)

Clarkson, Kevin G., Collidge, David Orgon, & Duncan, William C., "The Alaska Marriage Amendment: the People's Choice on the Last Frontier," Alaska Law Review, 16:213-268 (1999).


Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div.1, Oct.8, 2003), opinion available at The Court of Appeal held that same-sex couples did not have a fundamental constitutional right to marry, and that " the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest." The plaintiffs said they would file an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court in early December.


[jump to most recent item]

Marriage Equality California,

California Statutes 1999, ch.588 (AB 26), relating to domestic partnerships, added Calif. Family Code §297 et seq., Calif. Gov't Code §22867 et seq., and Calif. Health & Safety Code §1261. The domestic partnership laws were expanded and amended by Calif. Statutes 2001 c. 893 (AB 25). The full text of each act can be retrieved by entering the year and chapter number at

Blumberg, Grace Ganz, "Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Conjugal Relationships: the 2003 California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act in Comparative Civil Rights and Family Law Perspective," UCLA Law Review 51:1555-1617 (2004).

Woo v. Lockyer, No. CPF-04-504030, Complaint, filed March 12, 2004, in Calif. Superior Court for County of San Francisco

Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal. 4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 225 (Aug.12, 2004), retrievable at California Courts web site The California Supreme Court declared invalid the same-sex marriages that had been performed, because local officials were not authorized to act on their own non-judicial determination of unconstitutionality of the marriage statute's limitation to opposite-sex couples.

Defendants' Preliminary Opposition to Petitions for Writ of Mandate, Marriage Cases: City and County of San Francisco v. State of California, Case No. 429-539, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 (October 8, 2004),

"Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act," Calif. Assembly Bill 19, as introduced Dec. 6, 2004,

Marriage Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Tentative Decision (Calif. Superior Court, County of San Francisco, March 14, 2005), held that California statutes precluding same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution. This holding was reversed by the Court of Appeal Oct.5, 2006, but the Court of Appeal decision was in turn reversed by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2008 .

Smelt v. County of Orange (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2005): see supra under DOMA.

Assembly Bill 849, "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act," enrolled version, Sept. 6,2005, Governor's veto message (Sept.29, 2005):

Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824, 115 P.3d 1212, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 (Cal. Aug.1, 2005), "... a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination."

Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108, 117 P.3d 660, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 46; K.M. v. E.G., 37 Cal.4th 130, 117 P.3d 673, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 61 ; and Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 37 Cal.4th 156, 117 P.3d 690, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 81 (Cal. Aug.22, 2005). Three companion cases holding that both members of a lesbian couple are lawful parents, subject to laws on child custody and support.

Smelt v. County of Orange, No. 05-56040 (9th Cir. May 5, 2006), see supra under DOMA.

>In re Marriage Cases, Nos. A110449 etc.[six consolidated appeals] 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675,(Calif. Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Oct.5, 2006). By a 2 to 1 vote, upheld law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, reversing lower court decision. This holding was reversed by the Supreme Court. See below.

"Brief of Amici Curiæ Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area & 62 Asian Pacific American Organizations in Support of Respondents Challenging the Marriage Exclusion," UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal, 14:33-53 (2008-09)

>In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 ( May 15, 2008). In a 4 to 3 decision, the California Supreme Court held that laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional.

Proposition 8, passed in the Nov.4, 2008 election, adds to Article I of the California constitution: "Section 7.5: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Strauss v. Horton - Amended Petitition for Extraordinary Relief (filed by National Center for Lesbian Rights, Nov.5, 2008), Urges Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes, on the ground that the initiative process " was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality . . ."

Alquist, Amanda, "The Honeymoon Is Over, Maybe For Good: The Same-Sex Marriage Issue Before the California Supreme Court," Chapman Law Review, 12:23-46 (2008)

"Judicial Activism: Same Sex Marriage and the Aftermath of California's Prop. 8," Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law & Policy, 14:1-124 (2009) (seven articles)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. CV 09-2292, complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, May 22, 2009, seeking to have Proposition 8 declared violative of the U.S. Constitution; available at Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed May 27, 2009.

Strauss v. Horton, Nos. S168047, S168066, S168078 (Calif. Supreme Court, May 26, 2009), upheld the opposite-sex definition of marriage adopted under Proposition 8 but held that same-sex marriages entered into before the effective date of that definition are still valid.

