Same-sex marriage, an overview

Mel Tungate

October 20, 2004

Legal Status of Same Sex Unions - Overview

On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first and only state in the United States where same sex marriage is legal.  For a full site about the Massachusetts situation from a legal perspective, see http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/gaymarriage.html   In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that not allowing same-sex couples to marry violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a "civil union" law would not be acceptable.  A constitutional amendment to deny same sex couples the right to marry cleared the first vote in the Massachusetts legislature on March 29, 2004.  It must clear the second vote no earlier than March of 2005 by that same legislature.  If it passes that test, the soonest it could be voted on by the people is November 2006.  In addition, same-sex couples from at least 27 states have been “married” in Massachusetts, thus creating standing for further litigation challenging the federal DOMA and the individual state marriage laws.  These marriages of out of state same sex couples have been ruled to be against Massachusetts law ( see http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/19/same.sex.mass.ap/index.html ).  There are at least 22 lawsuits pending in 12 states from same-sex couples suing for complete marriage rights. 

Interestingly enough, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U S Constitution probably will probably not be successfully used to force states to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts or anywhere else ( see http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/455/yls_article.htm for a short article on the topic. ) 

Same sex domestic partnerships of some sort are recognized in Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and California ( where the full domestic partnership law will take effect in January 2005 ).  Vermont is the strongest in that it recognizes civil unions, and did so as of July 1, 2000.  Maine joined this list at the end of July, 2004 ( see http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/04/29/2 ).  19 states and the District of Columbia give same sex couples at least some benefits.  In Washington state, on August 4, 2004 a state judge ruled that same sex marriages were legal in the state, in spite of the state DOMA ( the DOMA was ruled to be against the Washington state constitution ).  His decision is stayed until the Washington state Supreme Court reviews the case, meaning no marriage licenses can be issued until then.  He ruled, not surprisingly, that the state of Washington could not show a compelling interest to deny same sex marriages.  The full ruling can be found at http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Andersen%20v.%20Sims.pdf .

42 states currently have passed or are part way through passing, either as laws or state constitutional amendments, DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act ) laws.  Seventeen of those states have DOMA as part of their state constitution.  

Link

The Heritage Foundation has an excellent resource page on state defense of marriage laws at:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50States.cfm

Individual State Information

* Indicates a state constitutional amendment has been passed defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Louisiana's amendment was thrown out because it violated their state constitution ( see http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html ), but was reinstated by an appeals court decision.  Eleven proposals to amend their state's constitution were passed by the voters in November 2004 - Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.  The amendments in Utah, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma, in addition to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, also outlaw domestic unions.  Note that similar language in Nebraska's DOMA amendment is being challenged in federal court ( it appears to be in direct violation of the Romer v Evans US Supreme Court ruling. ), and immediate appeals in the six states that mirror Nebraska's wording will surely be filed quickly.  All three candidates for Utah state attorney general opposed the amendment in a very rare joint statement.  Almost every Christian church in Utah, except the Mormon church, opposed the amendment.  The Mormon church, just two weeks before the vote, put out a statement supporting the amendment.    3 states have passed constitutional amendments, but have processes that require passage of an amendment by two consecutive legislative sessions before it can go to the voters: Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin must consider their amendments again next session. 

Same sex marriages have been performed in San Francisco California ( 3955 couples ), New Paltz New York ( 19 couples ), Ithaca New York ( possibly one couple ), Multnomah County ( Portland ) Oregon ( 3022 couples ), Asbury New Jersey ( 1 couple ), Oklahoma ( 1 couple, see http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/21/cherokee.same.sex.marriage.ap/index.html for the Indian tribal ruling on future gay marriages ), and Sandoval County New Mexico ( 26 couples ).  None of these sites currently perform same sex marriage.  Interestingly, most Indian tribes have historically allowed same sex couples to wed ( see appendix 6 ).  In almost all of these sites, cases are now pending to recognize or not recognize the same sex unions already performed, and to resume or halt the same sex marriage process ( see http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2004/08/12/526052?nbdTopicID=3 for the ruling that says that San Francisco's gay marriages were performed in violation of state law.  Note also that cases are pending challenging the constitutionality of state law in this area ).  For the timeline of what has occurred in the past year or so, see Appendix 1.  The Attorney General of Oregon has issued an official opinion that he believes that his state constitution demands recognition of same sex unions ( see http://www.doj.state.or.us/pdfs/AG_samesexopinion.pdf ), and the Oregon courts have ruled that the 3022 same sex couples are legally married.  A judge has ruled in Washington state that not allowing same-sex marriage in that state violates the state constitution.  He stayed his opinion until his state's supreme court can rule.  An article on his ruling can be found at http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2004/08/04/521321 .

