Calif. AG seeks ruling on same-sex unions
Attorney general to ask state Supreme CourtThe Associated Press
Updated: 11:55 p.m. ET Feb. 23, 2004SAN FRANCISCO -
California’s attorney general plans to ask the state Supreme Court on Friday whether San Francisco’s approval of same-sex marriages violates state law.
Monday’s announcement by Attorney General Bill Lockyer came after San Francisco filed a constitutional challenge to California’s prohibitions on same-sex marriages.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged the attorney general last Friday to “take immediate steps” to get a court ruling to make the city stop the gay weddings.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said he agreed that immediate action was necessary because of the statewide concern over the issue.
In 1996, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It also permits states to deny recognizing a same-sex marriage in any state. Such laws have been passed by 37 states. Click a state to learn more.
Alabama
Alabama
Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Alaska
Marriage law: A 1996 law banned same-sex marriages. But in 1998 a state judge ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and that the law discriminated against citizens based on sex. As a result, the judge said, the state of Alaska must show a compelling reason for withholding civil marriage licenses from gay couples. Voters later ratified an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Arizona
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Tucson passed a law in 1997 approving the benefits.
Arkansas
Marriage law: 1997: Anti-Marriage Bill Adopted. Senate Bill 5: Anti-marriage bills passed Senate (1/27) and House (1/22). Signed by Governor Huckabee (R) on February 13.
Domestic Partnership: There are no municipalities offering domestic partner benefits in Arkansas.
California
Marriage law: Californians banned gay marriage on March 7, 2000 by approving a ballot measure that allows the state to recognize only the union between a man and a woman. The emotionally-charged issue was one of 20 addressed by state voters on ballot measures.
Domestic partnership benefits: The entire state has a domestic partnership registry and 29 municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits.
Colorado
Marriage law: Four years in a row, Republican Sen. Marilyn Musgrave introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it has failed each time. In two previous years, the bill was vetoed by former Governor Romer.
Domestic partnership benefits: Boulder and Denver offer them.
Connecticut
Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits:
Hartford offers them and a "symbolic" registry that provides no legal or financial benefits.
D.C.
Marriage law: No legislation on the issue has been introduced.
Domestic partnership benefits: There has been no marriage legislation introduced in the District of Columbia.
Delaware
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Florida
Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. The bill would also deny recognition to lawful marriages of same-sex couples under all circumstances.
Domestic partnership benefits:
At least five municipalities offer them.
Georgia
Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1996. The law also declares same-sex marriages from out-of-state as null and void.
Domestic partnership benefits: Atlanta offers domestic partnership benefits and a registry.
Hawaii
Marriage law: In 1998, voters ratified a constitutional amendment that permits, but does not require, the Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state government has yet to act on the amendment. In 1999, three anti-gay marriage bills were blocked.
Domestic partnership benefits: Under the Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law, passed in July 1997, the state of Hawaii offers domestic partnership benefits to employees. The legislation gives same-sex couples the broadest package of rights and benefits ever accorded gay families in the United States.
Idaho
Marriage law: A 1996 law upholds an existing law against same-sex marriages in the state. The law also prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Indiana
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: One municipality offers them.
Illinois
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Three municipalities offer them.
Iowa
Marriage law: On its third try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1998. The law also calls for a study of domestic partnerships.
Domestic partnership benefits: Iowa City offers the benefits and has a registry.
Kansas
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed without hearings in the House and Senate.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Kentucky
Marriage law: On its second attempt, a 1998 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Louisiana
Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1999 after its third attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: New Orleans offers the benefits and a registry.
Maine
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages. The governor refused to sign the bill, saying it was unconstitutional, but he allowed it to become law rather than allow a statewide referendum, as proposed by anti-gay groups.
Domestic partnership benefits: Portland offers them.
Maryland
Marriage law: Three attempts to ban gay marriages have failed, as has an attempt to legalize them.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities, including Baltimore, offer them.
Massachusetts
Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending.
Domestic partnership benefits: Eight municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits, and Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Nantucket and Provincetown have a registry.
Michigan
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Four municipalities offer them.
Minnesota
Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. It prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and does not recognize lawful same-sex marriages from other states.
Domestic partnership benefits:
At least five municipalities offer the benefits.
Mississippi
Marriage law: On its second try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Missouri
Marriage law: A 1996 law banned gay marriages but in 1997 the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Another attempt to ban gay marriages in 1999 failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them. St. Louis has a registry.
Montana
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nebraska
Marriage law: Three legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed including a bill in 1999, which was co-sponsored by 23 legislators.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nevada
Marriage law: No anti-gay marriage legislation has been introduced in Nevada.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
New Jersey
Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending. Three previous bills failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: Gloucester County offers non-health benefits.
New Hampshire
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New Mexico
Marriage law: In 1999, anti-gay marriage legislation was defeated for the fourth year in a row. The Mormon Church lobbied heavily for passage of the legislation, sending $30,000 to supporters of the bill.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New York
Marriage law: Four legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1999 sought to void same-sex couple's lawful marriages if they return, come to, or travel through New York.
