MAY 17, 2006 MARKED THE TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES IN MASSACHUSETTS! CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OVER 8,000 SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO HAVE MARRIED SINCE THEN!  HRC's Wedding Photo Slideshow

LATEST BREAKING NEWS

GENERAL NEWS

STATE-BY-STATE NEWS

SAME-SEX WEDDING & MARRIAGE RESOURCES

*Updates to Latest Breaking News & State-by-State News (New Jersey) on December 22, 2006

DON'T MISS THE NEXT RAINBOW WEDDING NETWORK SAME-SEX WEDDING EXPO:

"Same Love, Same Rights"™
A Gay and Lesbian Wedding Expo

Atlanta, GA- Sunday, February 25, 2007

Cambridge, MA- Sunday, April 1, 2007

Visit the new Rainbow Wedding Expo site for full details!

LATEST BREAKING NEWS 

DECEMBER 22, 2006

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine Signs Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Unions-(FOX News) New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine on Thursday, December 21st, signed a civil unions law giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities- but not the title- of marriage. The law makes New Jersey the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer same-sex couples some version of marriage. Connecticut and Vermont allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry; California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights. "We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Corzine said. About 150 people attended the bill signing. The New Jersey law takes effect Feb. 19. Same-sex couples seeking civil unions will have to wait for three days for a ceremony to take place after registering their plans with local officials. That is the same waiting period for couples seeking marriage licenses. Once joined in civil union, gay couples will enjoy adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making and alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court. 

OCTOBER  25, 2006

New Jersey to Recognize Same-Sex Couples- This afternoon, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature must offer the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples that married couples currently receive. This ruling came after seven same-sex couples filed suit against the state when they were denied marriage licenses. This decision reflects the fair-minded values of New Jersey, where polls show that a majority of citizens supports marriage equality.

OCTOBER 5, 2006

California Appeals Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban-  (Gay.com) A state appeals court upheld California's ban on gay marriage Thursday, a critical defeat for a movement hungry for a win after similar losses in two other states. In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state's attorney general, who argued it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. "We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class," the court said in a 2-1 decision. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat," the court held. The justices, in their 128-page opinion, noted that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gay men and lesbians because of the state's strong domestic partner law, which gives registered couples most of the same rights as married spouses in California. The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California. Marriage advocates said beforehand that they would appeal to the California Supreme Court if the intermediate court did not decide in their favor.

SEE THE HRC TV AD CAMPAIGN FEATURING DICK CHENEY SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF HIS LESBIAN DAUGHTER & AGAINST THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. THE AD IS CALLED "WHAT IF IT WERE YOUR CHILD, MR. PRESIDENT?" IT AIRED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AND NEW YORK, NY AREAS DURING THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. (1.44 MB, 31 second commercial)

What if it was a "gay world"? What if heterosexual couples were denied marriage and the rights that go along with it? CLICK HERE to see HRC's Million For Marriage TV Ad. (2MB-you must have Flashplayer) To see other gay family ads, GO HERE.

Jump To:   GENERAL NEWS   STATE BY STATE NEWS   SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RESOURCES

GAY MARRIAGE GENERAL NEWS

 

JULY 18, 2006

House Rejects Bush-Backed Bid To Ban Gay Marriage- (Ferraro-Reuters) The Republican-led House of Representatives on Tuesday failed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but forced Democrats to stake out a position on the divisive issue before U.S. congressional elections. The vote to approve the measure backed by President George W. Bush was 236-187, 46 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed. Most Republican lawmakers voted for it and most Democrats against. The religious right and other social conservatives vow to make same-sex marriage an issue in the November elections when control of the Republican-led U.S. Congress will be at stake. With polls showing broad discontent with lawmakers, Democrats have accused Republicans of pushing hot-button issues like this one to try to rally their conservative base and divert attention from other matters like the Iraq war. Last month, the Senate rejected constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and outlaw burning the American flag. "This is about the Republican majority- once again- trying to divide and polarize the nation," said Democratic Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the only state to fully recognize same-sex marriage and where about 8,000 gay couples have wed since 2004. The White House said in a statement backers were forced to take the action to try to stop "activist judges" from redefining traditional marriage. "The administration believes that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few," the White House said. According to a June poll by the Pew Research Center, 55 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, down from 60 percent in August 2004. The survey also found that Americans rank many issues as more important, including the economy, war on terror, health care and education. The House defeated the same proposal in 2004 on a vote of 227-186, and proponents said they were encouraged they gained ground this year. "We knew from the beginning that this was going to take time," said Tom McClusky, a lobbyist with the conservative Family Research Council. To become law, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then be ratified by three quarters of the states. Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. The 1996 U.S. Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. In recent years, state judges have struck down five state gay-marriage bans, though three were reinstated on appeal. There are now court challenges in six states. While Massachusetts fully recognizes same-sex marriage, six other states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex couples some legal protections.

JULY 14, 2006

Nebraska, Tennessee Courts Rule Against Same-Sex Marriage- (Gay.com-Kevin O'Hanlon Associated Press, Ann Rostow of the PlanetOut Network contributed to this story) Same-sex marriage opponents won two major court rulings, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissing an effort to keep a proposed ban off the November ballot. In the Nebraska case, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a judge's ruling last year that the ban was too broad and deprived gay men and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things. The amendment "and other 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," the appeals court ruled. Seventy percent of Nebraska voters had approved the ban in 2000. The Nebraska amendment went further than similar bans in many states in that it barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. For example, the partners of gay men and lesbians who work for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other benefits. In the Tennessee case, the ACLU had filed a lawsuit charging that the state failed to meet its own notification requirements for the ballot measure asking voters to ban same-sex marriage. The high court ruled unanimously Friday that the ACLU didn't have standing to file the suit and dismissed it. Tennessee already has a law banning same-sex marriage, but lawmakers who supported the proposed amendment said they wanted a backup in case the law was overturned. The ACLU argued that the legislature failed to meet a deadline for publicizing the proposed measure, which was supposed to have been published six months before the election of the incoming legislature. Under state law, a constitutional amendment must win support from two legislatures in a row before advancing to a public vote. The marriage amendment was first passed in May 2004 and officially published June 20, some four and a half months prior to the election. It won passage in March 2005, and was placed on the November 2006 ballot. The ACLU sued in April 2005 on behalf of its members, along with several gay and lesbian citizens, the Tennessee Equality Project, and four state legislators. In February, a lower court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, but went on to rule as well that the amendment drew heavy media attention throughout the spring and that the failure to meet the deadline was not enough to warrant sending the lawmakers back to square one. In a 14-page decision issued Friday, the high court took no position on the missed deadline, ruling only that the plaintiffs had not met two of the key tests that determines who may sue and who may not. Neither the organizations, the lawmakers, or the individuals had demonstrated a real injury arising from the lapsed six weeks. Nor had they had not shown that their injuries were caused by the behavior at issue, the court said. The plaintiffs told the court that the foreshortened notification had hampered their ability to mobilize to defeat the amendment. But testimony indicated that in fact, all the plaintiffs were well aware of the proposal long before the deadline. The citizens also claimed standing based on their status as voters, but the court ruled that their right to vote had not been compromised. "Plaintiffs' sexual orientation and interest in same-gender marriage simply are not relevant to their claim that the Marriage Amendment was not published in accordance with Article XI, section 3," the court wrote.

JULY 6, 2006

Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Marriage Amendment- (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, by Sonji Jacobs) The Georgia Supreme Court's decision Thursday upholding a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage capped a two-year battle that mobilized the gay community, brought conservative voters to the polls in 2004 and threatened to become a politically charged issue in this year's election. The state's highest court unanimously affirmed the constitutional amendment — approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004 — that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Opponents of the measure argued that the ban violated the state constitution's "single-subject rule" because it addressed not only marriage, but also civil unions. But Justice Robert Benham, who was appointed to the court in 1989 by then-Gov. Joe Frank Harris and wrote the short, six-page opinion, refuted that claim. He wrote that the objective of the amendment is "reserving marriage and its attendant benefits to unions of man and woman." He went on to say that the prohibition against civil unions was not "dissimilar and discordant" with that objective. The decision ends the opponents' appeal process on the "single-subject rule" issue. Supporters of the ban, including Gov. Sonny Perdue, hailed the decision. "We don't do a referendum very often," Perdue said. "But when we do a referendum such as a constitutional amendment, I think we need be very respectful of the people's voice and listen to that. I think the Supreme Court has done that, and I'm very grateful for their action." Gay Georgians were disappointed by the court's ruling. "It really does represent a setback for achieving equality," said Tricia Page, 34, of Decatur, who works for Emory University's newborn screening program. "For me it's a very clear civil rights issue. People should have the same protections under the law. Discrimination against gay families clearly violates that principle." Perdue had vowed to call a special session of the General Assembly in August if the high court did not reinstate the ban. He said he planned to ask state lawmakers to craft a new amendment that could withstand judicial scrutiny to be placed on the November general election ballot. Perdue, at a press conference Thursday at the state Capitol, said he was relieved not to have to call the Legislature back to Atlanta this summer. The governor also said that he hoped gay Georgians would not feel marginalized by the decision. "I don't think it demeans gay Georgians in any other way," Perdue said. "They're free to work and live their lives; they're just not free to marry in Georgia." Both gay marriage and civil unions were already illegal in Georgia. Supporters of the amendment said that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the state Constitution would make it harder for judges to overturn the law. What's unclear in Thursday's ruling is if the amendment bans unmarried couples and same-sex couples from receiving any of the benefits given to married men and women, such as health insurance benefits or inheritance rights. Most legal experts said the state Legislature and the court may have to step in to either clarify the law or decide individual cases. "The court's opinion in our judgment does not say the state Legislature is prohibited from giving this or that individual benefit to unmarried persons," said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, a nonprofit group that works to protect traditional marriage. "What the marriage amendment does prohibit is the creation of a marriage-like legal arrangement where all of the benefits of marriage are given to people other than a married man or woman." Chuck Bowen, executive director of Georgia Equality, a political advocacy group dedicated to gay rights, said while he is disappointed with the decision, he is pleased that gay marriage most likely will not be a big election issue this year. "Our families and our lives should never be used to pander for votes," Bowen said. The constitutional amendment banning gay marriage first came before the General Assembly in 2004 and immediately became the most controversial and emotional issue debated by lawmakers that year. After the General Assembly approved the amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia; Lambda Legal, a national gay rights organization; and the Atlanta law firm of Alston and Bird joined forces to file a lawsuit seeking to prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot. The attorneys argued that the ballot language was misleading and that the amendment was not specific to marriage. The court refused to stop the question from appearing on the ballot, and an overwhelming majority of Georgia voters gave the ban their approval. The attorneys then teamed up again, challenging the amendment in a trial court on the same grounds. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell created a political firestorm when she threw out the ban in May, agreeing with opponents that the ban was unconstitutional. "Today's decision by the Supreme Court was the correct one," state Attorney General Thurbert Baker said in a statement. "The people of Georgia overwhelmingly ratified the constitutional amendment stating that marriage should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. I am pleased with the court's ruling respecting the voters' choice."