>Perry v. Schwarzenegger,, No. CV 09-2292 VRW, decision of U.S. District Court (N.D.Calif. Aug.4, 2010),, held Proposition 8 unconstitutional under Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Affirmed under the name Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1072, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Feb. 7, 2012,; . Vacated and remanded under the name Hollingsworth v. Perry, No.12-144 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2013), holding that the petitioners did not have standing.


Love Makes a Family,

Connecticut Designated Representatives Law, Public Act 02-105, (June 3, 2002).

Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Commiteee, "Pursuant to Section 16 of P.A. 02-105,", testimony from hearings, and reports on various topics relating to same sex marriage and civil unions may only be available by contacting the committee's staff..

"Same Sex Partners in Connecticut" (Backgrounder) (Oct.5,2002),

Connecticut Civil Union Act, Public Act No. 05-10, approved April 20, 2005 (effective Oct.1,2005), primarily codified at Conn. General Statutes Title 46B, Chapter 815F, §§46b-38aa to -38pp

Conn. Attorney General Opinion No. 2005-024 (Sept.20,2005), Connecticut will recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships from other states, but not same-sex marriages.

Kerrigan v. State, No. NNH CV 04 400181 (Conn. Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, July 12, 2006). Denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, saying that the state constitution required only equal protection and due process, not "equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process." (For other documents in this case on the GLAD web site, see Reversed by:

Kerrigan v. State, No. SC 17716 (Conn. Supreme Court, "officially released" Oct. 28, 2008, actually released Oct. 10, 2008), opinion at holding 4 to 3 that same-sex couples cannot constitutionally be denied the freedom to marry. Dissenting opinions at (Borden, J.), . . . /289CR152F.pdf (Vertefeuille, J.), and . . . /289CR152G.pdf (Zarella, J.).

Marriage Codification Act, Senate Bill No. 899, approved by the Governor on April 23, 2009, text available at

"Commentary," Connecticut Law Review, 41(5): (July 2009) (five articles responding to decision in Kerrigan ):

  • Bennett Klein & Daniel Redman,"From Separate To Equal: Litigating Marriage Equality In A Civil Union State "
  • Suzanne B. Goldberg, "Marriage As Monopoly: History, Tradition Incrementalism, And The Marriage/Civil Union Distinction "
  • Marc R. Poirier, "Name Calling: Identifying Stigma In The 'Civil Union'/ 'Marriage' Distinction "
  • Susan R. Schmeiser, "Changing the Immutable"
  • Darren Lenard Hutchinson, "Sexual Politics and Social Change "


H.B. 75,, approved May 7, 2013, allowing same-sex marriage.


"Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009," Act No. B18-0482 (effective Mar.3, 2010)


Ash v. Forman, No. 0403279, Complaint, Feb. 25, 2004 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial Circ.), 2004 WL 368099. Suit attacking Florida's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples as unconstitutional.


Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc, 8 to 4 decision), Bowers, the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, revoked a job offer to attorney Shahar after learning of her intent to marry another woman. Shahar asserted violations of her federal constitutional rights. The majority of the court upheld the revocation of the job offer. (A supplemental opinion, denying a motion to supplement the record, appears at 13 I.E.R.Cas.(BNA) 539.


Bæhr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 645, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), . The Hawaii Supreme Court held that, although there was not a fundamental constitutional right of persons of the same sex to marry, the sex-based classification in the Hawaii marriage statute was subject to "strict scrutiny" and would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest.

Bæhr v. Miike, 80 Haw. 341, 910 P.2d 112 (Jan.23,1996) (affirming Circuit Court's order denying permission for Church of Latter Day Saints to intervene).

Bæhr v. Miike, No.91-1394-05, 1996 WL 694235, (Haw. Cir. Ct. Dec.3,1996), aff'd, 87 Haw.34, 950 P.2d 1234 (1997) (Table), rev'd, 92 Haw. 634, 994 P.2d 566 (1999) (Table No. 20371). The Circuit Court decision held that the sex-based classification in the Hawaii marriage statute was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from denying a marriage license solely because the applicants were of the same sex. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court without opinion, after the passage of the constitutional amendment noted below in 1998.