Laws outlawing sodomy were ruled null and void by the Lawrence and Garner vs the State of Texas US Supreme Court ruling.  To read that ruling, see http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf 

In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act which stated that the federal government would not recognize same sex marriage.  In August, 2004 a Federal judge in Tacoma, Washington ruled the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act constitutional.  The United States Senate, in July of 2004, failed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited same sex marriages.  A motion to cut off debate and force a vote was defeated 50 - 48.  The United States House of Representatives defeated the amendment on September 30, 2004.  Clearly, the vote is being held just for political election purposes, and is not a meaningful amendment. Six Republicans abandoned their leadership on this vote, indicating that the amendment was not well thought out.  There have been approximately 11,000 attempts to amend the US Constitution, and all but a few have rightfully failed.  The Senate amendment stated "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."  The Senate and House vote was a defeat for the Republicans who basically brought it up to vote in order to embarrass Democrats, but instead were embarrassed themselves in the Senate when 6 Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one Independent and defeated the call for closure.  Attempts to bring another more acceptable amendment to the floor was stopped on procedural grounds.  Bush, the current US President, has stated support to such a federal amendment outlawing gay marriage, but is against an amendment outlawing civil unions, Vice President Dick Cheney does not support such an amendment to outlaw gay marriages.  For Bushes current statement ( against a federal amendment outlawing gay civil unions ), see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html?oref=login&oref=login&pa  .
For Cheney's statement on the topic, see appendix 5.

On July 23, 2004, Republicans passed legislation in the House, 233-194, to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions that took place in other states. Democrats objected to the bill as an unconstitutional attack on gays and the federal judiciary to satisfy the GOP's political base.  This bill, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, will surely be ruled unconstitutional.  This is a pure election year attempt to incite certain voters and embarrass certain candidates.

In Canada, seven provinces and one territory have recognized same sex unions with court rulings starting in 2002.  The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that it is OK with them if there are same sex marriages ( see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/09/world/main660070.shtml and http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/09/canada.gay.ap/index.html ).  In all likelihood, the legislature will take up the issue, and the probability of its passage is considered high.

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. Belgium became the second in 2003.  For a more complete list of international laws, see below.

Traditionally, marriages performed in non-US countries are recognized in the US.

The United States Supreme Court has twice stepped into marriage issues with big bold moves.

The 1878 Reynolds decision, for instance, banned polygamous marriages in the territories, specifically including Utah, a territory at the time.  Since 1878, using Reynolds, the Federal judiciary has assumed broad powers in the “moral” area.  It might deserve comment that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and almost every Mormon church president up well into my lifetime have bemoaned the Supreme Court Reynolds decision because they firmly taught that the marriage arrangement was an individual state issue, and not one for the federal government.  In the past years, there is some indication that the Supreme Court’s love of Reynolds is waning, and Reynolds might easily be decided differently if it were decided today.

In 1967 the Supreme Court in Loving vs. the State of Virginia outlawed the anti-miscegenation laws on due process grounds( see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 for the decision ).  Simply speaking, the state cannot unduly discriminate by race or ethnicity, and possibly other protected classes, in the area of marriage.  In 1967, 16 states still had laws on their books that prohibited inter-ethnic marriage, such as “whites” and “blacks”, and in some states “whites” and Japanese, or “whites” and Polynesians, and in some states "whites" and Hispanics.  