New York's High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban- (NPR, AP) New York's highest court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of gay marriage, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said state law violates their constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote. The New York ruling is part of an evolving mosaic on the volatile issue nationwide. Just hours after the New York decision, Georgia's top court reinstated that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. And high courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts. But 45 states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right," since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition." "It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady. "My family deserves the same protections as my next-door neighbors." Burke and her partner of seven years, Tonja Alvis, are raising her 11-year-old son. Gov. George Pataki's health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office had argued that New York law prohibits issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts. "I am satisfied that today's decision by the state's highest court to uphold our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is the right one," Pataki, a Republican, said in a statement. "I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage." The judges declined to follow the lead of high-court judges in neighboring Massachusetts, who ruled that same-sex couples in that state have the same right to wed as straight couples. The four cases decided Thursday were filed two years ago when the Massachusetts decision helped usher in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco. In New York, the mayor of the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz married about two dozen gay couples in February 2004. With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs in the suits, including the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell -Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell- and his longtime partner. Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law. "We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us." In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers. She noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee. "This state has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the court today retreats from that proud tradition," she wrote. "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." Attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued on behalf of 13 couples in one of the cases, said the court's decision leaves her clients with nowhere to go but the Legislature. Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group, said his organization would immediately begin a campaign to press Albany to pass a gay-marriage bill in 2007. Spitzer, a Democrat leading in recent polls in the governor's race, has said he favors legalizing gay marriage. Judge Albert Rosenblatt, whose daughter has advocated for same-sex couples in California, did not take part in the decision.

JUNE 7, 2006

Federal Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down Again!- The Senate again struck down the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that would have written discrimination against the Gay & Lesbian Community into the Constitution of the United States of America. From CNN: Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment. The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate, or invoke cloture. House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the same-sex marriage amendment will come before that body next month, The Associated Press reported. "This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner said. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote." Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar. "This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here." Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval." And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country." "This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said. The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon. Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority- 67 votes- would be required for final approval by the Senate of a constitutional amendment- an even higher hurdle to overcome. The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed. Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states. To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members); at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members); and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states). A constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the states can also propose an amendment, which would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been suggested by a constitutional convention.

 

FEBRUARY 4, 2006

BID IN MARYLAND HOUSE TO SAVE GAY MARRIAGE BAN FAILS!- (Feb. 4, Washington Post)- Republicans tried to revive a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the floor the Maryland House of Delegates yesterday, but Democrats squelched that move after giving their GOP colleagues and moderates within their own ranks a chance to speak out for traditional marriage. The House spent nearly an hour debating whether to reverse Thursday's committee vote rejecting a bill that would have let Maryland voters decide whether marriage should join only men and women. Republicans conceded that yesterday's procedural vote all but ended their campaign to put the constitutional amendment on the November ballot. They could still take up the issue in the Senate. But traditionally, defeat in one chamber has precluded any serious consideration or vote in the other. The proposal, a perennial in the General Assembly, has drawn unusual attention this year because of a Baltimore Circuit Court ruling two weeks ago that the state's 33-year-old law banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Although that ruling was stayed, pending appeal, Republicans said the legislature needed to intervene. See full story

DECEMBER 21, 2005

ELTON JOHN GETS MARRIED!- (Dec. 21, Yahoo) Elton John and his male partner of 12 years, David Furnish, were officially married in a small ceremony at the U.K.'s Windsor Guildhall the same day legislation went into effect legalizing civil partnerships in England and Wales. See full story

OCTOBER 1, 2005

CONNECTICUT CIVIL UNION LAWS NOW ON THE BOOKS!- As of Saturday, October 1st, same-sex couples will be able to enter into legal civil unions, recognized by the state of Connecticut. The gay and lesbian couples will receive all the same state rights and privileges granted to married couples. Connecticut is the first state to enact a civil unions system without threat of court action. Though that news is good, the same law also states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOS HISTORY-MAKING GAY MARRIAGE BILL! - (Sept. 29, MTV.com) As promised, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed California's same-sex marriage bill on Thursday, Sept. 29th. Explaining his action- which came on a day in which he rejected 51 other bills as well- Schwarzenegger wrote that he believed gay couples were entitled to "full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against," but that he believed the bill would have reversed a 2000 ballot measure that declared that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legal in California. The same-sex marriage bill- which squeaked by in the State Senate and Assembly earlier this month with no Republican votes- was the first in the country that legalized gay marriage using the power of the legislature without a court order and would have made longer history had it not been vetoed. Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, the sponsor of the bill, accused the Governor of "hiding behind the fig leaf" of the 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, according to the Los Angeles Times. That measure was approved by 61 percent of voters, but recent polls have suggested that Californians are now almost evenly divided on the issue. See full story

JULY 20, 2005

CANADA BECOMES FOURTH COUNTRY TO LEGALIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!- (July 20, Edmonton Sun, update to story below) Canada's Senate passed the Same-Sex Marriage Bill late Tuesday night, July 19, by a vote of 47-21, thus making same-sex marriage legal nationwide in Canada! Canada has now become the 4th country to legalize same-sex marriage behing Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium. Same-sex couples can go anywhere in those countries to be legally married, not just one state or providence as it is here in the USA. The USA is suppose to be "the land of the free" with "equal rights for everyone" so when are they going to follow suit and make it legal nationwide here?! See the full story on Canada from the Edomonton Sun.

JUNE 30, 2005

CANADA OKs GAY MARRIAGE!- (June 30, Toronto)- Canada’s House of Commons passed landmark legislation Tuesday, June 21st, to legalize gay marriage, granting same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional unions between a man and a woman. The bill passed as expected, despite opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority Liberal Party government was also expected to easily pass the Senate and become federal law by the end of July making Canada the 3rd country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two nations that allow gay marriage nationwide. Some of Martin’s Liberal lawmakers voted against the bill and a Cabinet minister resigned Tuesday over the legislation. But enough allies rallied to support the bill that has been debated for months, voting 158 to 133 to approve it. Martin praised Tuesday’s vote as a necessary step for human rights. "We are a nation of minorities," Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don’t cherry-pick rights." There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics. Before the measure passed, gay marriage was legal in seven provinces. Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which has led the debate in favor of the law, was triumphant after the vote: "The genius of Canada, almost unparalleled in the world, is built on shared identity, out of respect for each other." Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone’s personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage. According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions. Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., said same-sex American couples applaud Canadians. "We know that it has been somewhat contentious in Canada, but at the same time the Canadians have largely approached this issue in a rational and democratic way and are providing a very positive model for the rest of the world," Sklar said. Though hundreds of foreigners have come to Canada to seek civil ceremonies since gay marriages were first allowed in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, not all countries or states recognize the unions. While a slew of Israeli men were married in Toronto City Hall earlier this year, for example, the Israeli Interior Ministry does not recognize those unions. In the United States, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage and most states refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates from gay and lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed.

SPAIN LEGALIZES GAY MARRIAGE- (June 30, CNN)- Spain became the 3rd country to legalize same-sex marriage today, following The Netherlands and Belgium. It's legal nationwide, not just in one state or providence. See the full CNN story here. 

MAY 17, 2005

ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SAME-SEX LEGISLATION PASSING!- Today is the one year anniversary of legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts! There have been over 5,000 same-sex couples united in holy matrimony since the law was passed last year. Let's hope they are able to stay legally married. As you may well know, the people of Massachusetts could be voting on the matter in 2006! If they vote to ban same-sex marriages, then it will have to be decided what to do about all the couples who married legally. My guess is that at the same time they ban same-sex marriages, they will legalize civil unions and "reduce" all of the couples who were legally married down to civil unions! Let's hope that doesn't happen. See the HRC's Wedding Photo Slideshow

APRIL 25, 2005

TEXAS HOUSE APPROVES GAY MARRIAGE BAN!- (from 365Gay.com, April 25) Same-sex couples in Texas would be banned from marriage under a constitutional amendment House lawmakers approved Monday, April 25th. The measure, sponsored by Republican Rep. Warren Chisum of Pampa, aims to stem possible court challenges to an existing Texas law making same-sex marriages illegal. It passed with a vote of 101-29, more than the 100 needed for approval of a constitutional amendment in the House. The measure still must win approval in the Senate and from Texas voters to become part of the state constitution. The smattering of Democrats who opposed the measure said it would constitutionalize discrimination. "This amendment is blowing smoke to fuel the hell fire flames of bigotry," said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston. The debate comes less than a week after House members approved a measure that would ban same-sex couples from becoming foster parents. Gay and lesbian rights advocates criticized both measures, saying the Legislature needs to prioritize building up Texas families with public education and social services, rather than discriminating against the state's 43,000 gay couples. "What they're doing really flies in face of family values," said Heath Riddles, Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas spokesman. The marriage ban, Riddles said, would also hurt unmarried heterosexual couples, making it difficult for them to enter into end-of-life contractual agreements or give a partner power of attorney. Chisum added a measure he said is meant to give gay and straight Texans the same contractual rights they currently have. It allows private contracts for guardianship, hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and property ownership. "It doesn't change anything that anybody can do today," Chisum said, addressing questions about whether the amendment could curtail heterosexual common law marriages. Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, called the measure the "Chisum gay tax", saying it would make homosexual couples spend thousands on attorneys fees to obtain contracts for rights afforded to married heterosexuals. If the amendment is approved by voters, Texas would join 14 states, including Oklahoma, Montana and Louisiana, that statutorily and constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. Nationally, President Bush supports conservative advocacy groups pushing for congressional approval of a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The measure, which would need ratification by 38 states, last year failed to win the necessary two-thirds support in the U.S. House and Senate. Chisum has said he hopes the constitutional amendment in Texas would send a message to Congress that Texans support a similar amendment on the federal level. Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick voted for the ban. He abstains from voting on most bills. For the ban to be incorporated in the Texas Constitution, it must next be approved by 21 of 31 senators. Chisum said no senator has agreed to sponsor the bill in the upper chamber. If approved by the Legislature, the ban must also be approved by a majority of Texas voters November 8th.