Hawaii Reciprocal Beneficiaries Act (Laws of 1997, ch.383): Detailed information on this law is available at the Marriage Project Hawaii website, The provisions for registration and termination of reciprocal beneficiary relationships are codified at Hawaii Revised Statutes § 572C,

Hawai'i Constitution Art.I sec.23: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." (ratified Nov.3,1998).

Goldberg-Hiller, Jonathan, "The Status of Status: Domestic Partnership and the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage," Studies in Law Policy & Society, 19:3-38 (1999) [call no. K18.E837 ]

Silverstein, Helena, "Benign Neglect: Affirmative Action, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Underlying Conservatism of Bæhr v.Lewin," Studies in Law Policy & Society, 19:39-62 (1999) [call no. K18.E837 ]

"Symposium: Same-Sex Marriage: the Debate in Hawai'i and the Nation," University of Hawai'i Law Review, 22:1-235 (spring 2000) (three articles)

Hawaii Senate Bill No. 232 (S.D.1, H.D.1, June 9, 2011), relating to civil unions,, enacted Feb.24, 2011, effective Jan.1, 2012.

Hawaii Marriage Equality Act, enacted Nov 14, 2013.


Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, SB0010 Enrolled,, allows same-sex marriage effective June 2014.


Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Indiana Court of Appeals, Jan.20,2005),, held that Indiana Constitution does not require recognition of same-sex marriage.


Varnum v. Brien, No. CV5965 (Iowa District Court, Polk County, Aug.30, 2007),, held that same-sex couples must be permitted to enter into civil marriage. For other information and documents in the case, see the Lambda Legal site at The decision was unanimously confirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, in Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499 (Apr.3,2009),

Goldberg, Suzanne B., Sarah Hinger and Keren Zwick, "Equality Opportunity: Marriage Litigation and Iowa's Equal Protection Law," Journal of Gender Race & Justice, 12:107-126 (2008). (pages 113-126 are amicus brief)


Louisiana Constitution, Article XII, Section 15, added by statewide election Sept.18,2004, provides:

Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.


An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, Public Law, Chapter 82, (approved May 6, 2009, but repealed by the voters November 3, 2009)

An Act To Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom, (approved by voters Nov. 6, 2012)


Deane v. Conaway, No. 24-C-04-005390 (Baltimore MD Circuit Ct., Jan.20,2006), opinion available at Struck down state statute against same-sex marriage. Holding was stayed pending appeal, and was reversed by: Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571 (Sept.18, 2007),, leaving in force laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. For other case documents on the Equality Maryland web site, see

"Marriage: Whether Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriage That Is Valid In The State of Celebration May Be Recognized in Maryland," Attorney General's Opinion, Feb. 23, 2010,

Civil Marriage Protection Act, Laws of 2012 Chapter 2 (House Bill 438) (approved March 1, 2012, and approved by voters Nov. 2012), Allows same-sex marriages.


[jump to most recent item]

"Mass. Law About Same-Sex Marriage," (Mass. Trial Court Libraries)

Herdlein, Wendy, "Something Old, Something New: Does the Massachusetts Constitution Provide for Same-Sex 'Marriage'?" Boston Univ. Public Interest Law Journal,12:137-182 (2002)

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Nov.18,2003. (Opinion can be accessed in the Opinion Archive at The Supreme Judicial Court "construe[d] civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others," and declared that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take appropriate action.

On December 11, 2003, the state Senate, by an order designated Senate No.2176, asked the Supreme Judicial Court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Senate bill No.2175, establishing civil unions. On February 3, 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court replied, in Opinions of the Justices to the Senate that the civil union bill would maintain " an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples ...," and thus made clear that same sex marriage per se would be allowed in Massachusetts, beginning in May 2004.

"Uncorrected Proof of the Journal of the Senate in Joint Session," Feb.11-12, 2004, March 11, 2004, and March 29, 2004. The Massachusetts House and Senate met together as a constitutional convention and on March 29th passed a constitutional amendment, requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman, but providing for civil unions. For text see Senate Bill No.5, The amendment would not have been effective unless passed again during the 2005-06 session and then ratified by the electorate in November 2006.

In Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court, No. 04-1621 (1st Cir. May 14, 2004), the plaintiffs sought to enjoin implementation of the Goodridge decision, on the grounds that it violated the federal constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. The U.S. District Court denied preliminary injunctive relief May 13th, 317 F. Supp. 2d 77, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, finding the likelihood of a successful appeal weak, denied the request for injunctive relief pending appeal, but heard the appeal on an expedited basis, and affirmed on June 29th, 373 F.3d 219, opinion available at . The First Circuit order denying the preliminary injunction, can be found at

Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, C.A. No. 04-2656-G (Mass. Superior Court, Aug.18, 2004), available on GLAD website, together with other documents in case, at; denied injunction that out-of-state same-sex couples sought against enforcement of Mass. General Laws c.207 §11, prohibiting marriage of residents of another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void in that jurisdiction.

Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350, 844 N.E.2d 623, (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, March 30, 2006); upheld the prohibition against same-sex marriages in Massachusetts for residents of other states where such marriages would not be allowed.

Schulman v. Attorney-General, 447 Mass. 189, 850 N.E.2d 505, SJC-09684 ( Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, July 10, 2006), allowed an initiative petition to go forward that would prospectively restrict marriage to opposite-sex couplkes.

Miller, Mark C, "Conflicts between the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Legislature: Campaign Finance Reform and Same-Sex Marriage," Pierce Law Review 4:279-316 (2006)

Jacobi, Tonja. "How Massachusetts Got Gay Marriage: the Intersection of Popular Opinion, Legislative Action, and Judicial Power," Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 15:219-241 (2006).

>Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, Civil Action No. 04-2656, Memorandum of Decision on Whether Same-Sex Marriage is Prohibited in New York and Rhode Island (Mass. Superior Court, Sept.29,2006), text available at: Held that same-sex marriage is prohibited in New York, but is not prohibited in Rhode Island.

"Uncorrected Proof of the Journal of the Senate" in Joint Session, Nov.9, 2006,  Rejected one initiative for a constititional amendment against same-sex marriage (House bill No. 653) , and did not consider another initiative petition (House bill No. 4617)

Doyle v. Secretary, SJC-09887 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, Dec.27,2006, The Supreme Judicial Court held it had no power to force the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment proposed by initiative.

>Massachusetts Acts 2008, chapter 216, approved July 31, 2008,, repealed laws that prevented non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.


Winer, Anthony S., "How a Marriage Discrimination Amendment Would Disrespect Democracy in Minnesota," William Mitchell Law Review, 33:1059-1080 (2007).

Bill H.F. No. 1054,, approved May 14, 2013, allowing same-sex marriage.


Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, No.4:03CV3155, 290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D. Neb. Nov.10,2003), available at The U.S. District Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the second sentence of Article I section 29 of the Nebraska Constitution. That section reads "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." The plaintiffs claim that the second sentence denies them "an equal opportunity to lobby their elected representatives regarding legal protections for same-sex relationships."

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Neb. May 12, 2005), available at Held that Nebraska's constitutional provision against same-sex unions was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, because it went beyond maintaining the common-law opposite-sex definition of marriage to deny government benefits to the partners of any sort of same-sex union. This decision was reversed by:

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. July 14, 2006),, which held that: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States." (For briefs in this case on the ACLU site, see


Commission Report on Same Sex Civil Marriages (December 1, 2005)

Laws of 2009, chapters 59, 60, and 61 (approved June 3, 2009), available at, /HB0310.html, and /HB0073.html: same-sex marriage legalized(with a higher minimum age than opposite-sex marriage); new civil unions prohibited; civil unions can be converted to marriages; religious organizatons allowed to refrain from solemnizing marriages against their beliefs.


[jump to most recent item]

Gay and Lesbian Political Action and Support Groups (GayPASG), Task Force for Same-Sex Civil Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership:

New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, <="" a="">

M.T. v. J.T., 140 N.J. Super. 77, 83-85 (App. Div. 1976). In a case involving validity of the marriage of a post-operative transsexual, Judge Handler (now Justice Handler) wrote:

We accept--and it is not disputed--as the fundamental premise in this case that a lawful marriage requires the performance of a ceremonial marriage of two persons of the opposite sex, a male and a female. Despite winds of change, this understanding of a valid marriage is almost universal. . . . In the matrimonial field the heterosexual union is usually regarded as the only one entitled to legal recognition and public sanction. . . .