The first such anti-miscegenation law was passed in 1661 in Virginia.  At one time or another, 41 states had anti-miscegenation laws of some form on their books.  All of them prohibited intermarriage between whites and blacks ( by various definitions ), and at least fifteen of them prohibited intermarriage between Asians and whites ( Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming ).  In addition, twelve states prohibited intermarriage with American Indians, nine with Filipinos, in at least one state intermarriage with Hindus was illegal, and in Oregon intermarriage with Hawaiians was illegal.  In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state to overthrow these odious laws.  The laws were not completely repealed in individual states until November 2000 when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law.  Today, in California, over 13% of all marriages are inter-ethnic, and would have not allowed in at least some states a half century earlier.  As a note, the Supreme Court of the United States had previously affirmed anti-miscegenation laws in 1883 ( Pace v Alabama ), 1955 ( Jackson v Alabama ) and 1956 ( Naim v Naim ).  American Indians were, in several areas, classified as black ( and thus denied the Priesthood by my fellow Mormons  ), and Hispanics were not defined as whites in many states.  Shortly after 1900, in two counties in Virginia, including Amhearst County Virginia where my ancestors left in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the entire county was declared "black", and thus could not have any of the civil liberties denied to blacks.  This included any of the county who looked white, and steps were taken to label as black anyone who had moved out of the county to other parts of Virginia. 

The US Supreme Court touched the edge of marriage issues in their 1997 Romer v Evans decision ( see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179 for the full ruling ).  In this decision, the court, in it’s wording, said that laws could not be passed that were passed strictly to deny homosexuals their rights.

And, recently, the US Supreme Court ruled again on the edge of the marriage issue in Lawrence and Garner vs the State of Texas decision ( see  http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf  for the text of that ruling ).  In this decision, the court said that the states could not intrude into the individual adult decision as to how and with whom and in what manner they had sex.

International legal status of gay marriage

See http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm for more details

Personal view:

I firmly believe that “marriage is a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”.  I believe it with all my heart.  And this is the exact wording of California Family Code section 420.  It has been on the books in one form or another in this state for a century or so.  I would oppose any attempt to change that law to legalize same sex marriage in the State of California. 

I wrote the above paragraph in January of 2000 a little more than a month before the California electorate voted on Prop 22.  It was my stance then, and it is my stance now.  To me, as a dedicated Mormon, with the current climate in my Christian church of choice, there is no other stance to take.

I also firmly believe in the US Constitution and its almost absolute protection of minorities.  The Supreme Court Santa Fe Texas school district decision of several years ago was just one more example of why minorities must be protected, particularly in religious areas. 

The difficulty of course is that the two a priori assumptions above are at odds with one another.  We Mormons, as a small minority in a very large diverse state, should endeavor to guarantee the homosexual community their constituted rights and yet preserve the institution of marriage as we know it.  In California, a decreasing number – possibly a minority - of the electorate oppose homosexual marriage.

Overall comments

At this time the United States constitution allows a state to permit same-sex marriages, but the constitution might not demand that a state do so.  It is clear that some state constitutions, such as Hawaii ( before their constitution was amended ), Alaska ( before their constitution was amended ), California, Massachusetts, and Vermont, demand equal status of some nature for same-sex relationships.  Oregon Circuit Judge Frank Bearden ruled that the 3022 same sex marriages performed earlier in Multnomah County ( Portland ) were legal, and ordered the state legislature to correct the problem of the denial of gay rights - in agreement with Judge Bearden, the Oregon Attorney General has given as his opinion that Oregon’s constitution demand that Oregon allow same-sex marriage.  This ruling and opinion were made moot in November 2004 when Oregon amended its constitution to deny gays the right to marry.  In California, the state filed and won a case stopping the city of San Francisco from performing and more gay unions beyond the ones already performed.  Vermont fulfilled this requirement by passing a very broad-reaching domestic partnership law, giving same-sex marriages rights and responsibilities approximately equal to heterosexual marriages, and their supreme court ruled that this was sufficient for their state.  When the state supreme courts in Hawaii, Alaska, and Massachusetts decided that the states had to recognize homosexual marriage unless a state constitutional amendment was enacted, such an amendment was passed in Hawaii and Alaska, and is in process in Massachusetts.  It should also be noted that among other states Vermont, California and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws.  California’s domestic partnership law will be greatly expanded in January 2005.  Gay marriages were also performed in Sandoval County New Mexico, Asbury Park, New Jersey, and New Paltz, New York, but were stopped after a short time.