APRIL 20, 2005

CONNECTICUT BANS MARRIAGE BUT APPROVES CIVIL UNIONS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES- On April 20, 2005 the Connecticut State Senate approved Civil Unions for same-sex couples. Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the bill about an hour after it was approved 26-8 by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The law, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2005 includes an amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions are reserved only for same-sex couples.

DECEMBER 3, 2004  Updated April 15, 2005

OREGON BANS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!- Oregon's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment was added to their Constitution and went into effect on December 2, 2004. They are now trying to decide rather the 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples before the vote on November 2nd are legal or not. See Full Story Here UPDATE: (from Xinhuanet.com, April 15) On Thursday, April 14, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples a year ago, saying they ran counter to state matrimonial law. The court said Multnomah County, which includes Portland and is Oregon's most populous county, had violated the state constitution's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the high court said in its unanimous ruling. The court said state law bans gay marriage. It also noted that Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment last November that even more explicitly prohibits the practice. The licenses issued in left-leaning Multnomah County "were issued without authority and were void at the time they were issued," said Oregon's Supreme Court in its ruling. Multnomah County, which includes much of Portland, began issuing marriage licenses for gay couples last April. Its county commissioners argue that not doing so would violate Oregon's constitution. A judge stopped the practice about six weeks later, but by then nearly 3,000 gay couples had wed.

MARCH 3, 2005 Updated April 14, 2005

SOUTH CAROLINA DEBATES GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT- As of the week of February 28, 2005 the SC House has begun debating rather to add an amendment to the State Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus banning same-sex marriages. SC already has laws in place banning same-sex marriage but now the homophobes want to add it to the constitution. It is expected to pass the House with flying colors (of course, what else would you expect in SC) but could be held up in the Senate thanks to Senator Robert Ford. "I'm not going to let others trample on the rights of gays and lesbians,'' said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that will take up the proposed amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate, the signature of Gov. Mark Sanford and a simple majority vote of the people. If it makes it to the people it would be voted on in 2006. Sadly, twenty-three other states are now in the process of doing the same thing! Read the article about Senator Ford UPDATES: Unfortunately, but as expected, the amendment proposition did pass the SC House with flying colors by a vote of 96-3! As of April 6th, the Senate is debating on and expected to pass the amendment also. Sadly, on April 13th, the Senate passed the proposed amendment by a vote of 37-1! Democratic Senator Robert Ford was the only one to vote against it. Now it has to be signed by Governor Mark Sanford and then be voted on by the people of SC in 2006. Trust me, it will pass with flying colors here in SC!

MARCH 25, 2005  Updated April 6, 2005

KANSAS UNDER ATTACK-On April 5, 2005, Kansans will vote on whether or not to amend their state constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples. The so-called "marriage amendment" is one of the most far-reaching amendments that would deny all unmarried couples any of the benefits and protections of marriage. In other words, there could be no "domestic partner" benefits that would give you the same benefits of marriage. For more info, visit Equality Kansas, who is fighting this amendment. UPDATE: Sadly, voters in Kansas overwhelmingly approved the constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying OR entering into civil unions on Tuesday, April 5th. 71% voted "Yes" and 29% "No". Kansas became the 18th state with such a prohibition to it's constitution.  Voter's failed to take in the information given to them that this could have consequences to domestic partner benefits for both gay and straight unmarried couples.

MARCH 15, 2005  Updated April 4, 2005

RULING BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE!- (from Earthlink News & The AP) A judge has opened the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot, but both sides in the debate predict a vigorous court fight first. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before." Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws. Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage. "Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. UPDATE: On March 31, 2005, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer issued an official "stay" of all same-sex marriages until all appeals of his earlier ruling (see above) have run their course. This means that no same-sex couples can marry until all of the appeals have run out. It could be years before the appeals go through all the courts and make it to the Supreme Court!

MARCH 23, 2005

INDIANA HOUSE APPROVES GAY MARRIAGE BAN!- (from Mary Beth Schneider at IndyStar.com)- Sadly, the first chapter in the controversial effort to change Indiana's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage ended Tuesday, March 22nd with the state House of Representatives voting overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment. All 52 Republicans supported the measure and were joined by 24 Democrats. The 76-23 vote came after more than an hour of emotional, but resigned, debate from supporters and opponents. The issue is now over for at least this year. For the amendment to become part of the constitution, the legislature elected in November 2006 must again debate and approve the measure. After that, the public will have the final say, as voters must approve the change. The earliest that can happen is on the general election ballot in November 2008. Many Democrats called the proposed amendment a vote to discriminate. "Today will go down as a day of shame in the history of the General Assembly," said Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis. The public, he said, may not remember other bills lawmakers pass this year. But, he said, "they will not forget we wrote second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians into the constitution."

MARCH 19, 2005

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT REINTRODUCED IN HOUSE!- (from 365Gay.com) An amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage has now been reintroduced in the House. The measure was put forward by California Republican Representative Dan Lungren after being outraged by CA Judge Kramer's ruling in favor of gay marriage (see story under March 15 below). Lungren, a former state attorney general, called the ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer "astonishing" and said that the US constitution needs to be amended to prevent courts throughout the country from ruling on gay marriage. The proposed amendment  would bar same-sex marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Lungren's proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States Shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman." "No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman. "No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State." If passed, it would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to single out a group of Americans for unequal treatment! "Americans don't want the Constitution turned into a tool for discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign spokesperson David M. Smith. Amen to that!

JANUARY 15, 2005  UPDATED FEBRUARY 7, 2005

ATTORNEY ARGUES FOR GAY MARRIAGE LICENSES IN NEW YORK- (taken from the Seattle Post- Intelligencer, by William Kates) An attorney for 25 same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses told a judge Friday [January 14th] that New York's opposition to gay marriage is similar to discrimination against women or minorities. Mariette Geldenhuys, an attorney for the couples who sued the city of Ithaca in June, told state Judge Robert Mulvey that the state's position contradicts a 2002 New York law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."The basis of the opposition (to gay marriage) is that it goes against tradition," Geldenhuys argued. "If tradition carried on, we would still have slavery." Jim McGowan, an attorney for the state, argued that the court must follow previous court decisions upholding New York's prohibition against same-sex marriages. The state has prevailed in two similar cases. New York state officials, including Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Gov. George Pataki, have said that same-sex ceremonies violate state law. The Ithaca couples applied for marriage licenses last year but were turned down by the city clerk, who followed a state Health Department advisory against granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The couples sued the city and the state in June. New Paltz Mayor Jason West entered the national debate about same-sex marriage last year when he performed 25 marriages on Feb. 27. He faces misdemeanor charges of solemnizing marriages without a license in the Hudson Valley village. Mulvey is expected to rule within 60 days. UPDATE: NEW YORK JUDGE LIFTS GAY MARRIAGE BAN!- (from FOX NEWS & THE AP) On Friday, February 4th, State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York's trial level court. The couples brought a lawsuit arguing they were denied legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. The judge agreed and said the New York City clerk may not deny a license to any couple solely because the two are of the same sex. The ruling will not take effect for at least 30 days and only if it survives an appeal. The law will be effective only in New York City but could extend statewide if it is upheld by the Court of Appeals in Albany.

JANUARY 25, 2005 Updated February 3, 2005

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT REINTRODUCED!- (from HRC.org) Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) reintroduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) on the Senate floor on Monday, January 24th- making it one of the first items of business in the first full week of President Bush’s second term. In light of the many serious issues that our country is facing, it is absolutely outrageous that a small group of right-wing Senators would make discriminating against GLBT people their TOP priority right now! UPDATE: Now, this so-called Marriage Protection Amendment has 26 co-sponsors in the Senate and there's word that the House of Representatives will be pushing forward their version of the amendment soon! Visit the HRC website for more info and to see how you can take action to make sure this amendment of discrimination doesn't get added to our Constitution!

JANUARY 20, 2005

BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE REINSTATED IN LOUISIANA- (from The AP & USA Today) Sadly, on January 19th the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September. The high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the high court said. The court's ruling puts the amendment in the constitution. "We're obviously delighted," said attorney Michael Johnson, who represented the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the amendment's legality before the Supreme Court. But gay rights activist and state legislative candidate Chris Daigle said the amendment did nothing to strengthen the institution of marriage. "High divorce rates, high adultery rates, poverty, lack of education, parents having to hold more than one job, those are the real threats to marriage," he said. Legislative backers said that although gay marriages are banned by state law, the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize the marriages, as had happened in Massachusetts. In striking down the "defense of marriage" amendment, Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge had ruled that the amendment also prevented the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and heterosexual couples. Six of the justices joined in the majority opinion authored by Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll. The seventh, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero, wrote a concurring opinion. At issue was a provision of the amendment that stated: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized." Opponents had warned that the amendment went far beyond banning gay marriage and would deny contractual rights to all unmarried couples — whether gay or heterosexual — in such areas as owning property, willing it to heirs, and taking legal care of an incapacitated partner. As a result, they contended, the amendment had more than one object, and therefore could not become part of the constitution. But the Supreme Court said the each part of the amendment is "germane to the object of 'defense of marriage.'"