(citations omitted)

There is not the slightest doubt that New Jersey follows the overwhelming authority. The historic assumption in the application of common law and statutory strictures relating to marriages is that only persons who can become "man and wife" have the capacity to enter marriage. Cf. Winn v. Wiggins, 47 N.J. Super. 215, 220 (App. Div. 1957); Jackson v. Jackson, 94 N.J. Eq. 233, 236-237 (E. & A. 1922); N.J.S.A. 37:1-10. The pertinent statutes relating to marriages and married persons do not contain any explicit references to a requirement that marriage must be between a man and a woman. N.J.S.A. 37:1-1 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1 et seq. Nevertheless that statutory condition must be extrapolated. It is so strongly and firmly implied from a full reading of the statutes that a different legislative intent, one which would sanction a marriage between persons of the same sex, cannot be fathomed.

Lewis v. Harris, filed June 26,2002 in Law Division, Hudson County (transferred to Mercer County Nov.22,2002); complaint, briefs, press releases, etc. on Lambda Legal site:

Seidenstein, Robert G., "Gay-marriage supporters eye history of high court," New Jersey Lawyer, 11:1263 (July 8, 2002)

Gourvitz, Elliot H. & Ari H., "Why New Jersey is a friendly forum for gay marriage", New Jersey Law Journal, 169:465-467 (Aug.5, 2002) (Sec.3, Family Law supp., p.S-1 to S-3)

Assembly Bill No. 3762, introduced June 9, 2003,, to establish civil unions.

Lewis v. Harris, No. MER-L-15-03 (Law Division, Nov.5, 2003) (Judge Feinberg's opinion dismissing the suit.) Opinion at Rutgers-Newark Law Library site:

Badgett, M. V. Lee, & R. Bradley Sears, Supporting Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jersey's Family Equity Act, (Nov. 2003), available at: (Williams Project, UCLA School of Law).

"Domestic Partnerships Act." P.L. 2003, c.246, Assembly Bill No. 3743 (Second Reprint), approved Jan.12, 2004. Primarily codified at N.J.S. 26:8A-1 to -12. Text: History: Assembly Bill No. 3743, introduced June 5, 2003 (under title "Family Equality Act"). Companion bill "Domestic Partnerships Act," Senate Bill No. 2820, introduced Dec.5, 2003. A3743 amended and passed by Assembly Dec.15,2003, passed Senate Jan.8, 2004.

Assembly Bill No. 1398, in 2006-07 session; previously Senate Bill No. 1148,, introduced Feb.24,2004 by Senator Cardinale, would declare same-sex marriages void and deny recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Companion bill A460. (Previously Assembly Bill No. 1765 and Senate Bill No.1047, introduced Feb.4,2002.)

Statement of Attorney General Peter C. Harvey on Same Sex Marriage Issue, March 9, 2004,

ACLJ Files Suit Against Asbury Park, New Jersey to Stop Same-Sex Marriage, March 15, 2004 (American Center for Law and Justice, press release),

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 134 and Senate Concurrent Resolution No.79 in 2006-07,; previously: Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 212, introduced Jan.10,2005,, would add this language to the State Constitution: "Marriage is solely between a man and a woman unless the Legislature otherwise provides."

Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair, No. 007682-2004 (N.J. Tax Court, March 15, 2005), on Rutgers-Newark website at Although declining to recognize plaintiffs' Canadian marriage or to grant them rights pursuant to their Vermont civil union, the Tax Court held that within the intent of the N.J. Domestic Partnership Act, for the purpose of the disabled veteran's exemption, plaintiffs' ownership interest in property would be treated "in the same fashion as is 'accorded to married couples.'"

Suzanne B. Goldberg, "Marriage Equality in New Jersey?" New Jersey Lawyer, No.233 (April 2005) p.35-38.