On Monday, May 17, 2004 Massachusetts was the first state to legally perform gay marriages.

It is not clear whether the California constitution, or the United States constitution, would demand at some future time that those who wanted same sex marriages would have the right to receive them.  Simply speaking, no successful same-sex marriage argument has been made to a California or Federal court in this area.  In my opinion, such an argument, successful in Massachusetts and basically successful in Vermont, will also be successful in more states during my lifetime.  Others disagree.

It is also not clear whether the California constitution, or the United States constitution, would demand that same sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, or any other state allowing same sex marriages, would demand that such marriages be recognized in California.

That being said, an argument can be sustained that the state should not be in the marriage business at all.   The Prophets of my Mormon polygamous ancestors certainly held that view. Government sanctioning of marriages is a rather late development, first starting in the 17^th century. 

Religious sanctioning of marriage dates back to the same century, in spite of certain conservative commentators stating otherwise. 

For most of the history of marriage, it was legally nothing more than a social contract between two male clan leaders to cement their relationship by declaring two of their descendents to be married.  During the past two centuries in this country, marriage slowly evolved through such a social contract into a contract between the two individuals.  It was not until the middle of the 20^th century that the last state in the United States finally allowed women to do “manly” things like own property – before that the woman was considered property of the man.

California Prop 22

California’s Prop 22 was a very contentious issue.  It was composed, in essence, of two parts.  The first part basically repeated California Family Code Section 420 in stating that a marriage was between a man and a woman.  The second part stated that California would only recognize marriages performed in other states if they were between a man and a woman.  It is this last part that this section addresses.

The second part of Prop 22, as the Mormon Area President at the time stated, appears to be unconstitutional.  He, in my research, is correct.  It might run afoul of the full faith and credit clause, as he noted, though this is not likely.  It most likely runs afoul of the equal protection clause and the 14^th amendment.  Specifically, it appears to violate both Romer v Evans and Loving vs. the State of Virginia, and it might violate the ruling in Lawrence and Garner vs the State of Texas.

It should be noted that this section of Prop 22 could not be tested until someone with standing came forward.  This has now occurred, but the California case has not been heard nor ruled upon.

The question for informed California voters, including Latter-day Saints, was whether or not to support and vote for an unconstitutional law.  There were many reasons to vote for or against Prop 22.  When a local columnist wrote that anyone who supported Prop 22 was a bigot, the local Mormon leadership asked me to craft a reply.  I wrote that reply, basically a call for tolerance.  It was printed in the paper before the election, taking the editorial page for that day.  It gave dozens of reasons to vote for or against the proposition.  Local politicians and the original columnist both wrote letters of thanks to me for my letter. 

A poll was conducted by a reputable national polling firm. 

Since the March 2000 Prop 22 election produced a 61% - 39% landslide, one might ask what happened.  Exit polls give some clue.  The vast majority of voters under 30 voted against Prop 22.  The vast majority of voters over 55 voted for Prop 22.  A primary reason for the discrepancy in the poll versus the actual vote is that older voters vote in larger percentages, particularly in primary elections.  Almost any poll, therefore, will show more same-sex marriage positive results than an election might produce.

In essence, as time goes on, there will be likely be more and more support for same-sex marriage and Domestic Partnership laws because of the age disparity for support – essentially, as the older pre-Vietnam War era dies off, the younger set will make up an increasing number of a the electorate.  The case can be argued that the time to pass a constitutionally valid law that outlaws same-sex marriages performed in other states from being recognized in California is past.  Certainly if this trend of favoring same-sex marriage continues, such an argument is valid.