GAY MARRIAGE BAN UPHELD IN INDIANA- (from www.365Gay.com) Sadly, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on January 20th that the state's so-called defense of marriage act is legal."What we decide today is that the Indiana Constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage," the court said in a written ruling, noting that "the Legislature is certainly free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution under that document.'' Three same-sex couples asked the court to set aside a lower court ruling that also upheld the statute. Marion County Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid ruled in May 2003 that the law "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child." Judge Reid also denied a petition to recognize civil unions performed outside the state. The three couples had civil unions in Vermont but under the DOMA they are not recognized in the state. Represented by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union the three couples took the case to the Appeals Court. The ICLU argued that DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts same-sex couples and denies them equality under the law. The Illinois attorney general's office defended the law, saying the courts should respect the decision made by legislators in approving the gay marriage ban. The three couples involved in the case, Teresa Stephens and Ruth Morrison of Indianapolis; David Wene and David Squire of Indianapolis; and Charlotte Egler and Dawn Egler of Hendricks County said they expect the case to be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

JUDGE THROWS OUT SAME-SEX LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA- (from The AP & Earthlink Top News) In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge in Tampa, FL on Wednesday January 19th, upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized there. Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal. "This is a legal shot heard 'round the world," said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. "But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it." Moody sided with Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage "stable relationships" for the rearing of children by both biological parents. The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years who live in Tampa, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages. The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights. But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women. Moody said he could not declare marriage a "fundamental right," as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent. "The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down" the law, Moody wrote. "But, until then, this court is constrained to hold (the law) and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid." Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians, said in a statement she was prepared to take her challenge to the Supreme Court. "Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts," she said. Her partner added: "No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision."

JANUARY 15, 2005

GEORGIA GAY MARRIAGE AMMENDMENT CHALLENGED!- (from www.365Gay.com) The first step began January 14th in what is expected to be a long trek to the Georgia Supreme Court over the legality of last November's vote on amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Gay rights advocates maintain the ballot question was illegal because it contained two issues: one was the issue of same-sex marriage itself, the other a ban on civil unions. Under the Georgia constitution a ballot measure may only deal with one issue, and only the question of marriage was put to voters. An attempt to get the question off the Nov. 2 ballot failed.  The Georgia Supreme Court said that the issue could only be taken up after the election. Friday, gays were back in court arguing the case before Fulton County Superior Judge Constance Russell that voters were misled by not being told the ban would extend to civil unions. Lawyer John Stephenson urged Russell to declare the vote invalid. Stefan Ritter, senior assistant attorney general, told Russell that there was nothing illegal or misleading about the question put to voters. Russell said that the issues of marriage and civil unions were one and the same. A ruling in the case may take some time. Russell said she cannot issue a decision until an appeal is heard over her refusal to allow a conservative group to intervene in the case. The group, that includes several state senators and the state Christian Coalition have gone to the court of appeal. If the court allows the group to enter the case, Russell would have to hear their arguments before making a ruling on the constitutional issue. Even if Russell were to toss out the amendment, gay marriage would still be illegal in Georgia which has a Defense of Marriage Act.

ANTI-MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT INTRODUCED IN NEW JERSEY!- On January 10, 2005, Assembly Member Richard Merkt introduced a resolution (ACR 212) to amend the New Jersey Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and to prohibit marriage rights for same-sex couples unless the state legislature provides otherwise. If you live in Jersey, visit the HRC to send a letter urging your Representative to vote against it!

DECEMBER 9, 2004 UPDATED FEBRUARY 5, 2005

CANADA CLEARS WAY FOR NATIONAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE- The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed gay marriage as a constitutional right protected by their Charter. To date, 28 judges have confirmed same-sex marriage as a right, and with this final opinion, the way is clear for Parliament to finally fulfill its responsibility. Help is on the way for the remaining citizens still living under government discrimination. There are moments in a nation's history that are of such significance, that the event transcends itself and becomes one of the many defining moments in a great nation. Today is one of those moments for Canada. Global National News reports today that that math adds up to establishing Canada at the forefront of human rights for citizens of the world. Robert Fife, Ottawa bureau chief, says that 177 Members of Parliament will pass this bill ("a slam dunk"), 130 would vote to maintain discrimination (and of the 130, included are a dozen or so abstainers). 155 votes would constitute a majority. Bill C-38, "an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes" was introduced in the House of Commons on February 1st. Parliament is now set to debate the Civil Marriage Act. The gay marriage bill impacts only 15% of Canadians who live in an area of Canada that still discriminates against gays and lesbians. This information was taken from the samesexmarriage.ca website. For more information, click here to go to their website.

DECEMBER 7, 2004

NEW YORK TRIAL JUDGE RULES- A second New York trial judge ruled against same-sex marriage today as he was expected to do because trial judges are bound to follow existing precedents established by the state’s appellate courts. No one expects it to be overturned until it gets to the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage cases are also pending in state trial courts in Connecticut, California, and Florida; the New Jersey Appellate Division just heard arguments in Lambda Legal’s same-sex marriage case; and the Washington State Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in March. The Oregon marriage case has been diverted by the passage of an anti-marriage state constitutional amendment, but the ACLU is now pushing that case forward to an argument in the Oregon Supreme Court next week, seeking civil unions or domestic partnerships as an alternative remedy. This information was taken from Gay City News.

NOVEMBER 3, 2004

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN PASSES IN ELEVEN STATES!- Sadly, proposals to add an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriages (by restricting marriage to "between one man and one woman") passed yesterday in all 11 states where it was on the ballot by an overwhelming majority (see My Thoughts below) in each state (3 to 1 in most): Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. So that means an amendment (and discrimination) will be added to each of these state's constitution banning same-sex marriage in the state, including not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. A tiny bit of good news from November 2nd: The citizens of Cincinatti, OH voted overwhelmingly to remove Article XII of the Cinicinatti City Charter which allowed discrimination against gay people, including being able to fire someone, deny public housing and deny service to someone in a store or restaurant just because they were gay. Click Here For More Info

My Thoughts: In most states the vote was seventy-something percent voting to pass these amendments and thirty-something percent voting against them. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee America. The gay population is not the 10% that all of these so-called "statistics" always show. My belief is that most of that thirty-something percent in each of those states IS the gay population and reflects the gay population nationwide. Also, these bans can have a ripple effect that will hurt the gay population in so many ways, including more gay-bashing and domestic partner benefits being taken away from those in states that have them, such as Michigan, reasoning that tax payers should not have to pay for benefits of people who can never marry.

OCTOBER 08, 2004  Updated: October 21

LOUISIANA JUDGE OVERTURNS GAY MARRIAGE BAN!- On Tuesday, October 5, a state judge threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters. District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions. The courts had rejected a similar argument before the Sept. 18 election, saying it was premature. The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban in its session this spring. Louisiana already had a law against gay marriage, but conservatives warned that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could, in theory, one day follow the Massachusetts example. A gay rights group challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of gay marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law. Judge Morvant's decision to overturn the amendment is being appealed. An appeal by the Attorney General's Office was filed with both the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, any law or ordinance found unconstitutional can be taken directly to the state's highest court. If the 1st Circuit gets the case, it would be heard by Wednesday and decided by Thursday, with the appeal at the Supreme Court either Friday or the following Monday. The high court would set its own schedule on hearings. UPDATE: The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Baton Rouge ruled on Oct. 11 that the Supreme Court has purview over the ban, since it involves a constitutional amendment. Then on Oct. 14, the Louisiana Supreme Court set December 1 to hear oral arguments over the legality of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

OCTOBER 1, 2004

The Marriage Protection Amendment failed to pass in the House of Representatives! In a sound defeat, 27 moderate and conservative Republicans joined 158 Democrats and 1 Independent on Thursday, Sept. 30,  in opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment (previously the "Federal Marriage Amendment") on the House Floor. Therefore, the 2/3 vote that is required to pass an amendment was not achieved. Since the discriminatory constitutional amendment was first proposed last February, voters saw the proposal for what it is: a cynical political ploy to distract voters from the enormous foreign policy and domestic challenges facing America. To see how your Representative(s) voted, please visit the House website at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll484.xml 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2004

 Sadly, the state of Louisiana's voters passed an amendment to their State Constitution today banning same-sex marriages AND civil unions. The civil rights group Forum for Equality had already promised legal action against it. John Rawls, a lawyer for the group, said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results. One appeared Saturday, when voting machines were delivered late to some New Orleans precincts. Frances Sims, state director of elections, said at least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened. UPDATE! See October 8th above. A bit of good news today, not in the USA but in Canada: Manitoba became the 4th Providence in Canada to legalize same-sex marriages yesterday when Judge Douglas Yard declared the province's definition of marriage unconstitutional in response to a lawsuit filed by three same-sex couples. Manitoba is the first Providence to legalize same-sex marriage WITHOUT being challanged by the government at all! The definition of marriage there has now been changed to mean the voluntary union for life of two persons. This is the definition it should be in every constitution of truly free countries!!

AUGUST 13, 2004

 SAN FRANCISCO- The California Supreme Court ruled that what Mayor Gavin Newsome did was illegal and thereby made all the same-sex marriages (over 4,000) that were performed illegal. So the judges ruled that all the same-sex marriages were null and void, in other words, are no longer legitimate. The President of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Cheryl Jacques, appeared on the news program Niteline and said that this was only a temporary set back. She basically said the judges had to rule that way because they found what Mayor Newsome did was illegal but she believes when the actual cases and issue of same-sex marriage comes before them that they will find the laws against same-sex marriage unconstitutional and will make same-sex marriage legal.

AUGUST 12, 2004

The California Supreme Court is set to rule today on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority by allowing gay couples to wed earlier this year- and many assume the decision will find he violated state law. What is less clear, however, is how the seven justices will treat thousands of same-sex marriages sanctioned before the court intervened in March. "It appears quite obvious the court is going to rule against the mayor," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "We think that's unfortunate and it's wrong, but of course the more human question is what to do with 4,037 marriage licenses that belong to couples in relationships and with families." Gay rights advocates say the most they can hope for is that the justices will say nothing -- at least for now -- about the validity of the licenses gay couples received at San Francisco City Hall between Feb. 12 and March 11, the day the court issued an injunction halting the wedding spree. The city, as well as several legal groups, sued the state the same day, alleging California's marriage laws- defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman- are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts on May 17, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court. This taken from the Detroit Free Press, click here to see the rest of this news article.

AUGUST 6, 2004

There's some good news and some bad news. First, I'll give the bad news: On Wednesday, August 4th the state of Missouri passed an amendment to their state Constitution banning same-sex marriage! This ban also states that same-sex marriages from other states will NOT be recognized. It is set to take effect on September 2, 2004. What biased prejudiced homophobic idiots! Now all people ARE NOT equal in Missouri. Now for the good news: On that same day, August 4, Judge William L. Downing, a King County (Seattle, WA) Superior Court Judge, ruled that same-sex marriage IS LEGAL in the state of Washington! YEAH! But his decision is stayed until the state Supreme Court reviews the case, meaning no marriage licenses can be issued until then. No word yet on when that will be. Judge Downing saw the couples in the courtroom and he's recognized that they are full and equal citizens of Washington. No more and no less. Washington is one of 38 states with laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Washington state couples challenged the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to one man and one woman. Arguing for the couples, attorney Bradley Bagshaw told Downing at a hearing last month that the act violates the state constitution by depriving same-sex couples of the same privileges and immunities as other residents, and by depriving them of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Six couples filed the lawsuit in March after King County refused to grant them marriage licenses, and two other couples later joined the suit. A second lawsuit was filed in April by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 11 same-sex couples.