Lewis v. Harris, 378 N.J.Super.168, 875 A.2d 259 (N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division, June 14, 2005), at In a two-to-one decision, with the majority opinion invoking historical tradition and prevailing religious and societal views, the Appellate Division denied the existence of a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

Lewis v. Harris, No. A-68-05, Oral Argument at N.J. Supreme Court, Feb. 15, 2006, video viewable at

Editorial: "In Favor of Same-Sex Marriage," New Jersey Law Journal, 183:906 (March 13, 2006)

Badgett, M. V. Lee, R. Bradley Sears, & Deborah Ho, "Supporting Families, Saving Funds: An Economic Analysis of Equality for Same-Sex Couples in New Jersey," Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4(1): 8-93 (Fall 2006),

Lewis v. Harris, No. A-68-05 (N.J.Supreme Court, October 25, 2006), available on Rutgers-Newark Law Library website at . Held that the equal protection clause of the state constitution required that committed same-sex couples be given on an equal basis the same rights and privileges given to opposite-sex couples by virtue of civil marriage, but that the constitution did not require that same-sex couples were entitled to a relationship officially designated as "marriage." Gave the Legislature 180 days to either amend the marriage statutes or enact another statutory scheme to accomplish equality of rights and privileges. Three justices concurred in the equal rights holding, but dissented with respect to the denial of entitlement to civil marriage as such.

N.J. Assembly bill No.3685, introduced Nov.20, 2006, "Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act,", would extend civil marriage to same-sex couples.

N.J. Assembly bill No.3787, introduced Dec.4, 2006, "Civil Union Act," and companion Senate bill No.2407.

Civil Union Act, Laws of New Jersey 2006, chapter 103 (approved Dec.21,2006), advance law at and .PDF. Became effective February 19, 2007.

Attorney General, Formal Opinion No.1 - 2007, "Re: Whether Public Officials and Religious Figures May Decline to Exercise their Authority to Solemnize Civil Unions" (January 10,2007), Advises that public officials who elect to be available generally to solemnize marriages must also be available generally to solemnize civil unions, but that the same is not true of religious figures.

>Attorney General, Formal Opinion No.3 - 2007, "Recognition in New Jersey of Same-Sex Marriages, Civil Unioins, Domestic Partnerships, and Other Government-Sanctioned Same-Sex Relationships Established Pursuant to the Laws of Other States and Foreign Nations" (February 16, 2007), Advises that same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of Massachusetts or of foreign nations are valid and treated as civil unions in New Jersey.

N.J. Assembly Bill No.648 [Jan.8, 2008],, would prohibit same-sex marriages and their recognition in New Jersey.

N.J. Assembly Bill No. 818 [Jan.8, 2008],, would permit same-sex marriages.

First Interim Report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, February 19, 2008,

N.J. Assembly Bill No. 2978 (introduced June 16, 2008),, and N.J. Senate Bill No. 1967 (First Reprint) (as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee, Dec. 7, 2009), ("Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriages Act")

The Legal, Medical, Economic & Social Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Law: Final Report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, December 10, 2008,

Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion in Aid of Litigants' Rights, Lewis v. Harris, N.J. Supreme Court Docket No. 58,389 (March 18, 2010),

Order (denying motion in aid of litigants' rights), Lewis v. Harris, No. M-949 (July 26, 2010), dissent by Justice Long).

Garden State Equality v. Dow, Complaint, N.J. Superior Court, Mercer County, filed June 29, 2011,

New Jersey Assembly bill No.1, introduced Jan. 17,2012,

N.J. Assembly Judiciary Committee Statement to Assembly, No.1, Feb.2, 2012,

N.J. Senate bill No.1, introduced Jan.10, 2012,, passed Senate Feb.13 and Assembly Feb.16.

N.J. Governor's Conditional Veto of Senate Bill No.1, February 21, 2012,

>Garden State Equality v. Dow, No. L-1729-11 (Law Division, N.J. Superior Court, Sept. 27, 2013), held that same-sex couples must be permitted to marry, starting Oct. 21, 2013; motion to stay denied, No. M-208 (N.J. Supreme Court,Oct.18, 2013),


Griego v. Oliver, No. 34,306 (N.Mex. Supreme Court, Dec.19,2013),,306.pdf, ruled that civil marriage must be extended to same-gender couples.


[jump to most recent item]

Marriage Equality New York

Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committees on Lesbians and Gay Men in the Profession, Civil Rights, and Sex and Law, "Same-Sex Marriage in New York," Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 52:343-366 (April 1997).