This strong swing, from an 18% gap ( 57% to 39% )  in 1999 to an 8% gap in 2000 is almost unprecedented for such an issue.  Today ( 2004 ), that gap is the other direction.  The key to understanding this swing is to analyze the election itself.  The pro Prop 22 side campaigned as if the vote was some final jihad.  This side used, according to sociologists, a slogan that appealed to a negative base emotion.  “Protect Marriage” appeals to the base instinct of fear.  After the election, that fear is over, of course, and was replaced by other emotions, most of them unhealthy.  The Anti Prop 22 side viewed the battle as just that – one small battle in a very long war.  On the whole, the anti-Prop 22 side more often used calm logical reasoning and education as its tactics.  The pro-Prop 22 side used an emotion-laden slogan.

In my opinion, there are also two other troubling results of the election that are of note.  The Republican Party in California is rapidly becoming a very small party at the state level in California.  They have only one statewide elected official, a very popular Democrat who ran as a Republican in a Governor recall election.  In the last election, almost all elected Democrats favored same-sex marriage or Domestic Partnership or both.  Only a few Republicans did.  This should be very troubling for those who oppose same-sex marriage.    Simply speaking, the support level for same-sex marriage might not matter if state legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic.  The second result is even more troubling to me personally.  During the election, as previously noted, a slogan that evoked fear was used.  The campaign was run and PR’d by a non-Mormon group, but the funds for the pro-Prop 22 side came overwhelmingly from LDS church members.  Because of the funding, many of the negatives from this campaign flowed to the church.  While the church continually tried to say that they were pro-family and not anti-homosexual, this message has not yet prevailed in California.

Future Thoughts

Where do I go from here? 

A friend wrote the following two paragraphs on Election Day in 2000.  They are just as true today.

First, in my opinion, we must all quit judging God’s creations.  Stuart Matis, a gay Mormon, died two weeks ago.  Despite the fact that Stuart was a righteous person, many still unrighteously judged him for how he was born.  For that, and probably many other reasons, he saw that his only escape was the route he chose - suicide.  Judgment is God's, not mine, and not yours.  Judgment isn't any of my business.  The mentality of thinking that somehow homosexuality is a giant mistake, a major flaw, a trick of nature, indeed, a monumental interference by Satan in God's eternal plan, creates and perpetuates the pain and anguish of homosexuals, and indeed of all of us.  I am reminded of a quote from H. Wallace Goddard, which says "Years ago Heavenly Father taught me that I did not have the right to correct anyone I did not love. That seemed reasonable enough. Little did I realize the trap at the time. When I feel genuinely loving toward someone, I lose interest in correcting them. I just want to love and bless them."

Second, lets celebrate all of God's creatures.  Lets do away with our old thinking of exclusion, our old thinking that the only way to heaven is to become white, to become heterosexual, to be married, to have a large family.  The wonderful soft kind words of homosexual "acceptance" in our church has not, as of yet in my opinion, gone beyond “acceptance”, though I hope and pray that it will.  In my view, we must do as the Savior did, to invite all people, specifically including homosexuals, to our gospel feast, dressed as they are, to treat them as valued members of God’s society.  Lamanites do not have to become white and delightsome to be members of God’s kingdom, and neither do blacks – we now accept them for what they are.  As individuals, we should do the same for others who do not fit in the church’s mainstream. 

I could not have stated it better.

A few comments on the generic issue

The interesting question is why homosexuality is singled out for particular denigration. As an example, would women be as likely to abort left-handed children as homosexual sons? I suspect not. Does homosexual relationships have more issues than heterosexual relationships outside of marriage?  Surely not.  Many Americans have strong feelings about the badness of homosexuality that they don't about sinister ( left )-handedness or about unmarried heterosexual couples, or children born out of wedlock. Why?

One source of answers to such a question is to look at a broad range of societies which share this denigration of homosexuals and compare them with a broad range of societies that do not to see if there are other distinguishing characteristics for these two groups that might account for the difference in attitudes. In the anthropological literature, it turns out that about 30 percent of societies share our western attitude about homosexuality being a bad thing. The rest don't. And there are characteristics that allow one, with a good degree of accuracy, to predict which set of values are likely to prevail in a given society:  Homophobic societies tend to be more warlike. They tend to be rather patriarchal in their societal values in general. They do a lot more ranking of groups, treating some as inferior to others. And they tend to have gender stratification--low status for women.