JULY 23, 2004

BAD NEWS!- The U.S. House of Representatives voted on July 22, 2004 to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states. The Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) was adopted by a 233-194 vote in the Republican-led House, buoyed by backing from President George W. Bush's administration. This so-called "Marriage Protection Act", will deny the Supreme Court and all other federal courts the ability to consider challenges to the anti-gay federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Now no federal court will ever be able to review one of the most important laws affecting the rights of married couples and their families. Go to the HRC website for more info and to "Take Action" in our upcoming battles such as The House will be voting on the Federal Marriage Amendment (an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage) sometime in September after they break in August so be sure to contact your representative while they are on break and tell them to vote against this amendment. Go to the HRC website given above to find out how to contact them. (For info on the Senate's vote, look directly below in the July 15, 2004 news) JOYOUS NEWS!- 50 Same-Sex Couples exchanged wedding vows at a Metropolitan Church in Colorado Springs, CO to celebrate the failure of the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass. Though not legal in Colorado, the couples plan on filing for marriage licenses.

JULY 15, 2004

We got a VICTORY in the Senate! The Federal Marriage Amendment failed to pass in the Senate on the afternoon of July 14 by a vote of 50 to 48! YEAH! To see how your Senator voted, click here and look for and click on Roll Call Vote 00155 which is at or near the top of the list right now. In case your not familiar with the Federal Marriage Amendment, it is an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages. No matter what your view is on gay marriage, you should not allow discrimination against anybody to be added to the Constitution, which says that we shall ALL be equal and have the same freedoms and rights. Though we got a victory yesterday, the fight is not over. During the next three months, no fewer than 11 states - and possibly 13 - are facing ballot initiatives to write discrimination into their state constitutions. For more information on the Senate's vote or how you can help in the upcoming battles, visit the HRC website.

JULY 11, 2004

New Jersey's new Domestic Partnership Law took effect on Saturday, July 10th. Hundreds of couples lined up to get legal recognition of their partnership.It doesn't offer the full benefits of marriage but it's one step closer! Under this domestic partnership law, same-sex couples will already have many of the rights as heterosexual married couples (by the way, this law covers heterosexual domestic partners over the age of 62 too) such as making medical decisions for their partner, some joint rights in filing state taxes, to be exempt from state inheritance taxes in the case of a partner's death and to extend the benefits given to state employees to cover domestic partners plus some others.

MAY 18, 2004 

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN THE USA!!...IN MASSACHUSETTS ANYWAY. YOU WOULD HARDLY KNOW THAT HISTORY WAS MADE FROM WATCHING OR LISTENING TO THE NEWS THOUGH. THEY RAN VERY LITTLE NEWS ABOUT IT AND IT WASN'T EVEN A "TOP STORY" IN MY AREA ON THE LOCAL NEWS. SO HERE IT IS: HUNDREDS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES LINED UP STARTING AT MIDNIGHT AND WERE MARRIED ON MONDAY, MAY 17TH AND HUNDREDS, POSSIBLY EVEN THOUSANDS, MORE ARE EXPECTED TO MARRY BY THE END OF THE WEEK. A FEW TOWNS AND CITIES, INCLUDING PROVINCETOWN, MARRIED AND GAVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX COUPLES DESPITE GOVENOR ROMNEY BRINGING UP THE 1913 LAW THAT FORBIDS MARRYING OUT-OF-STATE COUPLES (IT HAS NEVER BEEN USED ON HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES). THE BOSTON MAYOR CHICKENED OUT AND DID NOT OFFER LICENSES TO OUT-OF-STATE COUPLES. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THE GOVENOR IS GOING TO PRESS CHARGES AGAINST THE TOWN CLERKS FOR ISSUING MARRIAGE LICENSES TO OUT-OF-STATE COUPLES. NEW YORK SAYS IT WILL RECOGNIZE AND HONOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PERFORMED IN MASSACHUSETTS.

MAY 6, 2004

Lawmakers in the state of Kansas have rejected a controversial proposal to amend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage -- but by the slimmest of margins. Some a-hole church leaders pledge that they are going to get at least 100,000 new voters to get rid of the lawmakers that voted against the amendment.

Well, it is still all go for gay marriages in Massachusetts on May 17th even though low down Govenor Mitt Romney has done everything in his power to try and stop them. He now has reinacted a 1913 law (can't you tell he's digging deep, doing anything possible to try and stop or hinder what is now the law!) that has not been used in 27 years that says that Massachusetts will not marry people from out of state if their state does not recognize the marriage and since none of the other 49 states recognize gay marriages, that means no gay couples from out of state will be able to marry. But Boston Mayor Thomas Menino says he may defy the govenor's order and marry gay couples from other states anyway. He says it is discrimination because they have not used that law by checking for residency on heterosexual couples in 27 years. The mayor has lawyers looking in to ways to legally get around the law. Also, on May 3rd a judge denied a petition by the head of the Catholic Action League to delay the start of gay marriages in Massachusetts.YEAH!! 

In response to gay marriage being made legal in Massachusetts, New Hampshire has now passed a Bill that denies recognition of gay marriages from any other state.

In other news, back in April, Georgia passed legislature to add an amendment to their state constitution banning gay marriages. It will go before the people to be voted on in November.

APRIL 16, 2004

KEY WEST, Fla. - Gay rights advocates representing six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Florida filed suit yesterday asking a judge to overturn the state's ban on gay marriages. The lawsuit was filed in state court in Key West and followed similar efforts in Massachusetts, California, and several other states. The complaint said marriage restrictions based on gender and sexual orientation violate the Florida Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process, and privacy rights. ''Key West is about equality and equal rights for everyone. We're a very inclusive community," said Mayor Jimmy Weekley. ''I look forward to the day when I can perform a marriage and not a commitment ceremony." 

Massachusetts Govenor Mitt Romney is proposing legislation that would let him appoint a special council to argue against gay marriage to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This is the job of the Attorney General and no govenor has ever approached or asked to approach the Supreme Judicial Court before. He wants to ask them to delay the start of gay marriages (which are to start on May 17) for 2 1/2 years until 2006 after the people of Massachusetts have voted on the proposed legislation that would make an ammendment to the Massachusetts Constitution which would ban gay marriages but make civil unions legal. Of course that proposed legislation has to be voted on again by the Legislature first before it even goes to the people. As of right now, they see no reason to allow the Govenor to step on the toes of the Attorney General and allow him to do as he wishes. 

MARCH 30, 2004

Legislators in Massachusetts approved a constitutional amendment yesterday, March 29th that would ban gay marriages while legalizing civil unions. If passed during the next two-year Legislative session, the measure would go before voters in November 2006. Attention now turns to the fall elections, when lawmakers will have to defend their votes on the contentious social issue and fend off attempts to change the makeup of the Legislature.All 200 legislative seats are up for grabs in November, and the amendment was approved yesterday with only four votes to spare. It now becomes critical for opponents of gay marriage to ensure the re-election of their allies this fall. Within moments of the historic vote, Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters he would ask the state's highest court to block gay marriages until the amendment process has run its lengthy course. But Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose represents the state in court, said he would not seek to delay the May 17 deadline on Romney's behalf. Without court action, Monday's decision will not affect the deadline.

 MARCH 24, 2004

BETON COUNTY, OREGON DENIES MARRIAGE LICENSES TO HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES!- The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday, March 23. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled."It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally." The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would file a lawsuit Wednesday against Oregon or an unnamed state entity over the state's failure to register the more than 2,550 marriage licenses issued by Portland's Multnomah County to gay couples since March 3. (This information comes from CNN.)

MARCH 12, 2004

California Supreme Court brings same-sex marriages to a halt but doesn't make any rulings on marriages already preformed. Massachusetts passes gay marriage ban but says civil unions are OK. Goes to the voters in 2006! Alabama govenor calls for gay marriage ban!

Rosie O'Donnell married her lesbian partner of 6+ years, Kelli Carpenter, in San Francisco on Thursday, Feb. 26th!! Of course their marriage was voided on August 13th because of the California Supreme Court's ruling. The two have 4 adopted children and run their own crusie ship business called R Family Vacations specializing in cruises for gay people and gay families. The first ever gay family cruise (also their inaugural cruise) which was July 11-18, 2004 was a success. For the full marriage story, go here. Thanks to Rosie & Kelli for doing such a brave thing, knowing how much they are in the public eye!!

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

President Bush endorsed the plan to add an amendment called the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution which would ban gay marriage! Shame on him! One point I have to state on this matter, is for everybody's sake, rather you like homosexuals or not or believe in same-sex marriage or not, let's hope no amendment banning gay marriage passes! It IS discrimination! What freedom will they be taking away next and from whom?! The Constitution says that EVERYONE shall be treated EQUALLY under the law! Rather you like it or not, EVERYONE includes homosexuals. Even if you don't believe in gay marriages, adding discrimination to the Constitution should not be tolerated by anyone! I can hear homophobes (people scared of homosexuality and homosexuals) everywhere now, "Oh my goodness, it's spreading like wild fire! Someone stop it please!! Homos are going to take over the world and turn me into a homosexual!" I say, "Get A Grip!". Also, Same-Sex Marriages are being performed in San Francisco,California. Mayor Gavin Newsom made the decision to start them. 