Domestic partnership benefits: Six municipalities offer them and three - Ithaca, New York City and Rochester - have a registry.
North Carolina
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages, and 12 counties do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them.
North Dakota
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages and doesn’t recognize marriages out of state for same-sex couples.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Ohio
Marriage law: Two legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oklahoma
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. It also bans gay couples from adopting children or caring for foster children.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oregon
Marriage law: An effort to ban gay marriages failed in 1997, and an effort to pass a constitutional amendment failed in 1999. The proposal in 1999 would have also attempted to overturn a court decision forbidding discrimination based on sex in health benefits and other protections.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them.
Pennsylvania
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities offer them, and Philadelphia has a registry.
Rhode Island
Marriage law: A bill is pending that would legalize and allow for same sex marriage in Rhode Island. It is the only pro-same sex marriage bill to have a hearing in the country.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Carolina
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Dakota
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed on its second attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Tennessee
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Texas
Marriage law: Two years in a row, Republican Sen. Warren Chisum introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it failed to advance out of committee.
Domestic partnership benefits: Travis County offers non-health benefits and a registry.
Utah
Marriage law: A 1995 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Vermont
Marriage law: Civil unions allowed
Domestic partnership: Full benefits granted under state law
Virginia
Marriage law: On its second attempt, a law was passed in 1997 banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Arlington County offers the benefits.
Washington
Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans same-sex marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least seven municipalities provide the benefits and Seattle offers a domestic partner registry.
West Virginia
Marriage law: Four attempts to ban gay marriages, the latest in 1999, have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Wisconsin
Marriage law: Three attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage bill failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: Some six municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits and one has a registry.
Wyoming
Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1997 failed to advance past the Labor, Health and Social Service Committee. The first attempt in 1996 failed to receive enough votes for introduction.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Source: LAMBDA • Print this
“The people of California who have enacted laws that recognize marriage only between a man and a woman, and the same-sex couples who were provided marriage licenses in San Francisco deserve a speedy resolution to the question of the legality of these licenses,” Lockyer said.
More than 3,000 same-sex couples have been married since San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to give out the licenses Feb. 12.
Timeline Marriage rights battle
Key turns in fight over unions for same-sex couples
1989
Denmark becomes the first nation to legally recognize same-sex unions, offering "the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage." Half a dozen European countries begin moving in the same direction.
1996
A court in Hawaii overrules a previous state ban on gay marriage, sparking a national debate on the subject.
1996
The U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving states the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses from other states and deny benefits associated with marriage. President Bill Clinton signs the bill. Some 38 states have since adopted similar state legislation.
2000
Vermont creates a new legal relationship status called a "civil union," allowing same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage within the state of Vermont, becoming the first state to do so.
April, 2001
Netherlands: Gay and lesbian couples who are Dutch are allowed to marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The law offers the most sweeping rights to same sex couples in the world. By 2002, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, France and Switzerland have all adopted laws allowing registration of same-sex unions, with most or all of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.
May, 2003
Rep Marilyn Musgrave, (R-Colo.) and five cosponsors introduce HJ Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Senate follows suit with its own resolution in November. The amendments state that no state or federal law "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
June 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. By removing criminal implications for private consensual sexual acts, the ruling changed the legal landscape for an array issues concerning same-sex couples, including the right to marry.
June-July, 2003
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia begin allowing same-sex couples to marry, and obtain full rights of marriage under Canadian law, following a court decision that the law on traditional marriage is unconstitutional.
November, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that it is a violation of the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marriage. The first legal marriages for same-sex couples are due to take place in May.
February, 2004
Massachusetts lawmakers debate amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. This amendment, if passed by lawmakers, could only appear on a ballot for voter approval in 2006. By the start of this debate, 21 states had introduced or were expected to introduce similar state constitutional amendments.
Source: MSNBC Research • Print this
Conservative groups have also sued the city, but two judges declined to immediately halt the wedding spree. The next hearing in those cases isn’t scheduled until late March.
The Campaign for California Families has argued that the weddings harmed the 61 percent of California voters who in 2000 supported Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that said the state would only recognize marriage between a man and a woman as valid.
Related news
Battle joined over same-sex marriage
Newsom, a Democrat, maintains that he is following the state Constitution.
Live Vote
Do you support legalization of same-sex marriage?
Yes
No
Vote to see results
Live Vote
Do you support legalization of same-sex marriage? * 92779 responses
Yes
50%
No
50%
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
“Mayor Newsom is upholding the state Constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind,” spokesman Peter Ragone said. “We believe the city’s actions are both lawful and a recognition of the love that many couples share.
“The bottom line is the legal process is working and those who would suggest otherwise do so only for political gain. We believe we are upholding the constitution. Others may disagree. We look forward to the court’s ruling.”
Lockyer said the Supreme Court is under no deadline to accept the case or make a ruling.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
