Here we go...

[Short article followed by state-by-state laws on gay partnerships and 
benefits.  If you're in Boston/Cambridge in the next few months, watch out for 
frothing Catholics. -z]

Green light 
for gay marriages
in Massachusetts
State’s high court 
insists on full rights 
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:25 p.m. ET Feb. 04, 2004BOSTON - The high court of Massachusetts 
ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples, rather 
than civil unions, were constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation’s 
first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

 
The state Supreme Judicial Court issued the opinion in response to a request 
from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey 
the state benefits of marriage, but not the title, would meet constitutional 
muster.

“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, 
equal,” the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the 
advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions but falls short of 
marriage would make for “unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status 
for same-sex couples," they added.

Critics of gay marriage immediately attacked the ruling. “Today’s decision ... 
leaves no doubt what is at stake in Massachusetts,” said Tony Perkins, 
president of the Family Research Council, a religious activist group. “Either 
the institution of marriage will be protected, or it will be redefined out of 
existence.”

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan called the ruling “deeply 
troubling.”

“The president has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution 
between a man and a woman,” he said. “He is firmly committed to protecting and 
defending the sanctity of marriage.”

Constitutional convention
The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for a constitutional convention 
next Wednesday, at which the Legislature will consider an amendment that would 
legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Senate 
President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed without the 
opinion.
 
 

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 
2006, meaning that until then, the court’s decision will be Massachusetts law 
no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

“We’ve heard from the court, but not from the people,” Republican Gov. Mitt 
Romney said in a statement. “The people of Massachusetts should not be 
excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of 
marriage.”

Travaglini said he wanted time to talk with fellow senators before deciding 
what to do next.

“I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and 
define what’s the appropriate way to proceed,” Travaglini said.

Conservative leaders said they were not surprised by the advisory opinion and 
vowed to redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional amendment.

Mary Bonauto, an attorney who represented the seven couples who filed the 
lawsuit, said she anticipated a fierce battle. “No matter what you think about 
the court’s decision, it’s always wrong to change the Constitution to write 
discrimination into it,” she said.

  state-by-state Same-sex marriage laws 
 
 
 
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. 

 
National reaction
When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest 
across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to 
providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.

President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue 
legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders 
in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose 
efforts to allow gays to marry.

And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state 
constitution that would seek to make the court’s ruling moot by defining as 
marriage as a union between one man and one woman, expressly making same-sex 
marriages illegal in Massachusetts.

What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant milestone in a 
year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America and Canada 
and abroad, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking a Texas 
ban on gay sex.

Gray areas remain
Legal experts, however, said the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating 
that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous 
instructions to the Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain whether civil unions went far enough to live up 
to the court’s ruling or whether actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the state’s high court 
told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a 
parallel institution that conveyed all the state rights and benefits of 
marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of 
civil unions.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative, but it instead 
pointed to a recent decision in the Canadian province of Ontario that changed 
the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to 
the issuing of marriage licenses there.

The state “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for 
denying civil marriage to same-sex couples,” the court wrote. “Barred access 
to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who 
enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is 
arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding 
and cherished institutions.”

Background to case
The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their 
city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them 
to sue the state Public Health Department, which administers the state’s 
marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing 
in state law gave gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately 
appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying partners of the same sex 
denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic 
constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts’ high court has expanded the legal 
parameters of the family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and 
devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the 
country, at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according 
to the 2000 Census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are 
occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 
percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.


_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/