JUMP TO:  BREAKING NEWS   STATE BY STATE NEWS  SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RESOURCES

GAY MARRIAGE NEWS, STATE BY STATE

ALABAMA- June 7, 2006- From Gay.com News: Participants in Montgomery's Pride parade this weekend will have less to celebrate, as state voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot issue Tuesday to add an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to Alabama's constitution. With all but one precinct counted statewide, the vote was 81 percent in favor of the amendment and 19 percent against. It didn't matter where voters lived: Exit polls showed a wide margin of support for the amendment in urban and rural areas. Alabama already had a law prohibiting marriage rights for same-sex couples. Social conservatives, however, used now-familiar "activist judge" rhetoric to drum up support for the amendment, suggesting that voters should be worried about judges who might overturn the marriage ban- as happened in Massachusetts. The state Legislature voted last year to put the anti-gay amendment on the ballot. Many of the state's major newspapers ran editorials asking voters not to amend the Constitution, but they went largely ignored. Right-wing supporters of the amendment launched a well-funded effort in favor of it: The Christian Coalition paid to stuff 1 million leaflets into church bulletins to urge churchgoers to vote "yes" on the ballot issue. Equality Alabama, the state's largest LGBT rights organization, went door-to-door asking people to vote against the amendment and ran a large educational campaign to try and get voters to understand what kind of discrimination they'd be adding to the Constitution. The group held a town hall meeting Wednesday with national leaders from the Human Rights Campaign, the Victory Fund and Freedom to Marry to discuss "where do we go from here." Alabama is the 20th state in the country to amend its constitution to prohibit marriage rights for same-sex couples. February 8, 2005- From the AP: The first bill passed in both the Alabama Senate and the House in the new legislative session is a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in the Bible Belt state. The Senate voted 35-0 Tuesday for the constitutional amendment. It now goes to the House, where members voted 85-7 Tuesday for an identical proposal. Either the House or the Senate will have to pass the other chamber's version before the constitutional amendment can go before voters in a statewide referendum. Alabama has had a law since 1998 that bans gay marriages, but legislators - both Democrats and Republicans - said a constitutional prohibition would be stronger. "It will be a safeguard for future generations," said Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville. Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, read aloud from the Bible about marriage and told his colleagues, "We have always been a traditional family state that says we support one man and one woman in a marriage." In the House, members debated the proposal for about three hours with several black lawmakers complaining that the House needed to be working on more urgent issues. "This bill is not necessary, but here we are with the first bill on the first day using time that could be well spent looking at ways to improve the quality of life for citizens who live here in Alabama," said Rep. Laura Hall, D-Huntsville. Howard Bayless, a board member of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, called the constitutional amendment "mean spirited and intolerant." He said Alabama's gay citizens are being treated like blacks were in the 1950s and 1960s. "The politicians are now using the 'Q' word like the politicians of the past used the 'N' word," Bayless said. The Democratic and Republican caucuses in the House and Senate endorsed the ban before the legislative session started Feb. 1, but they initially disagreed on when to hold the referendum. Many Republicans wanted to hold the statewide referendum at the general election in November 2006 when they figured it would bring out conservative voters and help GOP candidates. Many Democrats wanted it at the primary election in June 2006 when they hoped it would have little impact on their races. Some Republicans were concerned a primary vote could affect what could be a hot GOP primary for governor between incumbent Bob Riley and former Chief Justice Roy Moore. The version passed in both chambers sets the statewide referendum at the next election. The bill's Senate sponsor, Hinton Mitchem, D-Albertville, said he expects the Legislature to set a special election in September 2005 with the same-sex marriage legislation and a constitutional amendment to remove segregation-era language from Alabama's constitution. An amendment in the House to hold the referendum with the general election was defeated 57-42, almost strictly along party lines. Sen. Bradley Byrne, R-Montrose, said letting the public speak on two fundamental issues is worth spending $3 million for a special election. House Minority Leader Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said Republicans felt more people would get a chance to vote on the issue in the general election, but decided no to delay passage of the bill over the dispute over the date. "We're for giving the people an opportunity to vote on this issue. We're not going to oppose it just because we don't like the date," Hubbard said.

ARKANSAS- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that has now been added to the State Constitution.

CALIFORNIA- In an open challenge to California law, San Francisco city authorities performed scores of same-sex weddings Thursday (Feb. 12th) and issued a stack of marriage licenses (95) to gay and lesbian couples. The first couple was two lesbians who have been together for 51 years!! And the opposition tries to say that gay relationships can't/won't last! UPDATES (most recent to oldest): October 5, 2006- A state appeals court upheld California's ban on gay marriage Thursday, a critical defeat for a movement hungry for a win after similar losses in two other states. In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state's attorney general, who argued it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. "We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class, " the court said in a 2-1 decision. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat," the court held. The justices, in their 128-page opinion, noted that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gay men and lesbians because of the state's strong domestic partner law, which gives registered couples most of the same rights registered couples most of the same rights as married spouses in California. The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California. Marriage advocates said beforehand that they would appeal to the California Supreme Court if the intermediate court did not decide in their favor. September 29, 2005- "Girlie Man" CA Governor Schwarneggar vetoed the Same-Sex Marriage Bill that would have been the first to make same-sex marriage legal going through the legislature. He used the excuse that he vetoed it because of a Bill that was passed by the people of CA in 2000 making marriage "between a man and a woman only". A lot changes in 5 years, Mr. Governor. Polls showed that it is now about a 50/50 split on those for and against same-sex marriage, whereas in 2000 it was 61% against it! September 6, 2005- CA House Assembly approves gay marriage! Becomes first state in USA history to pass same-sex marriage legislature through both the Senate and House. September 1, 2005- CA Senate approves Gay Marriage Bill 849! March 31, 2005- Judge Kramer issued a "stay" on same-sex marriages until all appeals have run their course. This could take years! March 14, 2005- San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled today that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws. Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage. August 13, 2004- The California Supreme Court ruled that what Mayor Gavin Newsome did was illegal and thereby made all the same-sex marriages (over 4,000) that were performed illegal. So the judges ruled that all the same-sex marriages were null and void, in other words, are no longer legitimate. August 12, 2004- From the Detroit Free Press: The California Supreme Court is set to rule today on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority by allowing gay couples to wed earlier this year- and many assume the decision will find he violated state law. What is less clear, however, is how the seven justices will treat thousands of same-sex marriages sanctioned before the court intervened in March. "It appears quite obvious the court is going to rule against the mayor," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "We think that's unfortunate and it's wrong, but of course the more human question is what to do with 4,037 marriage licenses that belong to couples in relationships and with families." Gay rights advocates say the most they can hope for is that the justices will say nothing- at least for now- about the validity of the licenses gay couples received at San Francisco City Hall between Feb. 12 and March 11, the day the court issued an injunction halting the wedding spree. The city, as well as several legal groups, sued the state the same day, alleging California's marriage laws- defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman- are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts on May 17, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court. March 16, 2004- The San Francisco Chronicle removed it's lead City Hall reporter and photographer after the the long time lesbian partners were married last week. They site conflict of interest. March 12, 2004- Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled that performing same-sex marriages must stop immediately until it can be determined if they are legal or not. They did not make any rulings on the over 3,700 same-sex marriages that have already been performed. February 27, 2004- The high court declined a request by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to immediately shut down San Francisco’s gay weddings. The justices told the city and a conservative group that opposes gay marriage to file new legal briefs by March 5 in response to the attorney general’s petition. Earlier, lower-court judges also declined to immediately end the same-sex marriages.The Social Security Administration announced today it has told its offices nationwide not to accept marriage certificates (from gay or straight couples) from San Francisco as proof of identification for newlyweds looking to make name changes on Social Security cards. SF Mayor Newsom called the move “political and retaliatory”. Over 3,400 same-sex marriages have now taken place. February 26, 2004- Rosie O'Donnell & 6 year lesbian partner Kelli Carpenter married today! YEAH! California's Attorney General is set to file a lawsuit tomorrow to try and stop the same-sex marriages. An attempt by California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger to get the same-sex marriages stopped by ordering Democratic District Attorney Bill Lockyer to do so failed. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, who, by the way is straight and married, continues to allow 1000s of same-sex couples to marry in defiance of California's law and says he will not stop until forced to and points out that many of their city laws state there shall be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. The judges have delayed any ruling on the case possibly until sometime in March. There are long time couples coming from all over the U.S.A. (and from other countries) to marry here.

COLORADO- July 19, 2004- 50 Same-Sex Couples exchanged wedding vows at a Metropolitan Church in Colorado Springs, CO to celebrate the failure of the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass. Though their marriages are not recognized or legal in Colorado, the couples plan on filing for marriage licenses.

CONNECTICUT- October 1, 2005- The law legalizing same-sex Civil Unions takes effect today! As of today, same-sex couples will be able to enter into legal civil unions, recognized by the state of Connecticut. The gay and lesbian couples will receive all the same state rights and privileges granted to married couples. Connecticut is the first state to enact a civil unions system without threat of court action. April 20, 2005- The state Senate approved Civil Unions for same-sex couples. Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the bill about an hour after it was approved 26-8 by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The law, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2005 includes an amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions are reserved only for same-sex couples.

FLORIDA- April 16, 2004- Gay rights advocates representing six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Florida filed suit yesterday asking a judge to overturn the state's ban on gay marriages. The lawsuit was filed in state court in Key West and followed similar efforts in Massachusetts, California, and several other states. The complaint said marriage restrictions based on gender and sexual orientation violate the Florida Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process, and privacy rights. It was filed yesterday to coinside with the U.S. income tax filing deadline date. Couples who were married elsewhere, like Canda, said it is a lie for them to have to put "single" on their tax returns when they are not single but this is what the government is telling them to do. Key West has a large gay population, and its city commission adopted a resolution last month supporting same-sex marriages. ''Key West is about equality and equal rights for everyone. We're a very inclusive community," said Mayor Jimmy Weekley. ''I look forward to the day when I can perform a marriage and not a commitment ceremony." 