"Marriage: Winning and Keeping the Freedom to Marry Nationally and in New York" (panel discussion), Fordham Urban Law Journal, 27:332-347 (Dec.1999)

Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committees on Lesbian and Gay Rights, Sex and Law, and Civil Rights, "Marriage Rights for Same- Sex Couples in New York," Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 56:170-203 (Spring 2001)

Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of N.Y., 196 Misc.2d 440, 765 N.Y.S.2d 411 (Sup.Ct., Apr.10,2003). The New York court recognized a Vermont civil union for purposes of wrongful death benefits to the surviving partner. Case is on appeal.

N.Y. Attorney General Informal Opinion No. 2004-1,, states that same-sex marriages are not authorized under New York law, but that this interpretation of the statute raises constitutional questions that will need to be resolved by the courts; and that New York presumptively will recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Hernandez v. Robles (Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, lawsuit challenging New York's ban on same sex marriage): Complaint (Mar. 24, 2004), briefs, etc. on Lambda Legal site at

Hernandez v. Robles, 7 Misc.3d 459, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579 (New York Supreme Court, Feb. 4, 2005). Judge Doris Ling-Cohan held that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples under New York's Domestic Relations Law violated the state constitution, and that to cure the constitutional defect the gender-specific words and personal pronouns in that law would be construed gender-neutrally. Reversed by Appellate Division, Dec. 8, 2005, opinion at 26 A.D.3d 98, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354,

Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, 29 A.D.3d 9, 811 N.Y.S.2d 136, 2006 NY Slip Op 01213 (App.Div. 3d Dept. Feb.16,2006), and Seymour v. Holcomb, 7 Misc.3d 530, 790 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Feb.23, 2005), affirmed, 26 A.D. 3d 661, 811 N.Y.S.2d 134, 2006 NY Slip Op 01215 (Appellate Division, Feb.16, 2006). Both cases upheld restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and both were affirmed by:

Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, July 6, 2006), Upheld New York's opposite-sex definition of marriage against constitutional challenge. The decision was 4 to 2, with a dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.

Mitchell, John B. "Chatting With the Lady in the Grocery Store about Hernandez v. Robles, the New York Same-Sex Marriage Case," Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 6:255-288 (2007).

Martinez v. County of Monroe, 50 A.D. 3d 189, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App.Div. 4th Dept., Feb.1, 2008),, held that Canadian same-sex marriage was entitled to recognition in New York, so long as there was no New York legislation prohibiting such recognition.

Memorandum, To: All Agency Counsel, From: David Nocenti [Governor's Counsel], Date: May 14, 2008, Re: Martinez decision on same-sex marriages, text included in: "Paterson's Message on Same-Sex Marriage," New York Observer, May 29, 2008. Directs state agencies to construe regulations and policy statements so as to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

Arthur S. Leonard, "New York Recognition of a Legal Status for Same-Sex Couples: A Rapidly Developing Story," New York Law School Law Review, 54:479-492 (2009/10)

>Marriage Equality Act, New York Laws of 2011, Chapter 95 (Assembly Bill No. 8354),, enacted June 24, 2011, effective 30 days after enactment.


Wallace, E. Gregory, "The Sky Didn't Fall: The Meaning and Legal Effects of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment," American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 22:1-45 (2014)


Revised Code of Ohio §3101.01(C). Substitute House Bill 272, signed into law Feb.6,2004. The Legislative Service Commission's Bill Analysis says this law

  • >Declares that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio and have no legal force or effect in this state
  • >Provides that same-sex marriages entered into in another jurisdiction have no legal force or effect in Ohio.
  • >Declares that the recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio.
  • >Provides that any other jurisdiction's extension of the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes has no legal force or effect in Ohio.

Full text of the bill is available at


Duncan, William C. & David Orgon Coolidge, "Marriage and Democracy in Oregon: The Meaning and Implications of Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University," Willamette Law Review, 36:503-548 (2000)

Attorney General's Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, March 12, 2004, Concluded that Oregon's highest court would probably find that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution.

Ballot Measure 36, adopted Nov. 2004, effective Dec.2,2004: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Ore. 376, 110 P.3d 91 (Supreme Court of Oregon, April 14, 2005), Nullified as ultra vires same-sex marriage licenses that had been issued in Multnomah County.

A Selection... (cont.)