Non-homophobic societies are a lot more egalitarian in their gender relations. It is not coincidental that as women's social status has moved towards social equality outside the home, more and more members of society have become willing to accept homosexuals as fellow human beings.  For a full essay on the issue, see a great write-up by Dr. Richley Crapo at http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/homophobia.htm

Appendix 1:

November 2003

11/18- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules state constitution guarantees equal marriage rights for same sex couples

January 2004

1/20-  State of the Union address: President Bush says we must “defend the sanctity of marriage”

February

2/4- Massachusetts S.J.C. answers question posed by the Senate, whether civil unions would be considered constitutional (no)

2/12- San Francisco, CA - Mayor Gavin Newsome authorizes city officials to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, marries couples himself

2/20- Sandoval County, NM - County Clerk issues licenses, approx. 26 couples marry in front of the courthouse

2/20- New Mexico Attorney General issues opinion that same sex marriage is illegal in NM (invalidating marriages? not yet clear)

2/24- President Bush announces support for federal constitutional amendment

2/27- New Paltz, NY - Mayor Jason West begins performing same sex marriages (no licenses- in NY, city clerks are not authorized to issue licenses)

March

3/1- Ithaca, NY - Mayor Carolyn Peterson begins accepting marriage license applications from same sex couples and forwarding them to the state

3/2- New Paltz, NY Mayor charged with 19 counts of marrying people without a marriage license (a misdemeanor)

3/3- Multnomah County (Portland), OR - County Attorney issues legal opinion that county rules violate state constitution, Chairwoman Diane Linn orders rules changed,  marriage licenses granted to same sex couples, couples marry

3/3- New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issues opinion that same sex marriage is illegal in NY because of “husband and wife” and “bride and groom” language in statute, but that same sex marriages from elsewhere must be recognized

3/5- New York Judge bars New Paltz Mayor from performing same sex marriages for one month, West says he will abide by judge’s decision while “considering legal options”

3/8- Seattle, WA - Mayor Greg Nickels signs an executive order that the city shall recognize same sex marriages among municipal workers and extend all the benefits of heterosexual spouses

3/8- Asbury, NJ - Deputy Mayor James Bruno solemnizes the marriage of two men who applied for a license

3/9- San Jose, CA - City council votes to offer identical benefits to all married city employees, extending better benefits to married same sex employees than were available under the city’s domestic partnership registry

3/9- New Jersey Attorney General warns Asbury city officials that they face prosecution on misdemeanor charges of issuing invalid marriage licenses and marrying people without licenses

3/10- Asbury, NJ city council votes 5-0 to stop issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings for same sex couples, and to file a lawsuit seeking a court opinion

3/11-  California’s Supreme Court orders immediate halt to San Francisco same sex marriages and agreed to hear a case on the legality of those proceedings in May or June

3/11- Massachusetts’ Legislature votes to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage but allow civil unions

3/23- New Mexico judge issues a temporary restraining order to prevent the Sandoval County Clerk from issuing more marriage licenses to same sex couples- the case is scheduled to be heard on April 2

3/24- Benton County, OR stops issuing marriage licenses to all couples until the state decides the same sex marriage issue, in order to “treat everyone in the county equally”

3/29- Massachusetts’ Legislature votes a second time to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage but allow civil unions (must vote two more times before the amendment is considered approved for the session)

April

4/20-  Oregon circuit court judge orders halt to same sex marriages in Multnomah County, saying a state Supreme Court ruling is needed on the issue, but orders the state to recognize the 3,000 same sex marriages already performed there

4/20- California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee passes bill that would allow same sex marriage, the first legislative body to do so, but the legislation must pass the full Assembly before going to the Senate

4/20- Massachusetts lawmaker begins proceedings to have the four Supreme Judicial Court justices who formed the majority in the Goodridge case fired

4/26-  Massachusetts Governor’s top legal counsel tells state justices of the peace to resign if they are unwilling to officiate at same sex marriages next month

4/27- Thirteen Massachusetts legislators file suit with the Supreme Judicial Court claiming it did not have the power to legalize same sex marriage

May

5/13- Federal judge rules against plaintiffs in Massachusetts case seeking to block same sex marriage