GEORGIA- July 6, 2006- The Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage that was struck down by a judge back in May 2006. May 16, 2006- A judge has struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject. The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved. Russell said "procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support." "But ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," the judge wrote. Jack Senterfitt, who challenged the amendment on behalf of gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said the ruling "protects the right of voters to make independent decisions on each independent issue." January 14, 2005- The first step began in what is expected to be a long trek to the Georgia Supreme Court over the legality of last November's vote on amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Gay rights advocates maintain the ballot question was illegal because it contained two issues: one was the issue of same-sex marriage itself, the other a ban on civil unions. Under the Georgia constitution a ballot measure may only deal with one issue, and only the question of marriage was put to voters. An attempt to get the question off the Nov. 2 ballot failed.  The Georgia Supreme Court said that the issue could only be taken up after the election. November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution. This amendment includes not recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. April 5, 2004- The GA House passed legislature that would add an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. It will go before and be voted on by the people in November, 2004. March 4, 2004- A new "cleaner" version of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages was introduced yesterday by House Democrats. (click here for full story) Feb. 28, 2004- The Georgia House narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The surprise vote derailed the same-sex marriage question that seemed almost certain to go to voters this fall.  Proponents of the ban fell just three votes short of clearing the final legislative hurdle. The Democrat-controlled House voted 117-to-50 in favor of the marriage ban, short of the 120 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment. The gay marriage ban isn't dead yet. The House may vote to reconsider their vote next week. And since 12 members were absent from today's four-hour debate, the amendment could still get the two-thirds required to change the state constitution. The ban already passed the Republican Senate. Because the governor's signature isn't required to change the constitution in Georgia, the question seems likely to head to voters for final approval this fall. Gay rights activists seemed resigned to the ban passing the House. A Democrat-controlled committee voted 23-to-7 to send the measure to a full floor vote. The defeat came largely because black Democrats resisted. For much of the debate, black members compared the struggle for black voting rights to the current national debate over gay rights. The HRC (Human Rights Campaign) is working hard to put a stop to the ban against gay marriage amendment.

IDAHO- March 5, 2004- The Idaho proposal, which would have banned gay marriages, failed on a 20-13 vote to come out of committee. Amendment opponents emphasized during the debate that the state had already passed a law in 1996 banning gay marriage.

INDIANA- March 23, 2005- The Indiana House approved an amendment to the State Constitution banning same-sex marriage by a vote of 76-23. The issue is now over for at least this year. For the amendment to become part of the constitution, the legislature elected in November 2006 must again debate and approve the measure. After that, the public will have the final say, as voters must approve the change. The earliest that can happen is on the general election ballot in November 2008. January 20, 2005- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the state's so-called defense of marriage act IS legal."What we decide today is that the Indiana Constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage," the court said in a written ruling, noting that "the Legislature is certainly free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution under that document.''

IOWA- March 24, 2004- The Senate in Iowa narrowly defeated (25 to 24) a resolution Tuesday night that would have called for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. Lawmakers debated whether the resolution, which defines marriage as a union between only one man and one woman, was needed. Sen. Matt McCoy, a Des Moines Democrat, argued that there's already an Iowa law that recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman. "We're wasting our time on meaningless, hateful, mean-spirited, discriminatory legislation, and for that I'm truly sorry and ashamed to be part of this body tonight," McCoy said.

KANSAS- April 6, 2005- Sadly, voters overwhelmingly passed the marriage amendment which bans same-sex marriages and civil unions. 71% voted "Yes" to 29% "No". The amendment will now be added to theState Constitution. March 25, 2005- On April 5, 2005, Kansans will vote on rather to add a "marriage amendment" to their state contstitution that would not only ban same-sex marriage but deny all unmarried people any of the benefits received by married people. In other words, gay couples could never receive the benefits of married people because they wouldn't be able to marry and the amendment would make it where there could be no "domestic partner" benefits that would give the same benefits of married couples! May 5, 2004- The Senate denied the amendment to ban gay marriages but only by a slim margin of 5 votes. Church leaders have vowed to get at least 100,000 new voters to help vote out the lawmakers that voted against the ban.  March 5, 2004- The House voted 88-36 for an amendment to ban gay marriages and the granting of benefits associated with marriage to other relationships. It would need a two-thirds vote in the Senate and majority of the vote in November to become part of the constitution. Kansas already has a law, adopted in 1996, stating that marriage is valid only between one man and one woman. The proposed amendment would add a similar statement to the state constitution, along with the benefits prohibition.

KENTUCKY- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

LOUISIANA- January 19, 2005- The Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September. The high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The law has now been added to the State Constitution. December 2, 2004- The Louisiana Supreme Court is now hearing the case of the amendment banning same-sex marriage that was overturned (see Oct. 8 below) and should make their decision soon. October 21, 2004- The Lousiana Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of the overturned amendment banning same-sex (see Oct. 8) on December 1, 2004. October 8, 2004- On October 5, District Judge William Morvant overturned the amendment banning same-sex marriage that voters passed on Sept. 18! He overturned it because the amendment also bans civil unions and he says that civil unions should not have been in the same amendment with same-sex marriage. His decision to overturn the amendment is being appealed. The appeal by the Attorney General's Office was filed on October 7 with both the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court. September 18, 2004- Voters passed an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. Law suits were filed by gay rights activists. 

MASSACHUSETTS- For the latest Massachusetts news go to MassEquality. An amendment (that adds discrimination) to the State Constitution that would make gay marriage illegal but allow for civil unions passed in the Senate but it will be 2006 before it could be voted into law (by the people of Massachusetts) and the Constitution changed. If and until the amendment passes, gay couples will be able to legally marry and receive all benefits that a heterosexual couple does! UPDATES: May 17, 2004- Here comes the groom and another!! History was made today! Same-sex marriage became legal today! Congratulations to all the newlyweds! May 15, 2004- It's all systems GO!! True legal same-sex marriages will begin on Monday, May 17th. Though Govenor Romney has brought a 1913 law into play (that has never been used before) that says it is illegal to marry anyone who is not a resident of Massachusetts if the state they are from does not recognize their marriage, a few cities/towns say they will marry out of state same-sex couples anyway. New York says that it WILL recognize same-sex marriages performed in MA. March 30, 2004- Legislators approved a constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriages while legalizing civil unions. If passed during the next two-year Legislative session, the measure would go before voters in November 2006 Attention now turns to the fall elections, when lawmakers will have to defend their votes on the contentious social issue and fend off attempts to change the makeup of the Legislature. All 200 legislative seats are up for grabs in November, and the amendment was approved Monday with only four votes to spare. It now becomes critical for opponents of gay marriage to ensure the re-election of their allies this fall Within moments of the historic vote, Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters he would ask the state's highest court to block gay marriages until the amendment process has run its lengthy course. But Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose represents the state in court, said he would not seek to delay the May 17 deadline on Romney's behalf. Without court action, Monday's decision will not affect the deadline.  March 12, 2004- Lawmakers passed legislature to add an amendment banning gay marriage to the state constitution but that would make civil unions legal. But the lawmakers will be discussing this again on March 29th and that could change. Whatever legislature or amendment they come up with will still have to be voted on by the people and that won't happen until 2006! As of now, same-sex marriages are set to start on May 17, 2004! Feb. 23, 2004-  Massachusetts lawmakers defeated a ban on gay marriage on Thursday, Feb. 12th,  but quickly took up another compromise proposal that would establish civil unions while stripping gay couples of the right to full-fledged marriage. Then, Thursday evening, with the nation watching, a weary Massachusetts Legislature suspended debate on the proposed gay marriage ban after two days of tense negotiations, the slim defeat of three amendments and an angry late-evening walkout by dozens of lawmakers chanting “We want a vote.”

MICHIGAN- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

MISSISSIPPI- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

MISSOURI- September 30, 2004- An amendment to the state Constitution banning same-sex marriage was passed on August 4, 2004 with a whopping 71% of the vote. This amendment also makes it where they do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendment went into effect at the beginning of September, 2004.

MONTANA- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that is now added to the State Constitution.

NEBRASKA- July 14, 2006- A Federal appeals court reinstated Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The 8th U.S. Circuit of Appeals overturned a judge's ruling last year that the ban was too broad and deprived gay men and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things. The amendment "and other 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," the appeals court ruled. Seventy percent of Nebraska voters had approved the ban in 2000. The Nebraska amendment went further than similar bans in many states in that it barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. For example, the partners of gay men and lesbians who work for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other benefits.

NEW JERSEY- December 22, 2006-  New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine on Thursday, December 21st, signed a civil unions law giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities- but not the title- of marriage. The law makes New Jersey the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer same-sex couples some version of marriage. October 25, 2006-  the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature must offer the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples that married couples currently receive. This ruling came after seven same-sex couples filed suit against the state when they were denied marriage licenses. This decision reflects the fair-minded values of New Jersey, where polls show that a majority of citizens supports marriage equality. January 10, 2005- Assembly Member Richard Merkt introduced a resolution (ACR 212) to amend the New Jersey Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and to prohibit marriage rights for same-sex couples unless the state legislature provides otherwise. July 10, 2004- The Domestic Partnership Law that was passed back in January took effect today. Hundreds of couples lined up to have their patnerships legally recognized and to receive all the benefits that come along with it. Though it is not the same as marriage, it does have many of the same legal benefits of marriage such as being able to make medical decisions and receive health benefits for your partner. It's not marriage but hey, it's a step in the right direction!   

NEW YORK- July 6, 2006- New York's highest court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of gay marriage, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said state law violates their constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote. The New York ruling is part of an evolving mosaic on the volatile issue nationwide. February 5, 2005- State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. The Supreme Court is New York's trial level court. The couples brought a lawsuit arguing they were denied legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. The judge agreed and said the New York City clerk may not deny a license to any couple solely because the two are of the same sex. The ruling will not take effect for at least 30 days and only if it survives an appeal. The law will be effective only in New York City but could extend statewide if it is upheld by the Court of Appeals in Albany. January 14, 2005- An attorney for 25 same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses told a judge that New York's opposition to gay marriage is similar to discrimination against women or minorities. Mariette Geldenhuys, an attorney for the couples who sued the city of Ithaca in June, 2004 told state Judge Robert Mulvey that the state's position contradicts a 2002 New York law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. "The basis of the opposition (to gay marriage) is that it goes against tradition," Geldenhuys argued. "If tradition carried on, we would still have slavery." Jim McGowan, an attorney for the state, argued that the court must follow previous court decisions upholding New York's prohibition against same-sex marriages. The state has prevailed in two similar cases. New York state officials, including Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Gov. George Pataki, have said that same-sex ceremonies violate state law. December 7, 2004- A second trial judge ruled against same-sex marriage as was expected because trial judges are bound to follow existing precedents established by the state’s appellate courts. No one expects it to be overturned until it gets to the Supreme Court. May 15, 2004- New York says that it WILL recognize and honor same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. March 16, 2004- Two ministers in Kingston, NY have been arrested and charged after performing 13 same-sex marriages! Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West on March 3rd. March 8, 2004- New Platz mayor Jason West said he may perform more gay weddings this week which may get him arrested. As we know the marriages won't be legal because the same-sex couples can't obtain marriage licenses. March 5, 2004- Same-sex couples that lined up at the court house in New Paltz, NY to receive marriage licenses and get married were turned away. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had said Wednesday, the 3rd, that the state's laws do not permit gay marriage, dealing a harsh blow to the growing nationwide battle for same-sex weddings. Though he personally supports them, he said he must do his job and can not go against New York's laws. March 3, 2004- Ulster County DA Don Williams filed charges against the Mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, yesterday. The 26-year-old first-term mayor is charged with violating state Domestic Relations Law, which Williams says bars a mayor from "solemnizing" marriages for couples who did not obtain marriage licenses. If found guilty he faces a $500/charge fine and/or up to two years in jail. Two other cities have decided to join in offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They are Nyack and Ithaca. Feb. 27, 2004-The mayor of the small town of New Paltz in NY has started performing gay weddings but the newly married couples are being refused marriage licenses by the town clerk. Mr Jason West, 26, New York state's first elected Green Party mayor, held 25 'legal marriage ceremonies' for gay couples in a festive atmosphere outside Village Hall.  Almost immediately, the office of Gov. George E. Pataki reacted to the two dozen marriages, in the Village of New Paltz, by asking the attorney general to seek a court order to halt the proceedings.  But the attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat who is considered a likely candidate for governor in 2006, rejected the efforts of the governor, a Republican. More than 500 same-sex couples have signed up on a waiting list to be married there!