Cohon, Maureen B., "Where the Rainbow Ends: Trying to Find a Pot of Gold for Same-Sex Couples in Pennsylvania," Duquesne Law Review, 41: 495-512 (2003).


Rhode Island Attorney General's statement, May 17,2004, available on Providence Journal and quoted at, suggested that Massachusetts same-sex marriages would be recognized as marriages in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island Attorney General's Opinion, Feb. 20, 2007, addressed to Commissioner of Rhose Island Board of Governors of Higher Education, advised that Massachusetts same-sex marriages would be recognized as marriages in Rhode Island.

Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 957 (R.I. Dec.7, 2007), The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a three-to-two decision, held that the Rhode Island Family Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the divorce case of a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts.

H.B. 5015 Substitute B,, approved May 2, 2013, allowing same-sex marriage.


Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-CV-217 (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Dec.20, 2013),, held that Utah's constitutional limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the United States Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court issued order Jan.6, 2014, staying this decision pending appeal to Tenth Circuit.


[jump to most recent item]

Vermont Secretary of State, "The Vermont Guide to Civil Unions,"

 Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864, 81 A.L.R.5th 627 (Vt.1999) (reprinted at 25 Vt.L.Rev. 285 and available at The Vermont Supreme Court held that the State was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

Vermont Civil Union Act, Act No.91 (April 26,2000),, primarily codified at Vermont Statutes Title 15, Chapter 23 (§§1201-1207)

"A Symposium on Vermont's Civil Unions," Vermont Law Review, 25:1-283 (Fall 2000) (eight articles)

Strasser, Mark, "Equal Protection at The Crossroads: On Baker, Common Benefits and Facial Neutrality," Arizona Law Review, 42:935-963 (2000)

Strasser, Mark, "Mission Impossible: On Baker, Equal Benefits, and the Imposition of Stigma," William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 9:1-27 (Dec.2000)

Culhane, John G., "A Tale of Two Concurrences: Same-Sex Marriage and Products Liability," William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law, 7:447-471 (2001)

Robinson, Beth, "The Road to Inclusion for Same-Sex Couples: Lessons from Vermont," Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 11:237-257 (Spring 2001)

Jacobi, Tonja, "Same Sex Marriage in Vermont: Implications of Legislative Remand for the Judiciary's Role," Vermont Law Review, 26:381-406 (2002).

Symposium, "Civil Unions in Vermont: Where to Go From Here?" Widener Journal of Public Law, 11:361-514 (2002) (four articles)

Vermont Civil Union Review Commission: main page,; 2002 report,

Moats, David, Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage (Harcourt, 2004)

>Vermont Senate Bill No. 115, (enacted over Governor's veto, Apr 7, 2009), provides for civil marriage to be open to same-sex couples, effective September 1, 2009. It includes provisions allowing fraternal benefit societies to deny membership and coverage to same-sex couples, and allowing clergy and religious societies to discriminate in provision of services related to marriage ceremonies.


Anderson v. Sims, Complaint to redress the denial of the basic civil right to marry, filed Mar,2004 in Superior Court of Washington for King County, and other documents in case, available at

Anderson v. King County, No.04-02-04964-4SEa (Washington Superior Ct., King County, August 4,2004), opinion available at Judge William L. Downing held that denial to plaintiffs of right to marry violated the privileges or immunities clause of the Washington state constitution, as well as constituting a denial of substantive due process. By agreement, the matter was stayed pending review by the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the decision on July 26, 2006.

Castle v. State of Washington, Complaint, April 1, 2004, Civil Liberties Union)

Castle v. State of Washington, No. 04-2-00614-4, Memorandum Opinion on Constitutionality of RCW 26.02.010 and RCW 26.02.020 (Wash. Superior Ct., Thurston County, Sept.7,2004), available on court website at Judge Richard D. Hicks held that the ban on same-sex marriages violated the privileges or immunities clause of the state constitution. Reversed by:

Anderson v. Kings County, 138 P.3d 963 (Washington Supreme Court, July 26, 2006), majority opinion at and at Upheld limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. Two concurring and three dissenting opinions are available as separate documents on the court website,

Laws of 2012, Chapter 3 (Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239), approved Feb. 13, 2012, effective June 7, 2012, Allows same-sex marriage.

[Back to Top]