NORTH DAKOTA- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

OHIO- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

OKLAHOMA- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution.

OREGON- April 14, 2005- The Oregon Supreme Court ruled the around 3,000 same-sex marriages performed in Multnomah County last year before the Same-Sex Ban Amendment passed on November 2, 2004 as null and void! What a blow! How would you feel if you were married for a year and then told your marriage no longer existed?! December 2, 2004- The Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment passed on Nov. 2, 2004 went into effect today. They are now trying to decide if the 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples before November 2nd are legal or not. November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution. March 25, 2004- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed. The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday, March 23. "It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally." As of Wednesday, the 24th District officials in the county of 79,000 people began telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled. Also, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would file a lawsuit Wednesday against Oregon or an unnamed state entity over the state's failure to register the more than 2,550 marriage licenses issued by Portland's Multnomah County to gay couples since March 3. March 24, 2004- Gov. Ted Kulongoski said yesterday that both sides in the dispute over gay marriage have reached agreement to speed the issue to the Oregon Supreme Court, with a lower-court ruling possibly expected before the end of April. Benton County, home to Oregon State University, has since decided to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, starting at 9 a.m. today. Other counties have chosen to await any Oregon Supreme Court ruling, following Myers' advice, which he outlined in a March 12 legal opinion that said gay marriage violates current state law. March 16, 2004- Despite Attorney Genreal Hardy Myers' and Govenor Ted Kulongoski's opinons, four Multnomah County commissioners continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses, making Oregon the only state still doing so. (Go Oregon!) Though the Attorney General says that the Supreme Court will probably rule that Oregons' Constitution makes it unconstitutional to deny same-sex marriage, he says it it unwise to change current state practices at this time. March 4, 2004- Yesterday hundreds of gay couples lined up to marry in the city of Portland after Multnomah County, a county with over 660,000 residents, became the fourth local government in the country to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples! "The county attorney provided her legal opinion that it is a violation of the Oregon constitution to discriminate against individuals who apply for marriage licenses on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation," said Diane Linn, chairman of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners.  An exuberant crowd of around 400 gays lined up outside the county court in Portland to tie the knot after County Attorney Agnes Sowle adopted the same legal argument used by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to justify his decision to officially sanction gay marriage. (This information obtained from Channel NewsAsia)

SOUTH CAROLINA- April 13, 2005- Sadly, the proposed same-sex marriage ban amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 37-1 and is one step closer to becoming a reality. Democrat Robert Ford was the only Senator to vote against it. Now it only has to be signed by Gov. Mark Sanford and then voted on by the people of SC in 2006. March 15, 2005- Unfortunately, the proposed State Constitution amendment banning gay marriage passed the House by a vote of 96-3. It still has to go through the Senate, be signed by the governor and then be voted on by the people of SC in 2006 to be added. March 3, 2005- As of the week of February 28, 2005 the SC House has begun debating rather to add an amendment to the State Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus banning same-sex marriages. SC already has laws in place banning same-sex marriage but now the homophobes want to add it to the constitution. It is expected to pass the House with flying colors (of course, what else would you expect in SC) but could be held up in the Senate thanks to Senator Robert Ford. "I'm not going to let others trample on the rights of gays and lesbians,'' said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that will take up the proposed amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate, the signature of Gov. Mark Sanford and a simple majority vote of the people. If it makes it to the people it would be voted on in 2006. 

TENNESSEE- July 14, 2006- The ACLU had filed a lawsuit charging that the state failed to meet it's own notification requirements for the ballot measure asking voters to ban same-sex marriage. The high court ruled unanimously today that the ACLU didn't have standing to file the suit and dismissed it. Tennessee already has a law banning same-sex marriage, but lawmakers who supported the proposed amendment said they wanted a backup in case the law was overturned. The ACLU argued that the legislature failed to meet a deadline for publicizing the proposed measure, which was supposed to have been published six months before the election of the incoming legislature. Under state law, a constitutional amendment must win support from two legislatures in a row before advancing to a public vote. The marriage amendment was first passed in May 2004 and officially published June 20, some four and a half months prior to the election. It won passage in March 2005, and was placed on the November 2006 ballot. The ACLU sued in April 2005 on behalf of its members, along with several gay and lesbian citizens, the Tennessee Equality Project, and four state legislators. In February, a lower court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, but went on to rule as well that the amendment drew heavy media attention throughout the spring and that the failure to meet the deadline was not enough to warrant sending the lawmakers back to square one. In a 14-page decision issued Friday, the high court took no position on the missed deadline, ruling only that the plaintiffs had not met two of the key tests that determines who may sue and who may not. Neither the organizations, the lawmakers, or the individuals had demonstrated a real injury arising from the lapsed six weeks. Nor had they had not shown that their injuries were caused by the behavior at issue, the court said. March 24, 2004- A bill that would have prevented Tennessee from recognizing same-sex unions from other states died Wednesday when it failed to pass a subcommittee. The House Domestic Relations Subcommittee voted 5-to-4 against the measure after about 15 minutes of debate. Lookout Mountain Rep. Chris Clem said the state's courts need direction on what to do when a same-sex couple who were joined in a civil union in another state seek benefits commonly accorded to a spouse.

TEXAS- April 25, 2005- The Texas House approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. It must pass the Senate and then be voted on and passed by the people of Texas before the amendment could be added to the State Constitution. 

UTAH- November 2, 2004- Passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage that will now be added to the State Constitution. August, 2004- In Utah, where a strong majority of the population belongs to the conservative Mormon church, legislators have sent Governor Olene Walker a bill to outlaw gay marriage. Walker hasn't said whether she'll sign it.

WASHINGTON- August 4, 2004- King County (Seattle) Superior Court Judge William L. Downing ruled that same-sex marriage IS legal in the state of Washington after hearing the cases of 19 same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. But his decision is stayed until the state Supreme Court reviews the case, meaning no marriage licenses can be issued until then. No word yet on when that will be. March 8, 2004- The mayor of Seattle said that he would recognize and honor gay marriages (with marriage certificates) from other states but would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or perform gay weddings there in Seattle. 

WISCONSIN- March 6, 2004- The proposal approved by the Wisconsin Assembly 68-27 would prohibit same-sex marriages and civil unions. It now goes to the state Senate. More approval from lawmakers and voters would also be required for it to become law. Wisconsin statutes already define marriage as a contract between a husband and a wife and do not recognize gay marriage. But backers feared a judge would overrule that. "Amending our statutes is not going to address the problem," said Republican Rep. Mark Gundrum, the amendment's main author. "We need to have this in our state constitution or we are every bit as vulnerable to activists judges instituting same-sex marriage as they did in Massachusetts." Democratic Rep. Tom Hebl said the amendment's 43 words were among the most spiteful ever put on paper. "It's liberty and justice for all unless you're gay and lesbian," Hebl said. To take effect, the proposed amendment would have to pass both houses of the Legislature by simple majorities in consecutive two-year sessions and be approved by voters in a referendum.

CLICK HERE TO SEE A RUNDOWN ON ALL 50 STATES' GAY MARRIAGE LAWS

   

JUMP TO:   BREAKING NEWS   GENERAL NEWS   SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RESOURCES

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE & WEDDING RESOURCES

Gay Weddings- Get answers to your questions about gay marriage and check out Wedding Packages for Massachusetts, Vermont (civil unions) and Canada. They also have a Wedding Vendor Directory for all U.S. states (and Canada) that shows the names, address and/or phone numbers of gay-friendly planners, florists, jewelers, bridal shops and everything else you need for the perfect wedding. Be sure to check out some good Honeymoon locations too.

Married In Canada- a website created by same-sex married couple Barry Jones-Coppola and Jim Coppola to share their experiences and the resources they found useful on their journey to marriage in Toronto, Canada. 

My Gay Wedding Companion- software from Fivestar Software that helps you plan your wedding on your own by letting you know what needs to be done and keeping track of what you have done, like invitations, RSVPs, seating arrangements, who's going to pay for what, etc...

Rainbow Wedding Network- offers you immediate access to gay-friendly wedding services, including an online registry, specifically designed for gay, lesbian, bi, trans & gay-friendly couples. Our goal is to make your ceremony plans as comfortable and stress-free as possible. From the days of courting and engagement, through to buying and decorating your own home together... we have the information and resources you need to make it all happen! Be sure to check out the "Engagements & Stories" section where there are inspiring stories and photos of same-sex couples who have married or plan to marry.

Two Brides- offers products and information for weddings, commitment ceremonies and civil unions for lesbian couples. See the "Two Grooms" link below for gay male couples. 

Two Grooms- offers products and information for weddings, commitment ceremonies and civil union ceremonies for gay male couples. See the "Two Brides" link above for lesbian couples.

If you have a website or know of a website not listed here that you think would be helpful for same-sex couples who plan to marry or have a commitment ceremony, please send me an email by clicking the email button below. Thanks.

JUMP TO:   BREAKING NEWS   GENERAL NEWS   STATE BY STATE NEWS   TOP OF PAGE